All the capped words differ from the translations, but are more accurate. This is not interpretation, but sheer translation. (Interpretation is the next step: you'd analyze meaning, not merely state the text.) See the difference? See the wordplay? See the connections better? Cause-and-effect, baby: Learn Him, Get His Fullness. Belonging to you! (Now THAT is interpretation, heh.) Bible translations chop out meaning in the original, yet claim to be literal or accurate. Not true. Hopefully as you compare the translation you use with this one, you'll see this one is better. Yet, never better enough. So translation and interpretation are the work of a pastor. So if you are under a pastor you know God means for you, go with what HE says, whether what's here is 'better' or not. My job here is merely to prove from Bible that this doctrine of 'right pastor' is Biblical; I can't use a recognized translation, to do that job. Further, my job is to show what you can learn under a pastor, viz., I only learned how to translate Bible, from decades of being under my own 'right pastor'. Who's right for me, isn't necessarily right for you. In all events, seminary only prepares the pastor for a lifetime of personal study. So the student of his own right pastor gets a better deal, than if the student himself went to seminary. For the pastor himself, is still studying...

Here's how v.14-16 play out. Let's have the Greek text, again:

14 i[na mhke,ti w=men nh,pioi( kludwnizo,menoi kai. perifero,menoi panti. avne,mw| th/j didaskali,aj evn th/| kubei,a| tw/n avnqrw,pwn( evn panourgi,a| pro.j th.n meqodei,an th/j pla,nhj(
15 avlhqeu,ontej de. evn avga,ph| auvxh,swmen eivj auvto.n ta. pa,nta( o[j evstin h` kefalh,( Cristo,j(
16 evx ou- pa/n to. sw/ma sunarmologou,menon kai. sumbibazo,menon dia. pa,shj a`fh/j th/j evpicorhgi,aj katV evne,rgeian evn me,trw| e`no.j e`ka,stou me,rouj th.n au;xhsin tou/ sw,matoj poiei/tai eivj oivkodomh.n e`autou/ evn avga,ph|Å

By the way, "Love" is often a metaphor for Doctrine, see again Rom5:5, and all of 1Cor13, John4:24 (Christ's Own Definition of the System); Love=Bible, when the term is systemically used, as here in Eph4: especially, given the parallelism in v14-15. Water is always a metaphor for Bible, so was pejoratively used to designate the seasick, stormy life of believing false doctrine in v.14. If "agape" is the Greek word (which is typical), Love also means in God's Power, but VIA Bible -- given "en" as the preposition here and in v.14 -- again, given Eph4:3, and the far-earlier concepts as expressed in John 4:24, and Gal5:22. Gotta always track agape ("Love") to see the different ways it's used.

Agape and its cognate verb never ever mean human love, only Divine, so really should be translated "Divine Love" in English, for sense -- it's a specialized term; therefore comes to mean Being In Doctrine to the point of It Producing Divine Love In You; also, it's the Operating System of the Spirit, which has no programming errors; see also Gal5:22ff, and especially Greek of Eph3:16-17, which likewise defines "agape" for Eph4:15-16. Look: you just try to get Windows XP or Vista, to operate in Dos 3.3. See the analogy? People are busying themselves with works and rituals but NOT on God's Operating System. That's the point Paul stresses, in verse 14. They FOOL themselves that they are on the GOS, but notice how these people can't even get the GOSPEL right, so whose operating system are they on? 2Tim2:26's!

You must have a compatible Operating System Spiritually, and your OS Operator, is the Holy Spirit. Substitutes make your spiritual life CRASH. Viral, even. Heh: God won't let you just pull any ol' idea from the text, but Defines The TermS. So, never gloss over Bible metaphors, or interpret them humanly: they always highlight some aspect of effect or nature of the Right Operating System. Here, the pastor's grown enough in Scripture to Be Operating In The System, and/or himself is at the Rom5:5 stage. Note also the many subjective-objective genitives used as spheres in the many "Love of God" clauses. Even James Joyce quipped about this Bible Greek irony, in the first short story of Ulysses, so it's not as though the meaning of this Love as a system, is unknown.

Divine Love doesn't often feel good, so forget emotion. It just is there, strongly motivating you: see 2Cor5. People who chirp how they love God or someone else, don't. Real love is very uncomfortable admitting it loves, because it never thinks it loves enough to warrant the term. And it only 'feels' something like 'good' when it pours itself out.]

Some exegetical notes of general import follow. The notes are still too chatty, will be improved later.

1. This bullet repeats the small font note about v.12's "Resulting from his work of feeding WORD" clause to stress importance. Noun diakonia was explained in the RightPt.htm "Eph4:12-16 Outline" link; is double-entendre, his feeding enables us to serve the Word, too. This first eis clause operates like a title: the eis clauses which follow, elaborate the meaning of "eis ergon diakonias". I have no idea how to show all that meaning in translation, without misleading the English reader. You can't translate it "work of service", either. Maybe "work of Divine Feeding Service", followed by a "namely" before "resulting in" (next eis clause, to show the clauses following are elaborative). You decide. See, this is why a pastor's job is critical. There is no way to properly translate all the many layers of meaning in God's Word, they'd have to be exposited. This, just to teach what the text says, before even beginning to interpret it. A pastor ideally spends all his time studying; then maybe an hour a day at most, teaching what he's learned. Worth a bizillion dollars, to us. Pastoral teaching is like college. You become a student of the Word, all your life. Same, for the student under a pastor. That's how it ought to work. God's Word is too rich, for a lesser-quality level of studying it. Pity so few are interested.
   As this passage makes clear, it's FEEDING INFORMATION which the pastor does. Not telling you how to use the Doctrine taught, but just teaching it. Teach the congregation how to fish, not merely give them fish. Yes, it's regurgitated food, from which the congregation learn how to EAT, themselves. For, the pastor is not around them 24/7. Fledglings grow up. Can't grow up, if only given applications of Doctrine, rather than the Bible Doctrine, itself. Biggest failure in teaching, to not simply teach what the Word says. From the original languages, or from translations the pastor crafts which he knows best suit the understanding of his own congregation. Lots of Bible layers in a verse, so you can accurately teach yet not shoot past the flock's needs. It's not that we lack qualified pastors; We lack interest, so they settle for what they can motivate us to hear. Very sad. At a wedding years ago I had a conversation with one such pastor who was of a major denomination, who himself studied in the original languages -- but his congregation, didn't want that.

2. The translation might not be clear with respect to the subjunctive use of katantaw, the "reach/walk" clause of v.13. See, two kinds of time objectives are in view: Corporate, which terminates with the Rapture, and Personal, which terminates with the earlier of death or Pleroma. Of course, 'death' for the person Raptured up, is the Rapture itself. So to reflect the dual Time objectives, oi pantes is rendered "all/each". If you use only one of those words, the English reader will not understand readily either the time limit or the importance of his individual 'walk' as part of the whole. "All" in English, swallows the individual. "Each" alone, implies we'll all reach Pleroma. "Would" is used to show that might not happen, individually. ("Might" seemed too tame and iffy, in English, "should" again belies the fact individuals won't get there by death. But I'm not satisfied with "would", either.)
   So I couldn't figure out how to better translate the effect of the AGGREGATE on the individual. The aggregate is the real goal, that of Body Completion, and if individuals within the group don't grow up by that point, too bad. Idea that we have an ALLOTED "measure" of who should be our pastors, and how long we will live here; if the Corporate Goal is completed, that's the litmus. It's inherent in the Rapture criteria, which indeed has always been God's criteria, of Set Appointment Occurring Within A Planned Time. By the end of that time, you make it or you do not. You are loved, but not coddled: you will be given enough time -- subjunctive mood of verb kantantaw, "would reach/walk into" in v.13 references that fact; but there is a time limit, and once past 'enough', you're like Pharaoh, alive for the sake of someone else, self being too far gone.

   It's a running theme in Bible, accounting for the Temple's destruction, our getting the Bridal contract Israel refused, etc. But I don't know how to convey all that meaning which Paul is actually saying by the subjunctive tenses of katantaw and auxanw, especially in context. (LordvSatan4.htm has four subpages which explain this structure of our Corporate Role as Church, hence the undefinable date of the Rapture.)

3. Verb katantaw tells you how to handle the "eis" prepositions; they are all parallelled (hence the use of "to" and underlining), as well as directional prepositions, and END at a destination, Pleroma.. or, death. Usually you can't translate "eis" as "to" or "unto" when it's used in parallelism. A cause and effect is denoted. But "eis" after katanaw means what the Destination is, so not only is cause and effect denoted, but the MEANS of 'walking' there. Paul is linking cause and effect, Journey To The Destination, and the means is ALSO the Destination. Fabulous. How to indicate this? Well, I put "NAMELY" in the translation, so the reader would know where the walking, leads. Paul is bluntly saying that if you don't get fed, you won't be in the first 'destination', the "System..Son of God". So obviously the other destination of "Completed..of Christ", isn't ever reached. Dunno how to better translate that meaning, though. Gotta always track your "eis" prepositions when they are paired or >2. I'm not satisfied yet that I've reflected all the many parallelisms, but this translation is still better than found in the published Bibles. Underlines highlight the main parallelisms, but virtually every noun is in parallel also.

4. Italicized phrase "System from Doctrine..God" is from my pastor's translation on Lesson 1603 of 92SD (parallels his Ephesians tapes' translations), though the whole translation is much like his. My pastor translates katantaw "obtain the objective" or "arrive at the objective", which is fine if you know what "objective" Paul means -- which he next states, in v.13. To make it clearer BEFORE the reader sees v.13, I used "intended destination", and substituted "obtained" with "walk" so the reader won't think human works are involved. The ability to walk does not depend on morality, no more than eating does: NONmeritorious!

   Why didn't I use my pastor's translation except for v.13's and 16's italic clauses? To show how even BibleWorks' basic lexicons allow one to craft a better translation than the ones published. So we need pastors who will do the arduous legwork we laymen cannot do because we are not gifted, and because we have other roles in life, other slots on the Divine Team. (NB: if I didn't have a language talent, and especially if I hadn't already been under my pastor for decades, I couldn't do the translation above. I have to continually breathe 1Jn1:9 to do it, and even so it took four solid days of doing nothing else, just to get this relatively-BASIC translation of vv12-16, typed into this page. We need pastors to do this, our spiritual lives depend on it!)

5. "INTO, the Measure/Allotment of SPIRITUAL Maturity" -- eis always means a threshold is crossed, and Greek "metron hlikias" is that threshold, lit., "measure of maturity"; so the latter word is always followed by the genitive of WHAT KIND of maturity; His Own FULLNESS, one of the biggest Bible keywords; so I didn't make it adjectival. In English, "of the..of the" conveys drama and majesty, which the Greek intends. "Spiritual" thus had to be inserted, since Eph1's "every spiritual blessing..in Christ" is referred, by the "Fullness..of Christ". In English, a reader might not remember or know that, so "Spiritual" was added to "Maturity", show what Paul SAYS. It's NOT an interpretation, since the entire passage is about spiritual growth from Eph4:5 onward; indeed, the entire epistle. Paul spends Chapters 2-6 explaining Chap1. Greek drama tells you first the plot backdrop, then plays it, and Ephesians is an Answering Greek Drama to the then-famous Greek play, Euripides' "Ion", very popular, about the founding of the Greek peoples by Phoebus Apollo ("Satan", to us).

6. V. 13's meros is a special allusion to merizw in Isa53:12, because context began in Eph4:5; vv.5-10 are FIRST about, the spoils of victory due to the Cross, because Eph4:8-9 quotes denote Triumphal Procession. Which spoils, of course, included the captured people (wordplay in Eph4:8). At the Ascension, captivity was led captive to heaven, the OT believers following en train behind Him. So now, we believers are captives too, thank God. And all these Spoils Are In Him, as those verses foretold. Isa53:12 is written after Psalms verse quoted, and is referencing the same thing. So in v.13 via meros Paul is referencing both passages, tieing them to Body (he does the same thing in 1Cor12).

   It's awesome how Isa53:12's merizw tracks to meros. It's easy to see it track to v.13's "eis metron..Xpistou". But look: Greek "en metroi henos hekastou merous" in 4:16 means in [Divine Enabling Standard of] measure, one [pastor, the subject of poietai] per Distribution Group. So "hekastos" is the "per", each; but "meros" means DISTRIBUTION GROUP, which itself is part of a larger WHOLE. So "meros" means an ASSIGNED PORTION, really. But "hekastos" also and generally means "each one", each person. So the PORTION of the spoils assigned to the pastor includes an ASSIGNED ALLOTMENT of PARTICULAR individuals, as well as, the Pastor's own 'spoil' of spiritual gift of Word given him. But look: this Word from him is DISTRIBUTED via Word Teaching to those in his congregation. Heh. That's what Eph4:16 is about: the "one" (henos) pastor getting his own assigned portion (meros) of which EACH (hekastos) person in the congregation, partakes. Fabulous double-entendre on hekastos. He's the Plunder, Our Lord! and pastor gets his share: and we are thus part of the 'spoil' for him, so he DESPOILS himself for us, through whom we get the Pleroma Plunder of Christ! Kill me now!

   My pastor spent seven years exegeting Ephesians verse by verse for us; classes were seven times per week, one hour per class; notetaking was prodigious -- he spent over a month of classes on these four verses. Back then (1985-1992), we restarted the exegesis of Chapters 1-3 three times. When he got to Eph4:16, he spent a lot of time explaining how the PASTOR's own spiritual growth limits the congregation's, so it's a really big deal for the pastor to keep on growing.

   Now, I remember the Lord's statement that no student is greater than his teacher, and that we are all part of the VINE -- so now, you see how The Vine Branches His Word; the 'joints' of Him made from PASTORS, TEACHING. Clever analogy, huh. Just like it was, in the Old Testament, only max level, now. No more paint-by-numbers Mosaic Law ("child" in 1Cor13, ALSO references the Mosaic Law -- see also "veil" and "unveil" verses in Pauline letters and Hebrews). Hopefully you will really see how important it is to find the pastor who is right for you.

   Nor is this the only passage of same shocking import: in 1Cor12, Paul uses the word "meros" similarly, dividing up the Body, as it were, into categories of spiritual gifts, each person having whatever gifts the Spirit gave him at salvation. But each person, like each group of gifts, is a Part of the Body -- Christ being the Head; so, we all get the "greater gift" of the Head in our heads (1Cor12:31, pointing ahead to wordplay in 1Cor13:9-10), and the partial, passes away. "Partial" in the immediate context of 1Cor13:9-10 means those temporary spiritual gifts, in favor of the booty of His Head being in our heads. So the SPOIL we share in through our pastors' feeding, is His Thinking. Awesome. So it doesn't matter what spiritual gift you have, where you are in the church totem pole; You Fully Can Get Him. That's the import of 4:16, because of the tie of meros to the Isaiah passage and to 4:13.

   Very strong, very shocking, this interplay of Isaiah 53:12, Ps68:18, Eph4:13, and 4:16. Most translations of Eph4:13 convey some of that meaning, too. Can you imagine, we can grow to HIS Own Maturity Level? There's no doubt Paul means this, because the parallel individual believer verse of Eph3:19 uses "eis" the selfsame way, and the first use of the phrase is in the last half of Eph1. Parallel verses are all over the NT, and Isa53-55 is an OT forecast of the Fullness being Born to Pay for our sins. "Fullness" is a euphemism for PREGNANT by a god, culturally. Hard to find that in the lexicons. Paul means to stress that, as he always does, lol. Galatians 3+Col1:25-27, WORDSeed is Christ, in you? Get it? Kill me now! No, wait! I haven't yet finished the course! Ohhhhhh!

7. "ALL THINGS", "LOVE", are monikers for Christ and particularly, His Thinking= Scripture, so track those keywords (ta panta, and, he agape, respectively) to see where ELSE in Bible these terms are used (esp. in Romans). John uses Love to also stress the Spirit's Power. Paul, too. "MEASURE" is another Bible keyword (root idea is a measuring CUP, as noted earlier -- CAPACITY, ALLOTMENT): you'll want to search that word also. When Bible uses an abstract word metaphorically, it's telling you a relationship between the metaphor itself, and the item it's used to signify; usually, in some causal formula. So, being-filled-with-Spirit=getting-filled-with-Christ due to getting-filled-with-Bible, so you're getting-filled-with-Love. It's very marital, frankly.

• First -- duh -- he's talking about BODY, so naturally Body words will be used, just as Isaiah is bluntly talking about body and pregancy and hence OFFSPRING, throughout Isa53-55 (which you don't see in translation, except in Isa53:8, vaguely in v.11, and bluntly 54:1 -- the latter seeming to come from nowhere, given translation). So much wealth is missed when translations TRUNCATE the original words' meanings! For what -- to avoid reader squeamishness about pregnancy? We all were born. Needn't tiptoe around the process...
• Bible has repeatedly used this analogy from Genesis onward -- note that the first couple were MARRIED, analogous to God 'marrying' creation by Decreeing it -- so Body analogy is the most common analogy language in Bible. It's downright funny, in Gen3:11 and 22. Former key clause usu. translated, "Who told you" maligns the Lord as if He wouldn't TELL them they were naked (see 2:23ff); should be translated, "Who DENOUNCED you" -- meaning Satan did, hence the figleaf-sewing, Satan now 'husbanding' the couple. Latter key clause usu. mistranslated "is one of Us", really says, "born out ["min", birthing shorthand] from among Us" -- yeah, born independent of God, knowing good-and-evil, so wise now! Very sanctified sarcasm.

• So it's no surprise that "out from" is Hebrew "min", the first word in the Masoretic text of Isa53:11, a quintessential birthing preposition: Isaiah says there that OUT FROM His LABOR PAINS (pregnancy word) He will SEE SATISFACTION. [Great wordplay here on Trinity. Father 'sees' propitiation; Spirit 'sees the RESTORATION satisfaction, paralleling "and He saw that it was good" clauses in Genesis 1, and also references 7th Day when He rested. Son sees the satisfaction of -- heh -- GIVING BIRTH to propitiation, hence to us (2nd clause in Isa53:11). What GOD! What Wit!]

• Greek counterpart of min, is always ek. So Paul also uses "ek" as his first word in v.16 to parallel Isa 53:11. It gets even better, for v.11 is the CAUSE of Isa 53:12. So Paul uses ek in Eph4:16, to play on the BIRTHING PLUNDER of Isa53:10-12. (As mentioned under the first red text of this page, some of these words are missing from OUR Masoretic text, but were not then missing, from Paul's; our LXX has half of the words, our Masoretic the other half, but Paul's text didn't have any missing words. So via Eph4:3-16's wordplay, you know where the LXX words fit into the Masoretic, as Isa53.htm's endpage translation, illustrates. Published OT translations don't translate or amalgamate the LXX with the Masoretic, instead using only the latter.) Paul thus concatenates all of Isa53:11-12, into Eph4:16 -- it's a NESTING, sewn up in Him, raphah of Isa53:5, also! because His Thinking on the Cross is to be NESTED in us. Kill me now, such rhetorical genius can only be from the Spirit...

• Paul makes sure you don't miss that PREGNANT reference to Isaiah, by also using participles (not merely finite verbs, lol) with strong sexual etymologies: sunarmologew -- i.e., knitting of body parts in marriage, hence harmony, hence in wife's womb; it's also a verb used with ARCHITECTURAL counterparts; Hebrew verb for the woman's BODY creation is "banah", lit., "to build", so Paul cleverly relates ALL the etymological building-construction and MARRIAGE roots of sunarmologew, plus the Hebrew banah into the BUILDING (same verb used in Eph2:21) of the WIFE-TEMPLE, get it? Spiritual Marital Intimacy, baby -- forget about any hint of 'inscrutable' (yeah, inscrutable in translation)!

• As if that sunarmologew wordplay weren't enough, he also adds a very crude copulation verb, "sumbibazw" -- but the "sum" (pronounced SOOM) is always a Divine-origin prefix! Remember, his rhetorical framework is also Euripides' play "Ion". See, bibazw is about 'mounting' and 'covering' and 'holding' you together via Knowledge (euphemisms, especially in context of both Isaiah and the play!) -- so is likewise a play on Hebrew 'yadah' famously used for Adam 'knowing' his wife. Isaiah ALSO uses sumbibazw in LXX of Isa 40:13. There are Lots of clever OT commands to "cling" or "cleave" with/to the Lord via Learning the Word (lit., copulate, Heb:davaq, see Gen2:24 and 2Ki18:6 for samples); and of course everyone knows the many verses on spiritual fornication. Now you know what is meant -- what you think is what 'unites' a couple, see. But joining together the Body of Christ in such developing (participles!) wedded bliss, is the pastor (haphe), Eph4:16! Kill me now: God the Holy Spirit inspired Paul, remember: He EXPLOITS every synonymal nuance! [Nerd note: hope you realize the Holy Spirit is saying it's a Marital Act To Learn Word. Isa 53:11's aphairew means "to plunder, carry off spoils" in the context of cities being plundered in the ancient world; so when plundering a person, it's .. well, you know. So for man to go after this world, to be religious, is exactly like non-marital sex or idolatry, since the human's proper 'mate', is God, get it? That's why Rev17 is a religio-political HARLOT.]

• The pregnancy metaphor Paul always sketches in each epistle God gave him to write, is here depicted as well: congregation is in the 'womb' of the pastor, so to speak. See, "heautou" is very clever wordplay on the first two Greek words, "ek hou", which accounts for the position of heautou in the sentence: he's in the Spirit, so they are in him, growing up to become spiritually married off to Christ. See, marriage is form, but also substance, and our married position in him won't lead to being 'very married', absent Shared Thinking. So the womb-of-the-pastor depiction, is appropriate, since Isaiah 53:11's first two Masoretic words show us being in the 'womb' of Christ (the Cross).

  Romans 8:11ff is likewise all pregnancy metaphor, caused by Rom8:1-10's spiritual seeding; hence the 'labor pains of God the Holy Spirit in His always-quintessential role of Mothering since Gen1:2; of growing believers, and of even non-souled creation, in this Greek drama we call "life"; groaning, so to give birth to eternity. NESTED. Just the way God NESTS time to give birth to eternity, á la Daniel 9's 'map' of time (link at pagetop). So now you know why, by the end of Eph4, Paul is still on the topic of marriage (translations make it look like a sudden shift). What we miss in translation, due to our misplaced asceticisms... [Note to self: research the etymological difference between apo and ek, because it looks like LXX of Isa53:11 picked apo since He wasn't born yet. For, ek koilias is used in context of out from EXISTING wombs -- but He hadn't yet come in the flesh; plus, while this is a birthing, it's His Immaterial Soul's Labor. Paul, of course, would still use "ek" because His Soul Exists, and COMPLETED the course, so a Body of Thinking Can Be 'Born' From Him. John really makes a lot of puns out of siring. Proper meaning of Greek gennaw is "to sire", FATHERING: the verb is quasi-mistranslated "to be born" in English, how tragic. So you miss all the humor in 1Jn's many "gennaw" references to the Holy Spirit siring you due to the Lord's Sacrifice birthing you!! Oh, what wordplay! The real Bible is enjoyable, never dull!]

• There's another meaning layer in which is Angelic-Trial related: epichoregia, "finance" in the translation, referencing also the fact that we are all in a play, the Angelic Appeal Trial; plus, sumbibazw, which also has the connotation of proof or demonstration. EVIDENCE, ties to Heb11:1's statement (which wasn't yet written, but always known -- Paul references the same meaning throughout his epistles). So, it's a quasi-childbearing idea also, since the Proof of a Unity In Marriage, Is Children. The Word in you bears the fruit; Vine and Branches, apart from Whom we can 'do' nothing (John 15). No end of wordplay, here...
  Wow, with just two verbs, sumarmologew and sumbibazw,
  Paul unites (heh) all key Relationship-to-Him verses in the OT!

• Note the reverse order in the Greek of v.16: His pregnancy and our birthing is mentioned first -- in Greek, you stress origin by placing the originating verb, last, and normally the most important clause is likewise mentioned last. So Paul's playing on both of these grammar rules: by stressing the BIRTHING first, it's out-of-order, which emphasizes source; but likewise emphasizes source, by putting the pastor's role, LAST in the sentence. Trés cool. Wouldn't it be nice if ALL we needed to do in a day, was play with Bible? So we are Joined Stones due to the instruction of our several 'haphes', our God-appointed-for-us pastors.

• Word is SEED, remember (see Galatians 3). Ok, so the "sum" prefix in Greek compound verbs means Divine Seeding Origin. See, it's phallic language, was in common use since Mycanean Greeks (really, is sourced in the time of Gen6); and if you don't know that, you miss entirely what God is saying through the writer. And HOW do you translate that? Should I have replaced "Word" with 'Divine-Seed' in the multi-hyphenated 'joined' and 'held' verbs of 4:16? Then someone would either MISunderstand the verbs, mistaking them for some cheapo Rosemary's Baby idea.. or would holler 'heretic'! LOL you can't please anyone.

• Ephesians is entirely patterned on a very famous Greek play, Euripides' "Ion", to show God's Superior Begetting. So there are LOTS of sexual words in it: actually, in all Paul's writings, which is why many scholars find him crude. Would that they could write such verses. If ever I were to crusade on a topic, it would be for accurate Bible teaching (spun however desired, but What It Says is accurately stated), and translations which at least put into English the basic meanings in the original languages. After that, people can believe whatever they want, interpret whatever they want, but we'd at least have a common text with more accuracy than the insipid stuff we have now. Even pagan Homer gets better translation treatment, than Bible! Brilliant renditions in Homer, but the same brilliant translator looks at Gospels, and poof! All that expertise goes down to .. well, never mind. And brainouts wouldn't have to write webpages with peppered complaints, either. Heh.

• It's a common Greek grammar rule that The Action Of The Participle Precedes Or Is Coterminous With The Main Verb. There are four main verbs in Eph4:12-16: katantaw (v.12: "actor" is the individuals in Body); eimi (v.14, actor is "spiritual babies"); auxanw (v.15, "actor" is erstwhile babies); and poiew (v.16, "actor" is pastor-teacher). Verb katantaw was translated above as walk into the intended destination of life, with "reach" and "objective" as alternate (equally-valid) meanings; verb katantaw literally means "to journey to "x" through life", your whole life span being a WALK to a DESTINATION, how you end up as a person. Greek grammar demands that, following katantaw, must be listed the DESTINATION: Paul lists three, and they are causally linked. First Destination is getting that System from Doctrine..ABOUT HIM (not "unity of faith", please); if you don't get to the first place, you'll never grow so to even possibly enter into the other two. Again, this is the grammar, not an interpretation. Eis prepositions indicate precise cause-and-effect when they are repeated.

  In Ephesians 4:13, those other two are of the same coin: "Completed/Matured Hero" (your status at the Bema), and "Spiritual Maturity of the Fullness of Christ" (what YOU actually became down here). So notice, all the action elaborated in vv.15-16, are participles, to show That's How You Get There. Which they also mean, because the second main verb, also in the subjunctive, "auxanw" -- means "to grow". Again, auxanw 'accesses' the same participles in v.15-16; so does poiew, the fourth main verb, but it's in the indicative mood, so there's no wiggle room for how one grows -- learn the Word under him-God-appointed-for-you-personally, or kiss your spiritual life good-bye. The contingency element within the subjunctive, may or may not be present, when purpose is expressed: here, the contingency is Whether You Will Do This Growing Under Your Own Right Pastor; no one can force you.

  Which we know, because interposed between katantaw and auxanw, is the third main verb, eimi (v.14), as the alternative: being a Spiritual Baby Still In Diapers; so young you can't even talk (spiritually), because you didn't get into the henotes of v.13. (=Ionic meaning, from Liddell-Scott lexicon, since Paul's epistle is based on "Ion" -- wonder where this is where England's word for diapers, "nappies", derives -- Greek word for babies here is ne(y)pioi) So v.14 has it has its own alternative participles: equalling, being seasick your whole life. fourth main verb (Greeks like fours, as in four plays, and "four" is Biblical numerical metaphor of Completion) is pastor's own spiritual growth and teaching causing the growth of the Body portion assigned to him: note how the three verbal nouns of v.16, are all 'assigned' to him by God (all nested within and results of, the dia clause). Participles precede or are coterminous, so the preceding means cause, and the coterminous, means still causing. These are grammar rules, not 'interpretation'. You'd flunk a first-year Greek seminary course test, if you didn't read the passage this way. Same for the eis prepositions, though I'm not sure if you learn those until second-year (seminaries usually won't require more than two years, what a tragedy).

• Then there's the stress on verbal nouns in the passage. This is how Greeks dramatize. So in v.12, first noun is katartismos; so, unlike the translations, the second noun clause, eis ergon diakonias, should not be translated with its purpose, but with the cause. Preposition eis has both meanings, especially here; but the timing being stressed, is BEGINNING point. We know that, because other eis clauses FOLLOW. So to translate the phrase "for the equipping of the saints for the work of service for the building of the Body of Christ" is misleading, and tells you nothing about the pastor's real role: he feeds you, so you grow. The translation as is, makes it look like the congregation do the work, in English. Sorry, but a body can't make itself grow, but needs outside FOOD; notwithstanding the gaffe in translations of v.16's heautou, as "of itself".

  See Paul's whole point is the building of the people THEMSELVES, not what they do. He stresses that so much in Chapter 2, it's out of context to in translation, suddenly switch to what the Body does via the misleadingly-lame "work of service" rendering for eis ergon diakonias; worse, that translation goes against the 2nd prong of v.12, For The Building Of The Body Itself. Gotta be BUILT first, before you can do, anything, duh. Of course, once you yourself are nourished yourself, you too will be feeding others (not as a pastor, maybe, but in some other Divine Team capacity). Especially since v.13 stresses cause, and v.12 is two-pronged (last prong is another eis clause, the building of the Body), the "eis ergon diakonia" must first show cause, to best tie to katartismos. Noun katartismos isn't simply equipping, but first FIXING what's wrong and then Thorough Training In What's Right. Obviously only God can do that. The main meaning of diakonia in Bible, whether OT or NT, is living on the Word, Matt4:4.

  The noun phrase "building of the Body of Christ" ("building" being a verbal noun, not a static edifice) is stressed, the goal. In verse 13, you have the same stress in eis henoteta..Theou, mistranslated "to a unity of faith..God". That's not what it says at all. This is a classic case of "the Maserati sped down the Autobahn" being limply rendered "the vehicle moved on the path".

  Noun "henotes" is a very famous Classical Greek word used by the playwrights and philosophers. If you get into classical Greek, you'll run across it. If memory serves, it's a big linchpin in the Philebus, but maybe somewhere else in Plato. Henotes=the Divine Order of Things, with which you should be in harmony. So, not at all "unity of faith", the mistranslation in Eph4:13; not at all related to whether people agree with some denomination or even each other, for crying out loud. Lexicons don't help much here. They are truncated, telling you only that Aristotle and Plutarch use the term. It's a cosmic with-the-gods System, which one does well to learn and harmonize WITH. Harmony with people is a desirable by-product, but is not at all what henotes really means. Nor is Paul using it that way, for if you look at the Greek from Eph4:1 onward, every Greek word is chock-full of Divine Orchestration concepts. Bible translations truncate, as usual, so you get man-centered ideas from translation. However, notice even in any translation that this so-called 'unity of faith' is with respect to Knowledge Of The Son Of God. Not, people. The use of His Divinity here, stresses the Greek cultural meaning -- but with reference to (eis..Theou) the Real God!

  This point cannot be stressed enough: if you reject being under your right pastor, you are NOT in God's Divine System. Like it or lump it, Sharing The Spiritual Plunder Of Christ (Isa53:10-12, LXX) comes from God TO the pastor who's right for you: and you will never share in it, if you reject him. You will never grow spiritually, but will lie to yourself that you are. The way Paul links the use of henotes in Eph4:3 and here in v.13 is so shocking and strong, especially because of the culturally-loaded word that "henotes" is in Greek -- tells you in no uncertain terms that even using 1Jn1:9 will get you nowhere -- if you reject being under whom HE has appointed for you, as your right pastor. Expect a great deal of Divinely-appointed misery! if you reject the doctrine of Right Pastor. Wow. I knew this doctrine all my life, and I've seen people totally destroyed by rejecting it; but until seeing how Paul links henotes to Isa53:10-12 in LXX (using merizw, metron, and meros, plus henotes), I didn't know it was mission-critical. Now, I do. Hope these words help you to get it, because being boiled in oil is better than rejecting this doctrine.

  It's popular to reject this doctrine, today. People are anti-authority today. Don't emulate them, if you value breathing, at all. Do whatever it takes to vet the proof you need that this doctrine is true. I'm not a pastor, but only a reporter, a witness, who here reports WITHOUT using my pastor's interpretation; but only, from the text itself. So, then: use 1Jn1:9, ask Father in Son's Name to show you the proof you need.

  For some (very few) readers, what's in my websites will be of material importance, for they all independently test in the same manner, as here (I'm first doing it for myself, as due diligence before the Lord) -- though, usually without displaying much in the way of exegesis or translation (which is a pastor's job, not mine). For others, they shouldn't even be reading this page, right though it is. Ask God, always, using the protocol in italics just mentioned. He WILL answer. Since truth is attested to by the Holy Spirit, any believer attestation can be secure, and is not really OF himself. A reader then gets attestation again from the Holy Spirit if 1Jn1:9 is being breathed; so the reader need not rely on an inferior witness.

  The verbal nouns are very dramatic, in the Greek. Paul 'specializes' in verbal nouns in vv.12-13 (no participles), but in participles, in vv.15-16, mingling them with verbal nouns to end with rousing climactic force on the pastor's role, "in his own Love". He did the same mingling in Eph3:15-21, so Eph4:12-16 is a deliberate parallel to show how Eph3:15-21, OCCUR. [Infinitive katoikew in 3:17 is used like a circle, wow! Idea of us 'living' in Him even as He lives in us: both the intransitive and transitive uses of the verb. Blows me away. See how katoikew takes the accusative of place, but HE is the (Dramatic accusative) ACTOR-subject of the infinitive, too! 3:15-19, like much of Ephesians, is fuzzed over, so it's not clear in translation, what's being said. Enclitic particle te in v.18 tells you that the breadth..depth of v.17, is SPIRITUAL KNOWING DIMENSIONS. Which, when built (v.18) cause you to come to know the surpassing greatness of the love of/for Christ (another circle, subjective/objective genitive).]

  Again, all this is just the text and its grammar. No interpretation, yet, though you've no room to otherwise conclude -- but what the pastor is the link between your growth in Christ via Word Teaching, by Divine Design. He's a priest, so are you, but.. relative to Word Teaching, he's THE authority. Now I understand why my pastor kept on stressing that apart from being under your own right pastor, whoever he is.. you'll never grow up in Christ. (Col 2:19 parallels to Eph4:16, though correct trans of 2:19 should be "over whom The Head not ruling" -- wordplay on the idiot in 2:18. Obviously if there IS no right pastor, then the Holy Spirit will give the interested individual what he needs. But that would be SO rare an exception, probably true for isolated individuals during the Middle Ages, or something. Very rare today, if at all.)

• So the entire tone is that of an epic play, which of course we already know from the noun epichoregia being used to describe the "joint", the pastor. He's the Actor, so he is financed by God. Note how there is no one else being mentioned as heading him, but Christ. Notice also how all the 'play' runs through him. It also helps to know that Greek plays, like Greek warring, often had ONE actor playing multiple parts. In the beginning, there was only one actor, and always there is one hero in any Greek play. So look: all those nouns of measure -- and a direct parallel of the measure of Christ is made between v.13, and v.16. So the Gift Of Christ, Goes Through The Pastor. Who feeds us Word. Dunno how God could make it clearer. Dunno how the translations of v.12 and v.16 can be so screwed up about the actor, and the prepositional meanings. Everything in 'my' translation above won't be right either, but the ACTOR and ACTION and prepositional ties are entirely mandated by the way the text is written: basic Greek grammar rules mandate those connections. I didn't invent them: LOL, i had to look them up in Bibleworks! That software program is commonly used by exegeting pastors of all denominations and no denomination, which is why I bought it (at a nearby seminary); so it can't be accused of sectarianism.

• Clarifying words needed in English which are IN the Greek words, aren't used in published translation, but should be -- which is why they are added, here. They're rather important words, i.e., "WORD", "FEEDING", "Divine", "OF LIFE" "Spiritual" "Believed Knowledge" (epignosis is a specialized word Paul coined) "pastor" (to show Who "henos" designates). All of them are embedded within the very Greek words themselves, so should have been included in translation. "In the Sphere of" is likewise critical, because God's Power (or other power) is what enables either the spiritual growth, or its retrogression. English "in" won't convey that, but Greek "en" always conveys Being In Something/Someone Else. Question is, in WHAT are you? That's what this passage's "en" prepositions (well, with the eis prepositions), helps you to understand: WHERE your Intended Destination, determines WHERE you should be "in". Your map of God's Plan for your life, in other words. Two choices: God's appointed teacher, or .. someone or something else.

  Without these clarifying words whose meanings are in the Greek words (not 'interpreted' from them), all you have in English, is fuzz. Yet, cut out in translations? Why? Which accounts for why the translations don't render "henos" as referring to the pastor, when in the Greek that's the ONLY meaning you can get. Especially, with poietai heautou, being in v.16; yet the translations instead mistake "henos" as each believer, in the translations. Moreover, "heautou" goes with poietai in v.16, meaning the PASTOR HIMSELF is used to cause the Body to grow -- you can't match "heautou" with "oikodome", but all translations, do; making it look like YOU do something (body builds itself? LOL not without FOOD it won't grow). No brains turned on, even though lexicons will tell you that heautou goes with a verb in the middle voice, which of course poietai (he makes), is. Oh well. The middle voice has many meanings: agency, the person isn't doing it on his own (i.e., God does it THROUGH him); can be reflexive; also indicates in whose interest an activity is undertaken. Paul neatly concatenates all those meanings in "poietai" because of the APPORTIONED MEASURE the pastor gets from GOD. No genius like that of the Holy Spirit. Wow.

Romans 10:10 is mistranslated in all Bibles in any language I can read (i.e., English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French). The general translation goes something like this, in the major translations:

"NAU Romans 10:10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

"NIV Romans 10:10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

"KJV Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

"YLT Romans 10:10 for with the heart doth one believe to righteousness, and with the mouth is confession made to salvation;"

"RSV Romans 10:10 For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved."

The correct translation should instead go like this (correction is in caps): "NAU (corrected) Romans 10:10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting FROM salvation."

Greek chaining of the "eis" preposition was missed by the translators, despite over 6000 occurrences of it in the Bible. So for centuries, Christians have mistakenly believed you had to admit aloud you believed, to be saved. What bad scholarship.

If you want to see a comprehensive display of the circular eis chains in at least the New Testament, search on "eis chaining" in Youtube. I recorded them live from BibleWorks, so you can see for yourself.

Explaining the mistake, will occupy the rest of this webpage. Sorry, it will be technical.

This small example of Romans 10:10 tells you the big story, as is so often true: a microcosm, showing the macrocosm. See, Scripture is only Divinely Inspired in the original languages, because God "breathed" into the men who initially wrote in those languages, the information. Translations are made by men, not God, and there's a politically-correct slant given the translation, to cater to man's acceptance (Caveat #2 has details). So translated Bibles aren't good: that's why they are so weird to read, lol.

Both main classes of Biblical languages, Hebrew and Greek inspired texts of the OT, and Greek for NT, were specially developed as relating-to-God languages. You can't read Greek without being constantly aware of the thorough infusion of the Greek pantheonic culture into every syllable: Bible uses the pagan meanings to tweak them, and correct the Greek idea of Virtue, God, etc -- to the Real Divine Meaning. If you don't know the culture, you won't know the tweaking, so you'll misinterpret. Same, for the Hebrew, which of course is also about the Real God. So, to properly translate, you must know the cultural connotations embedded in every syllable. For example, if you don't know that Ephesians is a tweaking of a famous play regarding the mythical origin of the Greek peoples (Euripedes' "Ion"), to Show God's Superior Begetting, you'll really mess up Ephesians. Hence, like the Hebrew, the Greek language family (5, in Scripture) requires many more English words to properly translate, generally.

Translation especially suffers with regard to 'small' features, like prepositions. Greek preposition "eis" often means "because of" or "with reference to", especially when the object of the preposition isn't a physical place. In such meanings, you are to understand that the object of the preposition is the CAUSE of the action of the verb. For example, there are two uses of "eis" in Romans 10:10. The first one is eis dikaiosunen, and that's the cause of your belief in Christ: to BECOME Righteous (i.e., Gen15:6, 2Cor5:21). So, eis dikaiosunen also becomes a RESULT: you believed BECAUSE you wanted to be saved, so the result is, you ARE. All this, referenced in this verse via the one Criterion for life with God you need met: dikaiosune ("n" is added for the accusative case), the Bible's technical word for Divine Righteousness. For, "eis" also means, "with reference to". Because, with reference to, result. All these meanings first apply, when the object of the preposition, is not a physical place.

This doubled use of eis is elsewhere in Scripture. Since there were over 6,000 paired uses of eis in the best Greek text I have, and not all of those can be parallelisms, I can't tell you HOW many of these doubled uses are in Scripture. By happenstance (yeah, right) I just discovered one in Col2:2, while checking that verse for something else. (Col2:2 is also mistranslated in all versions -- mainly, because no one gets sumbibazw, TEACHING a SYSTEM OF INSTRUCTION, BODY OF DOCTRINE, correct; even though lexicons like Bauer, Danker explain INSTRUCTION is key to the meaning, the type of systematic 'unitedness' in view. "Love" is a Bible moniker for Christ, His Thinking, aka Bible Doctrine as well: baldly, here in Col2:2; but also in Rom5:5, all of 1Cor13, the refrain "rooted and grounded in Love", i.e., in Eph3:17, other verses.)

Greek preposition eis in the last clause of Col2:2 should also be translated like its counterpart in Rom10:10, "due to": hence the Col2:2 clause's translation should be "due to the mystery doctrine of God: Christ." So it's a resulting in riches (first clause in Col2:2), due to, resulting FROM, His Thinking.

Even Logic would tell you this; just as logic should turn on in Rom10:10, duh. With respect to Rom10:10, if you bothered to cross-reference Scripture like even the Bible tells you to do, you'd find that hundreds of verses in OT and New tell you faith-in-Christ (aka Redeemer-to-come, in OT), is what saves you, Gen15:6; which is why you CAN admit you believe, duh. Likewise, in Col2:2, you get mastery-of-wisdom (Gk: sunesis) as a result of the cause, the special doctrine for Church, Christ's Thinking. Information has to go IN, first, before it can result in anything: so the first eis clause in Col2:2 is the result, the second eis clause is the cause.

Since Greek sentence-structure rhetoric normally places last what is normally most important, both Rom10:10 and Col2:2 end up reversing chronological order, compared to each other. Rom10:10 is in chrono order, whereas Col2:2 puts the result first, to stress the cause. This has the effect of superstressing the result nature, which of course the riches metaphor reinforces extremely. (BTW: Greek word translated "mystery" is a special Bible keyword for the knowledge of Christ Church alone gets; Greek "mystery" isn't something unknown, but something Known Only To Those Members In A Specific Group. Hence the Elysian 'mysteries' were cult doctrines and practices only known to those members of that pagan sect, etc.)

Traditions among men impose strange gods. One of these traditions stupidly forces the translator to translate "eis" as the truncated English "to" or "into". So, obedient to both tradition and Bible, we could rephrase these three abstract meanings as: "due to" (because), "with reference to" (concerning), and "to result IN" or "to result FROM". In this latter "result" usage, if eis appears twice in a passage using parallelism, such as in Rom10:10, you must show both results: in, and from. It's a CIRCLE. First use is an "in", second result comes from the "in" result. Else, you're (unwittingly or knowingly) lying against the Scripture's meaning. However, notice that, so long as you obey the doubled-result circle, you can use each of the three abstract meanings of eis and see connected, operating facets of the living structure of your salvation (or, your learning Christ, in Col2:2). Only God is this smart. No wonder the Word is alive (Heb4:12). Play with it, see for yourself.

So, here in Rom10:10, a tweaking parallel to Deut30:11ff (where they mouthed but didn't believe), one says aloud he believes because he already believed and is already saved. Now, how do you thus translate eis soterian, the two Greek words at the end of Romans 10:10, to show all that meaning? It's not easy! Oddly, here the Geneva Bible's English is closest to the Greek meaning: other English Bible translations are pathetic. (Of the non-English translations I could read, only the Portuguese ARA looks right, assuming "respeito" means with respect to".) Geneva's translation (in my BibleWorks software) goes like this:

"GNV Romans 10:10 For with the heart man beleeueth vnto [eis] righteousnes [dikaiosunen], and with the mouth man confesseth to [eis] saluation [soterian]."[In olde English -- here, 1550 -- the u's and v's are 'backwards', reflecting the French origin of a lot of English words.]

So too, the accusative, famously used instead of the nominative in Greek Drama and Bible, like in the famous Romans 8:28. Accusative is object, nominative is Subject, so in that verse, the Subject is God as the Object of our thoughts, so in Greek is in the accusative case; English of course can't show this. Going on with the Greek meaning, Good Results from Him. Again, English can't show how the Greek Drama use of verbs displays: in Greek Drama, the hero converts an intransitive verb, here "works together", into a transitive verb, which can therefore act on an object, "agathos", GOD's-level-of-good (it's a technical word in Greek). Just like the heroes of Greek drama always did. Just like Christ did, with our sins. For Father is the Uppermost Motive in Christ. It's For Father, or forget it. Thank God! No smaller reason for living need choke our lives!

So it's not surprising that every verse in Bible thus depicts the dynamic of Infinity, an endless CIRCLE, CYCLING. So too, with the preposition "eis", going into, coming OUT OF, hence in English, "due to", because. Cause and effect, endlessly cycling. So, in the Greek, Rom10:10 shows this cycling as a parallelism, with "eis" used twice. So the Greek reader clearly understands he is permanently saved By Belief Only. God converted belief into righteousness, just as in Gen15:6. So, that result (another meaning of eis), causes a second result: the person can 'confess' the result, that he's saved. Of course, in both Greek and Hebrew, "heart" is a metaphorical depiction of thinking, never emotion. But people who want to lie against the Bible will say stupid things like a head vs. heart belief. Since when did a physical pump, think? What part of man believes, except thinking? Oh, don't confuse the emotional with facts!

Bible's inspired languages have God's Meanings, never man's. So man of course imposes his own meanings, on God. Just like Adam and the woman did, in Gen3. Not good enough for her, that God only said if she eats, she will die twice (spiritually, and therefore physically), Gen2:17 (always mistranslated). So, she adds to God's meaning, "Neither shall you touch it" (Gen 3:3). So too, in Bible translating, we 'process' God's meanings to suit our own preferences. Never mind if we thus LIE against Him, in the process.

So, coming back to the Geneva translation of Rom10:10 -- see how "to salvation" is rendered from "eis soterian"? Again, that's done as a standard translation rule man imposes on Bible translators, that you always translate with the same word in english, no matter how misleading a result. See how English use of "to" is vague? Moreover, "soterian" often doesn't mean "salvation", but rather, "rescue", "delivery". Here in Rom10:10, we know it's really "salvation", because of the first clause, "believes into Righteousness".

So the Geneva translation of the second clause, "Confesseth to salvation" is good: you can easily see that because you are saved, you are ABLE to say so. "Confesseth" is the same Greek word as in 1Jn1:9, Greek courtroom verb homologew, to admit/name/agree with a verdict or accusation. Lit., "to say the same thing" as Someone Else Testifies, get it? So you say you believe, because you do; that's the first clause of the verse; you ARE righteous, thus saved, so you can truthfully ADMIT you are saved. Because you are saved, you can say so. But, look at the other English translations, and they all lie, making it sound like you must say it aloud in order to BE saved -- which is the opposite of the Greek.

Thus you know how so many Christians can screw up their interpretations of God's Holy Word. Yes, we're responsible for getting it wrong, for lying, because of the Divine Tools available to us. Yet, It's a miracle, to get it right! So no need to blame those who get it wrong: every need, to wonder and appreciate, the enormous Grace of God! Pray for exposure to the correct interpretation! This is a time-consuming job. So empathy is a must.

For watch this: whoever wrote the translation of Romans 10:10 for the New American Standard Bible (1995, in my BibleWorks), recognized that "eis" has a "result" meaning. That took great courage, to do, given the tyrannical rule about translating "eis" as "to" or "into". So here's how he translated the verse:

"NAU Romans 10:10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

So, either the translator couldn't think beyond that first courageous "resulting in", so repeated it again; or wasn't allowed to show both the "in" and "from" meanings, though the Greek does. Again, because the longstanding stupid tradition is to always translate the same way. So he mistranslates (or is forced to mistranslate) The parallelism in the second clause. Had he compared Scripture with Scripture, which is the first rule of Bible translation, as well as interpretation, he'd have known that he contradicts Bible in the way he translates the second clause, even if he still didn't clue in that he was mistranslating the verse!

Do you now see how a mistranslation results? That stupid tradition infects the translation of Scripture, everywhere! So, as in Col2:2, mentioned above; so, as here, in Rom10:10, the same tradition screws up the translation. Here in Romans 10:10, just one word off in the English of NASB's Rom10:10, reverses the meaning of the Greek inspired text! Should have been "resulting in..resulting FROM", not two "in" words! All the other English Bibles have similar gaffes in translation. It's appalling, and every verse in Bible has some such problem: chopped out meanings, or words put in which aren't meant in the original language. So you can't trust a translation: but you CAN trust in 1Jn1:9, which puts you online with the Spirit (see Caveats #2, and #3). Whew.

Oh, what a mess, the ridiculous, flaming-hair-orange, Bozo-the-Clown rule only we brainout Christians can invent: use one same English word for one Greek word. As for prepositions, despite the correct meaning, you are forced to translate them only one way. So every Bible word is basically constrained to be mistranslated. So, the word "eis" is thus mistranslated, most of the time, as "to" or "into", because you're not allowed to translate it another way. (See Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek Appendix, look up his internet blog, or consult someone who teaches Bible languages at any seminary.)

The rule kills accurate translation; often renders translation foolish and incompetent! You can never accurately translate one language into another that way. Thus are Bible translations condemned to incompetence. What a miracle, that anyone at all believed in Christ, grew spiritually! See the power of God? See the power of 1Jn1:9 to spiritual perspicacity? For even a child could think of naming his sin directly to God. My best friend and I did it as children, though no one taught us to do so...

This Bozo rule was first invented by a dingdong named Aquila, who tried to debunk the Greek LXX (OT) and translate it back into Hebrew to prove it uninspired. His translation was so awful, people laughed at him. Yet we use his rule today, in spite of the fact that seminaries warn this rule is wrong. Of course, any diplomatic translator could explain how countries are ruined, wars begun, by such bad translations.

This passage doesn't make sense in translation unless you grasped how Paul ends Romans 11, warning the audience to STOP being on their high-horse about the Jews being ousted, and the Gentiles being grafted in. Chapter ends with 1Cor2-type warning about how NO ONE TELLS GOD WHAT TO DO -- that we are to be instructed by the Mind of Christ, instead. THINKING, instead. Thinking His Thoughts, instead. Not getting puffed up over how self got "in", but others (here, the Jews) got "out". So Chapter 12 has sanctified sarcasm, which indeed runs throughout this often scathing letter.

"So I BEG you, brethren, because of those same unfathomable mercies of God, to offer YOUR OWN bodies as a LIVING sacrifice, holy and well-pleasing TO GOD: your REAL, THINKING worship."

Exegetical Notes on the purple re-translation of Rom12:1. Capped words in purple above, should be read aloud with an emphatic tone, so you get the sarcasm compared to Chap11. The very use of parakalew in this context, after lofty quotes about God's INFINITE WISDOM, tips one off to the sarcasm: parakalew is often used when talking to a SUPERIOR, or someone who's STUBBORN. And, since they have such a HIGH opinion of themselves... so "beg" goes with "mercies" -- a for-the-love-of-God appeal, lol can Paul jab deeper? Of course, mercy is a main subtheme in the epistle, to counter the legalism: several Greek words are used for it. Heh. English would require the insertion of "same unfathomable" to see that the word "mercies" is being used to TIE BACK TO the quotes and tenor of Chapter 11. Greek reader wouldn't need the repetition.

Oh, Paul's wit! See, they LACK wisdom, but are full of hot air. So they are shallow. They are NOT thinking toward Father, so their "thinking worship" is zip, nada, niente, FLUNK. So they are poor. All this is being deftly said in 11:33, by concatenating the very many OT refrains on How Unfathomably Deep (ENDLESSLY deep -- not inscrutable, lol) are the Riches of His Wisdom and Knowledge, especially in Job and Psalms (though Paul appears to be referencing Ps40:5 the most, a setup verse on the prophecy of Christ's COMING). Then 11:34, the other OT quote from Isaiah on WHO SHALL INSTRUCT HIM -- that's a tweak as well, since they are instructing God by their legalism and puffed up "we are grafted in" anti-semitism. Oh, what wordplay! [When my pastor was teaching "magnetism", showing its keywords (L. 1837 of 92SD), he linked Rom11:33-34 to other "riches" and "confidence" (elpis) verses. That's how I got this 'connection', though he was talking in a wholly different context.]

But at the same time, Paul is being very tender and reassuring, for in quoting the Isaiah passage on who-has-known-the-thinking-of-the-Lord, ESPECIALLY in context of the Plumbless-depth-of-Wisdom-Riches quote -- he helps them understand that learning Scripture in God's System is the greatest, wealthiest, most honorable thing you can 'do' for God. Which after all, is why they are so anxious to call themselves "good". They have a love for God, don't know what to do with it, and so.. Paul shows them how they can reciprocate Him properly. So "thinking worship" here in 12:1 ties back to "thinking of the Lord" in 11:34. Lightbulbs go on, then.

It's a great setup for the fabulous news in Rom12:2-3, how we get to be made copies of Our Lord, by the Holy Spirit copying His Thinking into us, thus transmuting us out from our puny shallow natures, into deep-and-rich servants. Truly worthy to thank Him.. at last!

Paul's AGAIN stressing what they are NOT but SHOULD 'be' as Christians. Back in Romans 6:12-13, Paul had already explained that one's "members" (each part of the body) should be placed UNDER God's authority. It was a religio-military analogy: same verb is used here, paristemi, here rendered "offer". Of course, that offering couldn't be done, apart from the Spirit, since flesh and Spirit are enemies, Rom8. Romans 7 had covered the struggle, Romans 6 had covered our position in Christ so we don't HAVE to be sacrificed to our old sin nature, because the Cross divorced us from it. Romans 5 had of course outlined not only the miracle of our being saved forever, but God's plan to let sin abound, so grace of deliverance and future RULE can abound the more. So, in Romans 9, he started to explain how not all Israel IS Israel, but all who really are Israel (believing in Messiah, too -- not racial alone, see Rom9) -- WILL be saved: but right now, are caught up in the fishnet of their own disobedience (=unbelief, Bible keyword, Rom11:32, Greek). That, to rescue them -- again, harkening back to the last half of Romans 5, with a clear parallel warning against anti-semitism, because the Roman Christians, are grafted in.

All the while, though, some among these Roman Christians were NOT living the spiritual life, even though they knew better. Hence the epistle of the Romans, with its stern Chapters 1-3. They were NOT taking grace into account, were becoming legalistic, and Paul is in part writing them to show the GRACE SYSTEM God authored.

So, these Romans were 'sacrificing', alright.. but sacrificing something else, and that to men and not to God.. and, their sacrificing was mindless.

Hence 12:1 -- Oh, parakalOH... hysterical! He's leaping off the lofty OT quotes in Chapter 11, which was a warning not to get cocky about being grafted in! Showing them how they OUGHT TO THINK! So 12:1 Pleeesseee I beg you by that same mercy of God which-you-cocky-folk-are-IGNORING, Be a LIVING holy sacrifice well-pleasing TO GOD, not a dead one to man, a REASONING/THINKING worship (not mindless observances, lol)...

Really stresses the need for THINKING the Word as the worship 'service', by using logikos! Paul thus says via that ONE WORD: It's not reasonable, acceptable, if not thinking WORD (logos) -- ties to Heb11:6. It's not REAL if not thinking WORD (fake worship, else -- logikos has a REALITY connotation, so I had to add that word -- translations always TRUNCATE Greek word meanings, but shouldn't). God REALLY thinks, therefore if you want to worship Him you should REALLY worship Him in SPIRIT [the Renovator] and WORD, John4:24's principle stated here in 12:1's format. All of this tweaking is incredibly lost in WORKS-DISTORTED translation -- see the Greek. English translation of 12:1 makes NO sense in context of Chap11, and 12:2 thus makes NO SENSE AT ALL -- is jarring, since the 12:1 English translation sounds so complimentary! But how do you show the sanctified sarcasm? All I can do, is CAPITALIZE the sarcastic words the way they'd have to be capitalized in English to SHOW sarcasm. So, then: It's taken 4+ HOURS for me to even GLANCINGLY review the context for 12:2, and I want to say the exegesis I got on Romans was 4 years? Seven hours per week? So, then: how do translators, sleep? They should be paid more: pastors and translators and all people who work in Bible should be paid the MOST MONEY of all jobs. Worth it! This is eternal spiritual capital for us!

When Satan&Co. are behind a Bible verse mistranslation, they always make sure it's mistranslated in a KEY STRATEGIC place. As a result, the surrounding context is severed, and the verse itself REVERSES meaning in mistranslation. As a result, the surrounding context makes no sense and has a legalistic flavor, in the mistranslation. So of course, that's what happened here.

So what's the mistranslation 'agenda' for this verse? Well, "THINKING worship" is Paul's stressed point; so Satan&Co. must reverse it; to mistranslate it thus renders all of Chap11 and what follows in 12:2-3, fuzzy and legalistic. Test the foregoing claim: look up the published translations. Notice how, by translating "logikos" ("thinking") "latreian" ("worship") into a legalistic phrase with a body spin ("spiritual service, reasonable service", all implying your BODY is what's serving, lol) -- the reader is lulled into Satan's pitch of works-substitutes, as usual. The very thing the Romans are doing WRONG, is to engage in body-worship, works activities: Paul is UPBRAIDING them for that. Hence the quote in Rom11:33-34, showing them that the worship God WANTS, is God's Thoughts. Showing them that the Jews GOT CUT OFF because of their works -- so stop emulating them, or you will be cut off. Instead, THINK SCRIPTURE -- that's your proper worship.

So Satan&Co. just GOTTA REVERSE that truth in the translation, lest some believer read the verse, and grow spiritually! So how rich: make the verse in mistranslation, LAUD the very thing Paul is condemning! So they mess with the translators to mistranslate the verse. This is not to malign translators. Translators don't know they are being used this way: see MisTrans.htm for proof. See how important the Word is? Satan&Co. have to mess with each strategic word in the Word, to keep us from learning it properly! Could you HAVE greater proof Who God really is, than this?

Of course, here you see how Roman Catholicism came into being. Within 40 years after Paul wrote. So by 96AD, when Clement I was penned to the very Corinthians who UNDERSTOOD Paul and therefore bucked the Roman church, you see the full-blown results of the Romans IGNORING what Paul warned them, here in Rom12:1-3. No wonder God had Paul shipped back there in chains about 5-7(?) years after Romans was written. Legalism and anti-semitism were big problems, there.

"In fact, STOP BEING CONFORMED to this AGE, but BE TRANSFORMED (it's a play on words: don't copy someone else, become like CHRIST!) by means of the RENOVATION OF YOUR THINKING, in order for IT [your renovated thinking] to approve YOU as genuine, competent (like testing a gemstone versus a fake; another play on words, hard to explain) regarding [still part of eis to clause, content of "it"] what's the Will of God, the Divine Good-and-well-pleasing-and-complete." (Greek hendiodys might be appositional, but it looks like a listing which Paul doesn't complete because they know the list. Similar structure is in Heb6:1ff.)

Exegetical Notes. To fit with the prior PASSIVE verbs, the ENGLISH should be more like "resulting in IT rendering you approved", or "with reference to IT in examining you", (really, both ideas) followed by that last ti to clause (the standard of approval/passing the tests). Paul's making wordplays on copying ("conform" in the sense of copying SOMEONE ELSE) versus REALLY BEING MADE INTO Somebody -- um, like Christ; and on GENUINE versus fake (dokimazw is essentially proving the GENUINENESS OR COMPETENCE; verb was used for testing the quality of metals like gold, etc). "Well-pleasing" is a culturally-loaded word -- idea of being well-thought of, civic minded, respected by society.

So Paul is tweaking them to be popular with GOD their REAL Master, not people.

It's true Scripture defies translation; you'd have to be GOD to translate it properly, heh. Which is why WE GET THE SPIRIT'S BRAINS via 1Jn1:9! AND PASTORS, AND ORIGINAL LANGUAGES preserved! In fact, the translation above is largely the same as my pastor's, when he assiduously EXEGETED for us, most notably in 1976, but many times since (through the words "renovation of your thinking").

Here in 12:2 Greek shows the transformation-and-renovation-of-your-thinking-to-PROVE-YOU-in-the-TRIAL is WORKED UPON YOU: proving for APPROVING you as 'completed' (teleion) w/ref to the will of God, Divine achievement, etc. It's bi-directional, dual-entendre: you KNOWING, SINCE THAT'S WHAT MAKES YOU APPROVED; hence the imperative, "be transformed by the RENOVATION OF YOUR THINKING.." Cool dative case there, for "renovation". Holy Spirit is the Renovator (i.e., Gen1:2ff), and it's to YOUR ADVANTAGE He do so.

So the question was, IN WHAT ORDER do you translate the double-entendre? First meaning, that they should live for GOD, not people, so be approved by GOD, not people, 12:1's theme. Second meaning, that in the PROCESS of being approved by the renovation of the thinking, they themselves will come to KNOW what pleases Him, etc. Paul's whole point is that the audience are APPROVING THEMSELVES, copying/aping Roman religiosity. Trying to fit in with people, rather than seeking to be pleasing to GOD. So it's about becoming GENUINELY APPROVED BY GOD, not by people.

See, the Angelic Appeal Trial is about whether you GROW UP in Christ, and whether you KNOW what God wants and then LIVE as He wants, because YOU want to -- no matter what hits you. So, as my pastor so often puts it when quoting this verse, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO KNOW THE WILL OF GOD AND IF YOU DON'T, IT'S ONLY BECAUSE YOU AREN'T LEARNING BIBLE DOCTRINE. If he's said that once, he's said it a thousand times. For, the Trial terms dictate God (and Satan&Co.) TEST YOU on that. Constantly. It's NOT the lifestyle Christians imagine.. but then, they don't really get into the Word enough to know better...

Paradox.htm and the Thinking Series on the Home Page are large webpages on this Trial, since our whole existence is PREDICATED on it: we are Trial witnesses, whether we know it or not. So, there is woven throughout Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, many TRIAL rules and warnings, disclosures, etc. Translations don't translate most of them, because translations TRUNCATE meanings which ARE in the words -- that would get you fired from the United Nations. But, political compromise always goes into any Bible translation. The publisher can't otherwise make enough money to translate anything...

So, guess what happens in English translations? THEY MISS THE POINT, and insert a translation that is IRRELEVANT to the context, in the last clause of Rom12:2. After "transformed", English Bibles translate BACKWARDS the Subject and object, so the point of the verse is entirely MISSED.

So the two accusatives in the "eis to" clause are mistakenly reversed, in English. Note the passive/middle voices in the main verbs: SO YOU HAVE TO TRANSLATE HUMAS AS AN OBJECT IN THE EIS CLAUSE, not a subject; "prove" is an INFINITIVE, stressing the TESTING of your thinking as a RULE/Standard done TO you. Because, note the accusatives: "to", one of the accusatives, is NEUTER, referring back to the PRIOR CLAUSE ABOUT RENOVATING YOUR THINKING (same usage is in Eph2:8). And dokimazw means the PERSON is being "proved", not God's Will, etc. -- which latter, are NOMINATIVES, so THEY are the SUBJECT MATTER of the TESTING in the OBJECT, "you" (the "ti to" clause refers back to the "to" in the "eis to" clause). "You" is the second accusative, the tested one. You merely CONSENT (middle/passive voice of the main verbs). And it's "age", not "world" -- aiwn is a TIME word!

How sick is man's thinking. Whenever one is UNSURE, he puts man before God. It's in the genes, folks, and this kind of reversal is very common in Scripture. Fortunately, you needn't chuck your Bible -- just ask of the translation, WHO IS STRESSED -- if man, then suspect a mistranslation. It's EASY to make a translation mistake, because Bible is very ECONOMICAL in its word usages, with double accusatives (like here) multiple prepositional clauses which ALSO have to be ordered, etc. See how the FIRST meaning of GETTING approved got missed, by a SIMPLE REVERSAL of Subject and object? All you need to do is be sleepy one night, and the mistake lasts for centuries. Every translator should get paid a bizillion dollars. Every pastor should get paid a BIZILLION TIMES A BIZILLION TIMES A BIZILLION...

So making a mistake, is normal, no biggie. BUT the mistakes hang around for CENTURIES, everyone copying the old mistakes, rather than RENOVATING -- YET CLAIM A FRESH TRANSLATION. Well, check a bunch of them, sometime, see how they rarely differ. Even most ROMANCE LANGUAGE Bibles copy from the English, from what I can see of Portuguese, Spanish and French in BibleWorks. In short, people do with translations what these Romans were doing -- copying, not being TRANSFORMED. Heh.

See, the very process of APPROVING YOU in the Trial, proves TO you also what the truth is. This is one of the verses which spawned my better understanding of the "Evidence Testing" doctrine in Bible which my pastor has taught for many years; in part, using this verse to admonish us to keep on keeping on with Bible class. So, you'll find "Evidence Testing" a prominent feature of LordvSatan3.htm and LvS4d.htm, two of the "Thinking Series" webpages. See, for a long time, like any OTHER human dingdong, I MISTOOK the "Testing" to mean that I was supposed to DO OR THINK something, and "I proved" something. Wrongo. GOD DOES ALL THE PROVING. And this is one of the verses to prove it: HS renovates you which approves you in the Trial, DEMONSTRATING to Satan&Co. in the Trial (and thus also to you) how His Word never returns void, boy oh boy.

"For I testify because of the Grace given to me, to every one among you, to STOP THINKING in terms of arrogance, beyond what one ought to objectively think; but rather, objectively think in terms of sanity, for the purposes of being rational without illusion: just as God has assigned to each one a Thinking Standard from Doctrine."

Exegetical Notes. Wow, there's so much to say on this verse. Italicized words are my pastor's translation (well, he renders it "standard of thinking" rather than "Thinking Standard", but means the same), which is better IDIOMATIC ENGLISH than you could learn from lexicons. Better also, because it better translates Bible keywords, and this verse (well, like most others) is CHOCK-FULL of them.

Phrase "in terms of sanity..illusion" is in Greek, "eis to sophronein", and COULD be translated "with reference to" (meaning, CONSULTING) "the sound-thinking", but that's too lame. Which is why I used my pastor's translation, which like any good translator SHOULD do, references more the full SCOPE of the meaning of the word BEING TRANSLATED. The infinitive "sophronein" is used as a verbal noun, so denotes PURPOSE and FLOW, especially since it's used with "eis". Paul always plays with etymology, and here he's tweaking with it, the SHALLOW use of sophronein as 'seemly behavior, self-controlled', compared to, RIGHT THINKING TOWARD GOD, which of course is his comparison parallel since v.1. Verb really (very long time back) came from a noun which itself was formed as a compound of SOPHIA and PHRONEW, the latter being OBJECTIVE thinking, stripping out emotion and appetites; of course SOPHIA is a special Bible word (tweaking the gnostics, often) of DIVINE WISDOM. Stronger force because "eis" is used -- Paul uses eis for DIRECTION OF THINKING a lot, and CHAINS eis prepositions to show cause and effect: that construction causes translators no end of confusion, especially in passages like Romans 10:9-10, Eph4:12-16.

Sophronew never has a human-origin connotation. It's one of the four highest virtues in Greek culture. So Paul is REALLY playing on etymology to make his point. So it's a complete TRAVESTY to translate this very special verb as, "to have sound/sober judgement". "Sophia" was always DIVINE Wisdom, in Greek culture, and Paul is playing on that idea here. Unfortunately, as always, God gets stripped out in translation, so translation makes it LOOK like human sound judgement, never mind the last clause makes it clear God's Thinking is to be thought -- well, NOT clear, because "faith" to an ENGLISH READER means something he DOES, not something he LEARNS. Pistis is a Greek god attribute also. Paul is tweaking it -- the REAL God's Doctrine, not some fake myth's idea pandered by the gnostics and Romans. See -- all through these verses he's contrasting real versus fake, copy mankind or get a copy of Christ's OWN thinking into you. Paul's tracking the GREEK "to" in v.3 as parallels of the three Greek "to" articles in v.2: hence, answering WHAT PROCESS makes one GET the approval as knowing the Will of God (etc.) in v.2. Can't miss it.

Awesome, how he parallels every clause. Last clause in v.1 parallelled by last clause in v.2; last clause in v.3 -- so you 'add' them up to get the ANSWER to what constitutes "REAL THINKING worship" in v.1. No doubt, no waiting to learn, no throwing sticks in the air or consulting the Roman oracles, etc. CONSULT DOCTRINE, and you'll grow and thus be approved and thus KNOW. No wiggle room in the interp, here: parallels are too BALD. (John does the same thing in 1Jn.)

Actually, for someone NOT under my pastor, the phrase "in terms of sanity..illusion" could be translated more like "in terms of DIVINE WISDOM-THINKING", which conveys in English at least SOMETHING more of the Greek meaning, never mind that it's clumsy.

A closer meaning to the Greek is the concept of MEDIATIVE THINKING. The whole idea of promoting sophronein as a VIRTUE was that the god's-wisdom-thinking would MEDIATE all human urges. So came to mean moderation in all things, and was used chiefly to moderate behavior. Of course, WE CHRISTIANS know THE MEDIATOR'S THINKING is the real meaning -- which Paul is stressing, here. Sanity means MEDIATION between the mindless, hence INsensate hence INsane motives of the body, and the 'pure' (made by God, initially perfect) soul. CHRIST'S THINKING IS THAT MEDIATION. So perhaps "in terms of DIVINELY-MEDIATING, WISDOM-THINKING" would (though clumsy) better capture what's meant by "eis to sophronein".

So of course God's Head is chopped off in translation; typical satanic ploy, and we fall for it in thousands of verses. So also the typical mistranslation of the last clause, making it look like God assigns you some ability to believe (so those who believe more than others, are somehow 'better', lol). What rot. But then "faith" is nearly always mistranslated, too: it's the WORD believed, not the act of believing, which Bible usually stresses (again, in Greek, "pistis", like "sophia" is a god-attribute concept, so "pistis" comes to mean WHAT GOD SAYS that you are to believe).

The translators know quite well the god-laden meaning in these Greek words. They seem to think that they are cutting out PAGAN god-meanings, in their truncated translations, so far as I can tell. But they don't get what GOD is saying, how GOD -- the REAL God, k? -- is in fact the Real Actor. So don't chop His Head off! Thus Satan&Co., in the name of honoring God, dismember Him in our minds.

Satan&Co. don't want you to know that the spiritual life is entirely about His Head getting into your head, which the Holy Spirit, wholly runs. So they don't want you to know about right pastor (which concept started just after the Fall, with the parents being the first teachers); so they don't want you to know that it's GOD who does all the work. You might like those facts, see. So the facts gotta be covered up, and reversed. Happened back in the Garden, happened with the morphing of the Mosaic Law into legalism, happens now with the NT.

But here's the shocker: the italicized purple phrase, "assigned to each one a Thinking standard" is also in Eph4:16 (wording isn't quite the same), which Paul hadn't written yet -- this proves that Eph4:16 idea of a pastor being DIVINELY-ASSIGNED TEACHING to a congregation, was already well-known. Which it should be, because the verb merizw ("to apportion, distribute, share-out according to a plan of distribution"), is among the most important keywords in Bible. Everything we GET hinges on this word "merizw". For, merizw references the distribution of spoils of victory prophecy in Isa53:10-12 (LXX; merizw is in v.12); due to the Cross, the promise of His Head getting into our heads (i.e., Jer31:31-34, reflected everywhere in NT, but specifically in Heb8:8-10:17). Link at pagetop on Eph4:12-16 has a LOT more detail, since the SAME PHRASE is used there in a DIFFERENT WAY -- to STRESS the SYSTEM OF DISTRIBUTION of that Isa53 profit which Christ actually won for us by completing His Cross. Whereas here, it's AXIOMATICALLY stated. So everyone knew back in circa 55AD, when Romans was penned, this phrase. Tells you HOW FAST word spread, for this is a VERY sophisticated and detailed doctrine, of the spoils of the Cross. Thus it was no surprise when Ephesians was penned -- what, seven years LATER? -- WHAT PAUL MEANT.

So there's NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that people understood the LXX of Isa53:11, that quintessential prophecy of HIS THINKING GETTING INTO OURS, the 'birthing' of 'children' from HIS SOUL. LordvSatan3.htm's "Third Reason for Invisibility" and "Third Reason for Royalty" go into the MEANING of His Soul getting into ours, what Legacy that is. Highly-sophisticated stuff. Which the readers of Romans ALREADY KNEW at the time Paul penned Romans 12:3. No doubt about it, because Paul is using the keywords to REMIND AND ADMONISH them. No wonder God put Paul in chains and sent him BACK to Rome to write Canon. Those Romans NEEDED him. They WERE sophisticated in understanding, but pressured by the crowd. That's what happens when you are an ADULT spiritually: you get cocky. (LordvSatan3.htm explains something of the spiritual growth stages.)

Wow. I'm in a total state of shock. I did NOT expect to find merizw..metron in this verse, and especially NOW since I JUST FINISHED translating Eph4:12-16, making a webpage around it. I'm totally blown away. Will have to continue writing notes on this v.3 later. Too shocked to write more, now. THIS IS THE BIGGEST DOCTRINE IN BIBLE, GETTING HIS HEAD INTO OURS. Our whole LIVES are.. I can't finish.

Several days later, now. I'm still in shock over Isa53 tie-in here. I redid the Isa53.htm and now the shock is greater than ever. See, the Eph4:16 and 13 tie-togethers use the same keywords as in Isa 53:10-11 OF THE LXX, and they tie even more in Isa53:12, to its word merizw -- which word is ALSO here in Rom12:3! So Paul and the other NT writers tie BACK to Isa53:10-12 by using metron (=Standard, usually with kata, always DIVINE) and merous, the spiritual communication gifts (metron takes the genitive, and merous is the genitive of meros, means ALLOTMENT, one's 'part' of a WHOLE).

So EVERYONE DEPENDS on these communication gifts, and back when Paul wrote, everyone KNEW all that so well, all he has to do is SAY, "metron..emerisen" (aorist of merizw). Which means they WEREN'T studying under their pastors the way they should have, which is why they WERE being puffed up and legalistic.

Romans is a great epistle for many types of doctrinal learning, but here's another: profile of the person who rejects God's system of conveying spiritual information. In Exodus-Numbers, you see a similar profile, and of course there are famous passages like 2Tim2:26-3:7 which succinctly summarize the pathology. Here, though, the surprise is that these folks HAD BEEN under God's "Enotes" -- Greek philosophy word for 'Divine Order of the Universe' Paul uses to good wordplay effect in Eph4:3-16, esp vv.3, 13, and 4:5. But, somehow they got OUT of His Henotes, His Divine System for Spiritual Growth. LordvSatan3.htm goes into great detail about how this System is structured, and works. RightPT.htm explains the pastor's role in your spiritual growth.

(Noun "enotes" is a VERY FAMOUS CLASSICAL Greek word used by the playwrights and philosophers. If you get into classical Greek, you'll run across it. If memory serves, it's a big linchpin in the Philebus, but maybe somewhere else in Plato. Enotes=the Divine Order of Things, with which you should be in harmony. So, NOT AT ALL "unity of faith", the mistranslation in Eph4:13; not at all related to whether people agree with some denomination or even each other, for crying out loud. Lexicons don't help much here. They are truncated, telling you only that Aristotle and Plutarch use the term. It's a COSMIC with-the-gods SYSTEM, which one does well to learn and harmonize WITH. Harmony with people is a desirable BY-product, but is not at all what henotes really means. Nor is Paul using it that way, for if you look at the Greek from Eph4:1 onward, every Greek word is chock-full of DIVINE ORCHESTRATION concepts. Bible translations truncate, as usual, so you get man-centered IDEAS from translation.)

FOR THERE IS NO SPIRITUAL LIFE absent 1Jn1:9; but also, absent being under God's Henotes -- which means, metron merous, Eph4:16 and here in Rom12:3, last clause: your own God-appointed pastor, whoever he is. REALLY LEARNING SOMETHING. Not, telling yourself and others how 'special' you are to be in God's System; but rather, grace-oriented, and thinking Scripture 24/7, so to STAY in His System. That's the REALITY, the logikos latreia (Rom12:1's last two words, three in translation), the John 4:24 WORSHIP SYSTEM. For apart from Him, we can do nothing, John 15.

Persistent living (over a very long period) outside His System has distinctive results, and all of them are devastating. I've seen people who rejected their right pastors, for example, disintegrate before my eyes. Slowly, painfully, over many years becoming more fragile, blind and deaf. No wonder Paul was weeping, in Phili3:18. And the observer can do NOTHING!

Of course, that pathology takes a long time. It starts out, innocently enough:

• Learning doesn't really occur, but SEEMS to;
• hence the person gets filled up with a lot of nice vocabulary and nice-sounding smarts (even Greek and Hebrew, boy oh boy) -- but it's just hot air;
• which other people will come to notice, and the more naive among them, will comment upon.

• Hence, the person thus engaged OUTSIDE the "enotes" becomes hard-of-hearing (stubborn, prone to think himself right, and most prickly if anything contradicts his notions);
• he asks man-centered (not God-centered) questions of Bible, evaluates people in man-centered terms, so of course assesses the spiritual life in man-centered terms;
• paramount among which, is a tendency to value FORM or IMAGE, over content. That's the problem Paul stresses the most, in Rom12:1-3. If form is important, then the person tries to copy people who have degrees, fame, smarts or other human-viewpoint 'goodies', and will DENIGRATE those who do not. It's a form of REJECTING AUTHORITY, actually, though plays quite the opposite. So in the NAME of authority, any WISDOM will be accounted foolish, if not from the mouth of someone who is deemed to HAVE the requisite human-viewpoint 'goodies' warranting respect.
  "Avoid such persons as these", Paul counseled Timothy, in 2Tim3:5. They will not hear any real wisdom, they cannot connect the dots properly, and will actually hate the truth, for they want the truth to make them IMPORTANT. That, it truly does, for all of us. But if you encounter these people, don't expect them to be able to hear you. Tipoff: they want to know SHALLOW things about you, in order to JUSTIFY listening to something you say. Tells you right away they can't understand wisdom, by CONTENT. So just smile, act stupid, whatever -- and distance yourself.

  Children think like this, form look color do-you-like-me; so people yet too young spiritually will also look like those who are RETARDING, as here. If you yourself keep on using 1Jn1:9 and studying in His System, you will learn how to tell the difference. It matters, because God will use you both ways: but with children, you explain; but from the retards, you must walk away. For awhile you won't know the difference, and in your eagerness to help, will get wrapped up in the retards' endless desire to convert you, argue, preen, whatever. But all they truly recognize of wisdom, is that it's IMPRESSIVE. The content totally eludes them -- because, they are OUTSIDE HIS SYSTEM, so like anyone else, understand nothing in that status. So, then: just keep keeping on, yourself; and pray that since God ALONE can help open them again, just as He does for ALL of us.. that He'll help open them, too. We're all in this together, One Body! We're talking DISEASE, here. Not blamesmanship.

• Hence, he becomes shallow, and whatever analytical abilities he USED to have, atrophy.
• So, he becomes legalistic, and would like it very much if everyone else followed his own standards. Which, given half a chance, he'll foist on anyone else he can. Of course, "he" means "she" also.

• The spiritual pathology, if unchecked, devolves down to Numbers 11:6, "our souls are dried up".
• Because, if not using 1Jn1:9, all that manna is rocks;
• because, if not under one's right pastor, all that manna, is wormy;
• because, if not in His System in some other way, the person CAN'T USE whatever he even once REMEMBERED, Bible is. But all that nice vocabulary and smarts and compliments and hot air will make him feel warm and fuzzy and sure of himself and BLIND to the problem.
  Example of this last bullet: using 1Jn1:9, being under your right pastor, but NEVER MUCH TURNING OVER what you are learning. If your pastor has a special vocabulary and you know it; if you memorize (or rote-learn), ape, parrot what you hear BUT DON'T REALLY THINK OVER WHAT IT SIGNIFIES. Bible is meant to be LEARNED, and fact-collection isn't learning. Hence, DISINTEREST is the problem, EVEN WITHIN the "enotes". So just because you are in the right STRUCTURE, doesn't mean you can preen. All that religiosity-like disinterest means a form of godliness but denying its power to transform you, just as if you were overtly hostile and believed you could study Scripture on your own, didn't need 1Jn1:9, etc. It will rear up and bite you, one day. I speak from experience, ouch.

  People tend to assign MERIT to someone else if they perceive the person has KNOWLEDGE. Makes no sense to so assign, since knowledge is only what you know, NOT what you know HOW TO USE. Knowing lots of facts, remembering every book you read, being able to quote, having degrees -- these all mean NOTHING if you can't appropriately USE what you know. Satan knows more than all of us put together -- what GOOD does it do him? So it's a REAL trap to have Scriptural knowledge, if you think that makes you some kind of spiritual giant. Which is a concomitant trap of spiritual growth. Lots of nice Divine Spankings will follow, thank God. Without them, we're TRAPPED! Like Paul quipped in 1Cor13, if you had all the knowledge but not Love (metaphor for Christ's Thinking circulating in you via the Spirit, in God's SYSTEM, not collecting dust or kudos -- see Rom5:5).. you are OUTHEN, OUDEN. Nada, zip, niente, nothing. Hot air.

So at times Paul must have been wincing .. then, laughing happily about all the GRACE! when he wrote Ephesians. Ohhhhh, Shock too great again. Byeeee...

A number of interpretations in my webpages PRESUME that the reader can peruse the original MSS to see how 'I' get an interpretation in Scripture. But I now realize that presumption is wrong, because BIBLE TRANSLATIONS are soo very different. Worse, it seems almost insulting to them, that some whippersnapper like this brainout, would DARE to change the 'accepted' translations. Which, is not at all my intent. It's the WORD OF GOD. Not my word, not anyone else's word. Mistakes are normal, and so is fixing them. Well, why not here? Well, why aren't pastors DOING that, or translating committees? Why should a brainout be doing it? So I feel queasy translating, since it's NOT MY JOB; but.. it's good practice for me, and will help save whoever reads the sites some hair-tearing, if done...

Moreover, everyone working IN Bible for any length of time realizes God's Infallible Word is Infinitely incapable of correct translation. God really didn't mean for the Word to be translated into another language, but into our heads. We should all be learning the Biblical languages as soon as we are weaned. But, we aren't interested. Although, we used to be..

So frankly, among those who ARE interested, the crafting of Bible translations are NOT meant to be accurate, because that's impossible; but they are still helpful, to provide easier tracking in the ORIGINAL. Lots of translations are handy for this: KJV, NASB, YLT, and a few others. Remember, it wasn't until about the 1930's that people STOPPED learning the classical languages. So there WAS, albeit among a limited population, a group of folks who COULD read the original-language manuscript copies God so graciously preserved for us throughout the centuries.

So on the one hand, it WAS impolitic to change a venerated translation like the KJV; but on the other hand, everyone who DID have some understanding of the original languages of Scripture, 'grew up' using the KJV (etc.), so were FAMILIAR with it. (Me too.) So, it BECAME easy to automatically KNOW what Greek or Hebrew word was referenced in a KJV verse. So, the KJV became the standard text of scholarly use, NOT because it was accurate, but because everyone scholarly knew how to USE IT AS A REFERENCE tool. See, it's always easier to think in your native tongue, and to stick with reference materials you know how to use. That's one of the nicer reasons the KJV hasn't materially changed (NKJV really isn't much better, and in some ways worse, for example.)

Finally, for translation I'm trying to do this ONLY using BibleWorks, rather than depending altogether on my pastor's massive exegesis of nearly every book and verse in Bible. Reason is to TEST HOW EASY it is for someone with SOME legwork to do a BETTER job of seeing what BIBLE SAYS than is in common translations and teachings. Biggest surprise to me in this research is HOW EASY it is to see most of the common 'Christian doctrines' promulgated in Christian history, are WRONG. Clearly, such a claim needs accounting, and while I'm SELECTIVE about WHAT I spend time accounting, I gotta do it. At least, enough for my own due diligence. If a reader gets some brainstorming aid from all this writing, great -- always nice to save someone else time -- but, that's between God and the reader. I'M NOT SELLING ANYTHING.

Pages of this translation genre are all pretty raw. Staccato in style. For, I really DON'T want to spend time translating for a reader, since that's a pastor's job; but the published Bible translations often DIFFER SO MUCH, whatever point is being made in the sites, seems to come from la-la land, to the reader! Now I understand why in chat NO ONE UNDERSTOOD what the heck I was talking about, so I quit going.

So, I'll create more sites like this one, as I have time. Please forgive the rawness, the meanwhile! Or.. well, don't forgive it, as YOU choose!

Here, the below video has showing both pronunciation of the Greek in Hebrews 11:1 and the exegesis.

The videos can be downloaded, here:

Greek Inspired text: "Estin.de pistis elpizomenon hupostasis pragmaton elegchos ou blepomenon."
Here's how you'd pronounce it: "Estin duh PIStis elpidzohMENon hooPOStasis praMAHtohwn Elegkhos ou blepoMENown." Note that meter: 7 syllables per noun+genitive participle, each using eimi (the "ou" is elided). [pragmaton is a noun in the genitive plural, but used like a verb, and is a LEGAL term for court cases, here. Very significant and unusual, since normally the participle would be used as a noun -- here, it is reversed, and the noun is used like a verb.] Seven Is The Number Of Promise, Appointment At Temple, Coming Of Messiah, all over the OT. So now, watch this narrow, literal English rendering, to best demonstrate Greek word order and syntax. Remember that the genitive case is a BELONGING TO, and in Attic, genitive absolutes 'play' like split-screen TV:

"Now it is [about] Doctrine of [their/our] hopings; Christ of [their/our] trials; Evidence of [their/our] not-seeings."

or, closer to the Greek words' poetic drama meaning,

It's about Confidence, in Word! His Thinking, On Trial! Evidence, Unseen!

Yet notice the insipid, weepy stripping-Christ-out translations: let's just pick the most popular ones (pasted from BibleWorks 5), shall we? Bear in mind these people have NO desire to dishonor the Lord. They also have reputations to protect, so to go against a 'hallowed' old but wrong translation, is impolitic:

New American Standard (NASB) Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Young's Literal Translation Hebrews 11:1 And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction,

New International Version Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

King James Version Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Revised Standard Version (1950's) Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Are these translations insulting, or what? See how Christ is completely missing from the translations, even though in Hebrew 1:3, the same "hupostasis" term is used to identify Him? So now it's YOUR faith, not HIS THINKING, which the translation seems to reference. So, having stripped out The Human Who Is Also God, let's also strip out ALL humans who belong to Him, next. See how, in the translations, all the persons, are made "things"? What garbage! And to think that for centuries no one bothers to correct these horrible translations. Notice how they COPY the King James. Puleese.

Of course someone with a pigeon's brain in Greek will smugly reply, "But all those genitive participles are neuter! Ha! So 'things' is correct!" Sigh: Epic import is often communicated by use of the neuter in Greek drama, to stress Divine Origin. Like, look at "touto" in Ephesians 2:8, referencing Grace SALVATION through faith, NOT from yourselves -- the entire prior clause.

Here in Heb11:1, the Actor in those participles is not human. The humans are acted ON, because the participles are in the passive voice. So acted on by Whom? Oh, the neuter pneuma, The Monadic Holy Spirit -- get it?

Well, all that stripping-out-of-God's Book, is Satan's goal, not God's: strip everyone down to his chemical elements, just tools, cannonfodder for Satan&Co.'s ego. And that's Satan's translating work, too, not man's -- for you just know a translator would not be AWARE he just converted the Lord of the Universe, into a mere 'substance', and all humanity being tried on His Behalf, into "things". It's very witty on Satan's part. That's how he got to Isha, in Gen 3, calling God only by His Last Name, "Elohim", as if God wasn't a REAL Person, but a mere collection of Attributes (origin of the oneness scheme, actually). So here, THE PERSON OF THE UNIVERSE is relegated to mere "substance". Cute. So of course, those believings, trials and not-seeings by Real People of the Unseen, Quintessential Person, are translated, "things". What, do things hope, or do PEOPLE? And do you hope in a thing, or in a Person's THINKING? What, do things undergo TRIAL, or do people? The Person, in fact; and persons, undergoing trials because He did; Trials of FAITH, of HIS THINKING. What, do things SEE? And do you want to see mere things (cf. Romans 8:1-10) -- or, HIM? Yeah, translate this verse into just a bunch of works-won chemicals, goodies. Like the Evolutionist's dream, to make self the most high!

Of course, the lowest layer of meanings in that verse, is that you will be confident of things you can't see: confident of the things the Holy Spirit is doing to make you grow spiritually, for example. But the entire TRIAL, is about ONE PERSON: Christ. And we are Body, which in this segment of the Book of Hebrews, is all about PEOPLE who learned Him. All the text following verse 1, is TESTIMONY in the Trial. So if you don't get verse 11:1 right, you can't understand what the rest of the Chapter, is talking about. So chalk up another victory for Satan -- he wipes out a whole Chapter's meaning -- how one wins in the Trial, by learning Son's Thinking -- with a simple swipe at the hupostasis and genitives, in Hebrews 11:1. Satan's NOT stupid. But we, are.

Hebrews 11 is about the efficacy of Bible Doctrine Believed, how it is THE Trial issue; how it makes a person HAPPIER than all the goodies on the planet (so Satan's argument about how God should be nice, is wrong). Even, when there are maximum baddies, and no human goodies, at all. Very pointed reference back to the Book of James, to Paul's emphasis on this Word in Your Head in 1Cor, Ephesians 2-4. Very pointed about the plunder of Him which Isaiah 53:10-12, prophesied. More, on how the Trial issue is UPGRADED due to Jer31:31-34 being realized, Canon in writing, and how it plays out in our hearts and minds, to FINISH the Angelic Trial. Of course, if you read the translation of Hebrews 11, you get the typical Christian idea of BLIND belief -- it's not supposed to make sense. So you miss the real meaning: it's about KNOWING due to Bible Doctrine In Your Head, so you SEE, and are satisfied (Isa53:11). 7th day. So, you rest. In Him. Even though all around you, belies what you KNOW.

So note the reversal, in the translations above. Kinda like how the OT sacrifices depicted Him sacrificing AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR us, rather us sacrificing to Him, this real meaning of CERTAINTY based on SCRIPTURE becomes -- in translation -- a blasphemy: us blindly sacrificing ourselves, for Him. How insulting. Just like, for eons humankind has depicted his sacrifices as being demanded from God (reversing the true meaning of those sacrifices as GOD doing for you).

So notice how this disinterest gets perpetuated by slovenly and marionettish scholarship. See, you can just claim that

Clever, huh. So you end up with this nicely fuzzy verse praising YOUR FAITH; so you smile and quote it, never knowing what it says.

So what will happen then? You'll be busy alternately chastising or praising YOUR FAITH and that of others, so you will flunk in the Unseen Trial, which is nicely masked in this verse. So now the rest of the Chapter, which is about How DOCTRINE Sustains The Believer, is nicely obscure. Added bonus: you'll think all those people in the Chapter are WORKING AT THEIR FAITH! So you better work at your faith, too!

Just the opposite of what the chapter means. For centuries. Satan laughs his head off. LOL, the believer sustains the doctrine! Just the opposite of Divine Writ!

You'll need to review this passage in the Greek to follow the comments in this page, even though the relevant comparison clauses are (phonetically) typed in the Greek as well. What follows is not well written, sorry: I don't write well when (still!) too excited. The webpage reads more like spontaneous exegetical notes (and reactions, lol), right now.

Heb10:15-17 is one of the most thrilling passages in Scripture for me: for YEARS I didn't understand precisely how Israel and Church were connected, nor how the OT system differed, even though I'd been taught the answer for decades. It's like an accounting conundrum, where you have lots of data you know well, but can't make SENSE of what you know. Of course, Christianity has for centuries been totally confused as to the differences and similarities of its covenant versus that of Israel.

This is the passage which unlocked that conundrum for me; understanding it was not easy. For a month of Bible classes in 1997, my pastor kept on stressing the "effective present tense" of martureo, and I couldn't understand what he meant. (I don't 'get' a Bible Doctrine until I understand the exegesis well enough. Dunno why.) Until one day, after the usual pacing the floor trying to parse the flow of the entire book, everything clicked. Life has not been the same since. See, the "effective present tense" means a thing has COME TRUE NOW. RIGHT NOW. So the Holy Spirit is STRESSING the NOWNESS of what He testifies -- even INTERRUPTING the writer of Hebrews, to make that deposition (and you just know God doesn't go interrupting, without total reason to do so)!

The stress on "right now" is a rhetorical style throughout Book of Hebrews -- like Mark keeps on interruptively using "euthus" ("immediately") in his very mordant Gospel, and for the same reason -- the Temple was RIGHT NOW ON THE VERGE OF DESTRUCTION, under the heel of Titus. Paul had just been executed; looks like Peter was as well (but NOT in Rome -- Peter NEVER WENT to Rome -- see the end of 1Peter, 2Peter); Nero would soon kill himself (maybe had just done so, when this letter was written). So God knew how "the Year of the Four Emperors" (68-69AD) would end with Vespasian, Titus' adopted father. So Titus could no longer negotiate a truce with the Jews of Jerusalem -- Titus would have to bring a BIG victory to Daddy (to at least help defray donative costs!), and Masada wouldn't have much booty. So it would have to be Jerusalem, Titus sacked. So, about two years before this happened, God knew He'd use Titus to adminster the promised Daniel 9:26 prophecy of destroying the Temple. RIGHT NOW it was all about to happen: Greek word "euthus", which must occur a bizillion times in Mark's Gospel. So RIGHT THEN, God had Mark's Gospel and Hebrews, written. So RIGHT NOW the readers of those books had to hear the Holy Spirit interrupt, since RIGHT NOW they were largely IGNORING how the covenant had CHANGED. So RIGHT NOW they were going to get swept up on the wrong side of history (10:25ff), if RIGHT NOW they didn't change their dull-knives' thinking (Heb5:11, 6:12 scathing Greek) and GET His Thinking. Euthus.

"Now in fact [dramatic interruption] The Holy Spirit testifies with reference to us; for, after He said, 'This is the covenant which I will covenant face-to-face with them after those days, He [lit., kurios] says [new testimony begins here] "HAVING PUT [lit., GIVING] My Laws/Norms/Standards upon their [OT folks'] hearts, even HIS OWN THINKING I will engrave upon them [Church, and via Church, believers post-Rapture]; and I will never anymore remember [added wit due to reflexive, since we are His Body! Play on 'soma' in the reflexive spelling!] their sins and their lawlessness."

Here's the the Jer38:33 (LXX) portion typed in partially-phonetic Greek (eta="ay" as in "play"): "phaysin kurios didous dwsw nomous mou eis tayn dianoian autwn kai epi kardias autwn grapsw autous"

Next, the Heb8:10 portion: "legei kurios didous nomous mou eis tayn dianoian autwn kai epi kardias autwn epigrapsw autous"

Next, the Heb10:16 portion: "legei kurios didous nomous mou epi kardias autwn kai EPI tayn dianoian autwn epigrapsw autous"

The special placement of "legei kurios" covers the text left of it, and introduces the text right of it, separating them. Most translations treat all of the text as being a requote, but it's BREAKING between the old and the new, even in the Jeremiah text. Moreover, the Jeremiah text uses phaymi, which is used when "says" is BETWEEN two quotes -- but in Chapter 8 and 10 requotes, the writer changes it to LEGEI -- denoting a BREAK with the past quote. Very clever. So the new testimony of the Spirit in Heb10:16, especially since its words are CHANGED versus the old, begins after legei kurios. So both Chap8 and 10 should be treated as as breaks. That you can still treat the whole as a requote, is definitely intended. So you are to look for differences in the text, to precisely understand what has changed in the covenants now that Christ is seated (10:12-14).

There are major differences in the Greek text of Heb10:16 versus 8:10 and Jer31:33 (Jer38, in LXX). Compared to the Jeremiah text, the Hebrews Chapter 8 passage leaves out "Israel" and substitutes "them" (still referring to Israel); leaves out the FUTURE of didomi, leaving only the 2nd use of the verb, which is a present participle; substitutes Jeremiah's mere grapho with EPIgrapho. How clever: epi is the quintessential BUILDING preposition in the NT (see how Paul uses epi, especially in Eph2:10). Because the Mind GOT written, there's no future of didomi, but only the participle, still in the present tense, since Christ is still alive, and His LIVING Thinking, the Word, is to go into our living thinking, too.

Participle action precedes or is coterminous with the main verb (here, main verb is epigraphw). We know to interpret the present participle as 'past', because "dwsw" is EXCISED from the requote in Chapter 8. Hence the double-entendre, since Christ is RISEN, still living. See how a FOUNDATIONAL thing is communicated syntactically in a FOUNDATIONAL manner? A simple excision, plus a present participle (not a past participle), plus the switch to "epi" in Chapter 10 -- tells you really what's going on! You can't possibly translate all this. So much MISINTERPRETATION of Bible occurs when working with a translation! And as you can see, the published translations are terrible! [No one can get Bible wholly right, but sheesh -- do we have to ADD such egregious errors? The "MIND" is Christ. It's in the SINGULAR. So why ASSume that both nouns are THE SAME PERSONS, when one is in the Singular and the other, in the plural? God would know how to use a different word for "minds" (plural of nous), if that's what He intended. And then, to miss the CHANGES in the quote, when translating Heb8 and Heb10, trying to make it AGREE with Jeremiah? Yikes! This changing of little bits of a quote to SHOW ITS FULFILLMENT or interpretation, is one of the most common forms of quotation IN the Bible...Oh well.]

Of course, the present participle can be and should be interpreted as Dramatic present tense. This is the drama of dramas, here. And presented dramatically, the Holy Spirit interrupting to testify Himself (He rarely makes a point of His Own-ness). So look: HE PUT that Mind in Christ Himself, so He is STILL PUTTING His Mind in believers, so He makes NO distinction between the past and present, because it is STILL HAPPENING: Christ is still alive, and we are still alive, and it's Still His Thinking which the Holy Spirit is Still Depositing. Heh. All that huge amount of doctrine via a simple present tense!

Another big verb change is that of mimneskomai, at the end of the quote. In Jer31:34 (38:34, LXX), that verb is in the SUBJUNCTIVE aorist passive; but is in the INDICATIVE future passive, in 10:17. But in 8:12, the writer uses the verb in the same mood as in Jeremiah. AGAIN SHOWING MESSIAH PAID THE WHOLE PRICE. Just like, eliminating dwsw shows the totality of our sanctification, so too here with the change of mood in mimneskomai. REFLEXIVE! in 10:17! God misses no nuance! His Body! All that ALSO conveyed, just by changing the mood of the verb. What Wit!

Now you know why I keep on saying that when we got saved, we LOST our brains and are to get His Thinking. A better English idiom for "dianoian" would be "body of thinking" (with stress on its FUNCTION and SKILL, DISCERNMENT). The Mind is Our Body of Thinking even as we are the Body for the Mind. See? God wants LIKE-MINDEDNESS, not works. Think the way and with the attitude of His Son, not works. That was a PROMISE in the OT -- they LOOKED FORWARD to it. But until Christ completed, that MIND couldn't go INTO them -- so it was PROMISED. But now He's Risen, so His Thinking is to be UPON us, "epi". This is HIS FACULTY OF THINKING, the very warp and woof of it -- His Thinking Pattern. Hupogrammos, for the hupogrammoi, us. Heh: Bible verses have scads of wordplay!

Thus we have in all three quotes, a repeated DIRECT reference to the LXX of Isa53:11's five infinitives (vv10-11, in our texts), focusing on the "sculpt" (plassw). Chapter 10's sculpting UPON Him as the foundation (we are built upon Christ, common NT refrain); rather than INTO Him (He being sculpted), as the Jeremiah quote stated. Because UPON Him, therefore INTO us -- what wordplay! Jeremiah knew of the Isaiah verse, too, (so we know for sure the Masoretic Text had this verse); for Jeremiah's referencing the FIRST ONE, Christ, getting that thinking INTO Him, which is the STRESSED PURPOSE of the Isaiah chapter (beginning at Isa52:13, which in both BHS and LXX announces that His Mastery of Thinking PROSPERING is the cause of our salvation -- allusively repeated, in Isa53:11, both texts (da'ath and suneisis)).

Both Jeremiah and Heb8 reference Israel, with the Chapter 8 requote to show both the "old" and the precedence for the new, covenants; but Chapter 10's is for CHURCH. What's so cool is the usage of autwn and autous, to signify an ongoing stepping-stone function; Our Mind, Christ, gets written into us -- and as a result WILL get written into them (post-Church). The Law which got written into Christ, so got written into them, so gets written written into us. If the Holy Spirit didn't reverse dianoian and kardias in 10:16, you'd not see this circularity.

So the writer of both NT passages here in Hebrews tells us how the "sanctification" of verse 14 got accomplished (again referring to the whole of LXX Isa53:10-11, and its result). As in Gen 2:17 and Isa 53:9, which show TWO deaths, Jeremiah's quote was a FUTURE promise of TWO lives (spiritual and physical -- LXX uses Hebraistic tense structure like Gen2:17's two (spiritual, then physical) muths). Deft way to say the entire content of what would become Romans 6 via that structure: dying spiritually, we die physically. But He living spiritually, dying spiritually ON the Cross (not real, but substitutionarily), we live spiritually, and hence when we die physically, we will live physically AND spiritually.. with Him, forever. Awesome!

By contrast, in both NT passages this LIVING FULFILLMENT is dramatically depicted, via requoting only the (dramatic) PRESENT participle of didomi. Moreover, "write" in Jeremiah's is merely graphw, but in Heb10:16 it's EPIgraphw: showing built from Christ, Isa53:11's plassw (="sculpt"). (See Eph2:10's Ionic(!) "epi" usage which also ties that way, especially since the Ionic dative of purpose works like the infinitive of purpose which Isa53:11's plassw, signifies.) To "inscribe"/"engrave" is the "epi"+graphw meaning: and of course we are petroi, chips off the Block, Our Petra (see Hebrews 6), the Rock of Our Salvation, Matt16:18, the Foundation Stone. Who is the Permanent Inscription, yet One Who Never Ceases to inscribe. Very clever use of tenses in the requotes, thus playing on the "for all time" continuity, in verses 10:10-14.

You are meant to understand God the Holy Spirit is out to create a Living Thinking Flow That Forever Gives Father Sweet Savor, smelling the yummy aroma of Son's Thinking. Ola! That's why the worst sin a believer can commit is to leave or never get into God's System ("drift off course from Grace" verse, and 2Cor13:14's "Grace of Our Lord" clause). Hence to NOT USE 1Jn1:9 when needed, is Worse Than Sin. If my pastor taught that once, he taught it a bizillion times ("Law of Double Punishment" subseries in 92 Spiritual Dynamics). There's nothing worse than denying the Spirit the writing HE wants to do upon you: such refusal is the worst form of infidelity. (Search on "wrongdoing" in LordvSatan3.htm and read though the end of the green table, for details. Chapter 10 ends with a severe warning for that reason, and "not forsaking the assembling" is a MISTRANSLATED verse -- it means assembling under a TEACHER, to hear that TEACHING. Why do translations always truncate a word's meaning? Heb 10:25's episunagogue means assembling-for-hearing-teaching -- synagogue was a place where everyone went to hear the RABBI teach! So the translation cuts out the TEACHER! AAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHH)

And the woman was built (Hebrew verb "banah") FROM/upon Adam's rib. So the Last Woman is built FROM/UPON/EPI the Last Adam, Christ.

There's extraordinary wordplay here; wish scholars would remember that back in ancient times wordplay was the #1 method of entertainment, so proficiency was cherished (drama was an Olympic event, with a grand prize in the millions of dollars). So we should be looking for wordplay every time we analyze a Scripture verse (yet another reason no translation is worth much in teaching or study). The usual translation just assumes a requote of the prior Heb8:8-12 is in view, and there's been quite a lot of commentary which claims some scribe reversed the words "hearts" and "mind" ('to defend Bible, assuming IT wrong first rather than assuming US wrong first). Big mistake. My pastor spent lots of time stressing that this is an interpretive quote showing how the New Covenant is to be implemented using Church. Now I see why: the two epi ("upon") prepositional clauses are keys, because epi takes the genitive, dative AND the accusative. Word order is critical, here.

As if by magic, when it comes to Translating Bible, scholars suddenly 'forget' that the genitive case is used in a lot of ways. So too, the dative and accusative. So the translations almost always use the kindergarten, Dick-and-Jane method of translation, always "in" for en, "on", for epi, "of" for the genitive case, etc. No wonder Bible seems to contradict itself in translation!

Look: drama Greek rhetoric often omits a preposition to stress ALL the usages go with the case. LXX of Isa53:10-11 is a classic example of this style. Also, for elegance, if the preposition will be next mentioned, it's not to be repeated in close proximity (we have the same rule in English). So notice: "autwn EPIgrapsw". Preposition "epi" will be the NEXT word after "autwn". So it's not going to be written twice. No "epi autwn epigrapsw", for that's inelegant in this verse. And it's the Holy Spirit, speaking dramatically, interrupting, even. (In Greek Drama, that's called an "interjection", and it's always to the audience, not to the actors.)

Further, Greek genitive is used both subjectively and objectively. (Latin has a similar rule, made famous by James Joyce in his first short story of Ulysses.) So "tayn dianoian autwn" -- the THINKING of the LORD's Humanity -- belongs to Him, belongs to us, so you have BOTH the subjective and objective genitive being employed. The Mind of Us -- not our own thinking, but the One Who Paid for us, Owns us, and Whom we also own. The Lord is our portion (inheritance). "Love of God" verses are the most common employment of the plenary use of the genitive (subjective AND objective), a kind of love circle. So too Thinking is a Circle. Going out, to, coming back, in. In Greek drama you'd construct a sentence which stressed EITHER the subjective or objective genitive -- again, because repetition would be inelegant. But by doing that you could either reference both (depending on how the rest of the sentence goes), or you could just reference one of them. If both, it's a "plenary use" of the genitive. My pastor taught those grammar rules until the congregation was complaining about the repetition, back in the year 2000, showing how Romans 5:5 is an example of the plenary use of the (subjective AND objective) genitive.

So here you see the same thing: EPI tayn dianoian, UPON THE MIND, His -- written ON Him by the Holy Spirit during the Incarnation -- going in; next, since NOW He is Risen, HIS MIND going OUT, UPON Church (lit., them, preposition epi not repeated).

Bauer, Danker (BDAG) lexicon in BibleWorks notes the following about "epi":

• Meaning #1a., that epi uses the genitive to denote "marking a position on a surface". Yeah, that's the main theme of the NT, His Mind being written ON us, which is also the main theme the writer of Hebrews is covering, bookending Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Heb8:8-10:17!
• Its meaning #2a, "of immediate proximity to things" - yeah, we are IN Him, how 'proximate' can you get!
• Meaning #3, epi+genitive means someone "involved.. esp. in a [lawsuit]" -- yeah, that's a main theme of Book of Hebrews, we are witnesses in this Trial without which Israel cannot complete, Heb11:1ff!
• Meaning #4a in Bauer Danker, "marking contact with the goal that is reached, answering the question 'whither?'" -- yeah, making contact with His Mind, growing TOWARD Him in Thinking, THE main theme of the Book of Hebrews and all the NT!
• Then there's meaning #8 in Bauer Danker, BASIS. Yeah -- Based on Him. Due to. About.
• Meaning #9a in Bauer Danker, the noun IN the genitive case is RULED by the noun to which it attaches: yeah, THE MIND rules us.
• Meaning #10 is epi+the accusative, "marker of legal proceeding, before", language of the law-courts. Yeah, He's the Star Witness in the Angelic Trial, just as the writer of Hebrews explained back in Chapter 2 -- and we are OF Him, so we are witnesses too -- build up to Chapter 11!
• Then there's Bauer Danker's meaning #11 for epi, "marker of purpose, goal, result, takes the accusative (tayn dianoian, again) -- yeah, the PURPOSE is to get us to be ONE with Him, by means of His Mind being IN WRITING so we can LEARN it, so it can be justifiably WRITTEN on us by the Holy Spirit.
• Then there's meaning #18a, "Under=during the rule or administration of" -- yeah, during His Rule, which lasts forever!

Isn't it rather too clever to use the accusative and THEN the genitive case for a preposition which takes both severally -- especially, since EPI flanks tayn dianoian autwn (in front of tayn and just after autwn) -- since the genitive case has ALL these meanings? Do you think a mere human being would be that smart about the language? Do you think a demon would want to show the Utter Love of God this way? So then: Only GOD Communicated This. No other logical conclusion, huh. After all, Bauer Danker is, if not THE most respected Greek lexicon among theologians, right up there in the topmost echelon of respect. And yet for all this time, we don't translate Heb10:16 properly? And of course, misteach the Christian life as something your dead-in-Adam body does? Joke's on us!

Because, we are INTIMATE with Him, even IN Him. So we belong to Him, and He Belongs to us. So that intimacy is stressed by NOTHING BEING BETWEEN "dianoian" and "autwn". Subjective genitive, because HE is the Subject, and we belong to Him. But also objective genitive, in that we RECEIVE His Mind. But notice: it's always HIS Mind, not ours. We know it's His Mind, because of the other words in the sentence and due to the requote from Jeremiah, which is a promise OF His Mind being inscribed in us. It's surely not a promise of our minds being inscribed in us! But rather, of Our Mind -- His, belonging TO us! -- being inscribed ON us!

LOL, gotta repeat why the Greek omits repetition: again, epi tayn dianoian autwn says BOTH the fact that His Mind is inscribed on us, AND that He belongs to us and we belong to Him. Deft, elegant economy of wording. To use more words, is not necessary and inelegant. So you'd not repeat tayn dianoian twice, for both HIS Mind having been written on, and then His Mind being written onto OUR minds. You'd only need to say HIS Mind -- belonging to us. Clever, huh. Writer of Hebrews uses epi as a tracking preposition throughout, like Paul did (Paul was dead at this point, see Heb13:23) -- which also helps you understand its use here in Heb10:16.

So while the kindergarten usage of the genitive is to say that the noun in the genitive is the owner of the noun the genitive noun modifies, God's NOT using kindergarten Greek here. Again, we know that due to the Jeremiah quote being interpretatively explained, by the Holy Spirit.

Another big mistake translators make with Bible is to assume the text is koine. Very often, it's Attic, especially since Attic Greek is drama Greek, and most of what the Bible talks about is dramatic -- eternity themes! Christ paying for sins! Saved for all time! Once for all! So lots of Drama Greek is used in the NT, and the elegance of Hebrews should have tipped off the translators to its use in that epistle. Oh well. (Scholars knew all this back early last century. Wasn't until the 1930's they decided to chuck the idea that Bible specialized in ALL Greek languages, not merely the koine. Bigger mistake.)

That's the case here: we're looking at Attic Greek, not koine. For what appears to play the role of THREE embedded genitive absolutes of extraordinary beauty tying here to Heb10:16, see Heb11:1's Greek. Hebrews 11:1 is terribly translated, so you need to see its Greek (i.e., search on "elegchos" in Heb111.htm, and read the next few paragraphs after it). That verse blows me away. Parallel ACTION is displayed in both verses. You want to cry with joy at the elegance!

The writer of Hebrews uses drama Greek a lot. Here, the immediate drama context began back in Heb9:28, introduced by the reason for a Second Coming -- the Rapture, here. There are a lot of reasons why you know it's the Rapture being depicted, but the baldest proof is in the author's usage of Isaiah 53:12 LXX vocabulary. That's the AWARD part of the contract (see also 1Cor3, Rev4). Bema is the AWARD ceremony, and the group getting the award is Church ("those who eagerly await", NOT the whole world). So it's not the official Second Coming down to rule, but to COLLECT.. us. Church.

For the Rapture was expected at any time, especially since the Temple was under siege, given how Daniel 9:26 was to play. Hence in the last Greek clause of Heb9:28, the writer employs the dramatic "hero" accusative (auton), classic Greek drama of the god coming DOWN at the end of the play, to rescue his clients. So of course the author deftly switches in Heb 10, back to that FIRST time He came down, to show how the Rapture is imminent (ending in Heb Chap10 brings you back full circle to NOW). So all of Chapter 10 is a parenthetical explanation for 9:28, since all of Chapter 9 was on WHY the change in covenant from the first to the second. All this, sets up Chapter 11, and 11:39-40 refer back to 9:28 and 10:25ff, finishing the point. It's real blunt. Don't know how the scholars could have missed that bald Greek drama opening in the last clause of 9:28, especially considering the content of 10:1-14.

Heb10:16b is therefore extremely unusual, intentionally embedding DIFFERENT objects with the second epi, to illustrate the SWITCH from the "first" covenant, to the better "second" just explained: the second is better, because HIS MIND is to be written on us; the "first" group didn't get that except as a future promise. We get His Mind Written as a Reality, hence Canon is to be fully written, not yet finished at the time of writing. In turn, that second epi clause has two accusative objects, one of which is Singular, THE THINKING: it HAS to mean the Lord's Thinking to show what SANCTIFICATION in v.14 means. The article is monadic. Cardinal principle of hermeneutics is to compare Scripture with Scripture, and context context context! But both are ignored, in the published Bible translation of tayn dianoian for this verse. But...

• We know from Isa53:11 in the LXX (suneisis), how sins got paid (Hebrew da'ath says the same thing), and how we thus got sanctified and how we would get His Thinking in us;
• we know from John 14:6 that HE is the Truth;
• we know from John 15 and many other verses that we are IN Him (which Isa53:11 in the Hebrew also depicts, as a pregnancy, "me amal"); and
• HE prayed in John 17:17, that we be Sanctified in the Truth (meaning, Him, brilliant double-entendre).
• We know from Ephesians 5 that He sanctifies Church -- so, duh -- HOW do you think that sanctification, works? Effective present tense of martureo -- in His Thinking! Same Thinking which paid for sins, capisce?

Also, same (2nd) epi in Heb10:16 has one genitive, autwn (referring to us). So note the genius: God the Holy Spirit meant tayn dianoian to be the object of both graphw and (really both instances of) epi: same, for the plural object autous, which isn't simply referring to the laws, but more importantly to those believers upon whom His Thinking will be written, I bet (look at the antecedent use of autous in v.16a). Again, I really think, in light of other Scripture and the context, that it's a mistake to shallowly view "autous" (the last word in Heb10:16) as merely referencing the "laws" (deeming the antecedent to be nomous, not noticing the OTHER autous). Especially, since it's the Holy Spirit Who's Doing The Writing...

For now, note the wordplay gives you the idea that He will write THE MIND and then write our minds with THE MIND. Embedding as in inscribing, engraving. And, as in pregnancy, Pleroma keyword. You'll thus need to cross-reference Isa53:11's sweeping five infinites in the Greek LXX, too -- for that verse is in view, here (phos, plassw, suneisis keywords -- v. 11 is mistakenly booked as beginning at the end of v.10, in the LXX verses). Heh: in Greek, like in English, all the "them" usages in a long sentence, confuse -- so you can't tell "them" apart! All of us having the Same Mind, being made Like Him! Heh. God never misses a nuance...

Of course, there's yet another layer of meaning, since the Lord is Our Heart, which is why we even want to GET His Mind, tie-back to Romans 5:5. Believing faculty of the soul, information-believed portion of the soul, is called "kardia" in Greek text, "lev" (spelled leb, no dagesh) in Hebrew. You want to be thinking and knowing the One you believe in, for where your Heart is Seated, your Treasure is there also -- in earthly vessels deposited, notwithstanding. You are not separated from Him, if you are joined in His Thinking!, Rom8:31-35, John 17:10-11!

We just saw something of the many meanings of epi in a detailled lexicon, Bauer Danker (BDAG). Ionic dative usage of epi is in Matt16:18 and Eph2:10's "epi" clauses (1Cor10:4 and Eph2:10 refer back to Matt16:18) -- writer of Hebrews uses both verses' import, here in 10:16b, because when the Lord commits to make Church in Matt16:18 and then ratifies that choice in John 17, it's all about His Thinking, (for He is the Truth and knows it) -- going INTO us, John 17:17-21, referred back to by Heb10:10-14. How the post-salvation sanctification gets DONE.

Ok, so now you know the published translations are way off. But you also can empathize why: how the heck can you translate all this incorporation-by-reference, which uses Greek words in the other verses being incorporated? You can't. It would take a hundred years of a bevy of scholars working tirelessly on the original-language texts, tracking all the incorporations by reference to DETERMINE what ENGLISH words to use, to show the many incorporations. So everyone would be without a translation, the meanwhile!

Teaching this incorporation is even harder: bored congregations, politics of hypocrisy (who is holier than whom), everyone fighting to prove you wrong, oh! Even my own church bucked it, and we were taught FROM the original-language texts on a daily basis! Hence any criticism you find in my webpages is mainly designed to show how Satan&Co. mess with us all; that they have a definite burlesqueing pattern they follow, and we are all variantly puppets for their schemes. Criticism against translations and teachings is also partly designed to justify and encourage fixing Bible translation and teaching by qualified scholars and pastors. They are qualified, trained, and probably all have a gift from God -- but they don't live in a vacuum. We need to support them: that's what God wants (i.e., "workman worth his hire" verse, but with the deeper meaning of volitional support -- without which, money means nothing). When people stopped wanting Bible in the 2nd century AD, eventually the universities stopped teaching Greek anymore. Same is happening now, not only with Greek but with Latin. We need to pray to God about this problem, or we'll have another Dark Ages with a whole new crop of dippy 'Church Fathers' and their insane misuses of Bible.

Look: everyone has to make a living. Everyone has to key to a market. Therefore they need to see us demand better Bible translation and teaching, so they can defend against those entrenched elites who'll oppose. That's how the Reformation occurred, that's how the current 'reformation' beginning in 1950 occurred, and that's how it can continue. Market demand for good Bible teaching and translation justifies and protects those who would provide it. But they can't work in a vacuum. We can't demand they do it right, alone. We must support this. So pray: don't crusade, prayer is much more powerful. Go To The Top: Pray to God. He can solve this problem, but He only WANTS to work through volition (else He could just bing things, being omnipotent and all). So vote for this to FATHER. You are a Royal Priest: use that power!

So how to illustrate all that exquisite meaning better, than to use elegant Dramatic Greek embedding within the preposition epi? Is this God GLORY, or what??? Takes your breath away. He just LOVES to make use of syntactical nuances in Bible. Every verse is pure diamonds. Takes your breath away.

My explanation and translation aren't as good as should be, either. I really should retranslate the entire Book of Hebrews, to show how the author builds from one point to the next. Even so, the wordplay in Heb 10:15-17 is necessarily masked in translation, because HOW are you gonna show the different "them" groups, yet truly translate the fact that all are called "them"? You can tell from BibleWorks Bible collections on this passage that the translators of the various versions (at least in English, Spanish and French which I can read) -- these all RECOGNIZE something unusual is afoot -- they aren't agreed on what to do with the fact that "hearts" is in the plural, but "mind" is in the singular. So they too (understandably!) try to simplify; so they mistakenly seek to make both nouns match in number, thus destroying the Greek meaning. Meaning is HIS MIND. Ties to Eph4:5, 1Cor2:16, others, as play on words -- genitive case is plural going with it, but genitive has many meanings. Surely some of them know that, too. But even so, how do you translate it, especially if the Bible will be published, and surely there will be criticism? I'm free from that worry, I don't matter to the academic community. But they aren't free from the politics. Sad story, how we humans arrogate to ourselves value, and then fight over it.

This is a classic multi-layer, multi-meaning passage: His Mind is singular, 'one' -- we are to get that ONE MIND in ALL of us, so we will have 'one' mind, together, freely. Many hearts, but all viewing the SAME TRUTH. So "THE MIND of them", literal translation of ten dianoian autwn, aha! Yes, He is to BE Our Mind -- that's why we lost our brains the nanosecond we first believed in Christ! His Heart in Our Hearts, as a result of His Mind BECOMING, hawah, our minds -- promised since the OT, the One Who Always Was will Become (YH=hayah, WH=hawah) Our Heart and Soul, Our Daily Bread, Our Treasure in Earthen Vessels, Our Way and Truth and Life! How's that for elegant Greek Drama economy, to convey all that meaning, by a simple SINGULAR use of "dianoia"? Hoo-boy: only God is that smart!

The term dianoia IS used as a collective noun, sometimes; however, to make it singular here yet use the plural of kardia, is a red flag. Of course, that's what Jeremiah had done, too. Note the double-entendre? In deference to all translators, who the heck can ever get so much wordplay properly translated for a reader? We should just study the Scripture in its original languages, hein?

So 'my' translation above is likewise not satisfactory, but the underlined meaning above is unmistakable in the Greek: God the Holy Spirit suddenly switches from plural ("hearts") to singular (Mind/Thinking) using the SAME structure. Oh: verbal nouns are more dramatic than verbs, so this switch is highly dramatic, not just ho-hum dramatic (if there were such a thing). So here Heb10:16 ALSO ties to Eph4:5, the "henotes" of His Thinking, how it gets produced in Church (see RightPT.htm for exegesis, since Eph4:5, 11-16 are always terribly translated).

Also, note that English Bibles' renderings for Heb10:16 don't recognize where the NEW testimony begins, but we know in Greek where it begins, because the first set of (single) quotes is the object of "after He said" (the earlier quote in 8:10). That's why in English Bibles the requote looks superfluous. So you don't get what the heck God is talking about, here. Inspired Greek text doesn't confuse. But again -- how can you translate it better? I tried, and of course the translation isn't quite apt either (still too narrow).

We also know that the new testimony ABOUT US begins "Having given/put", because the NOUNS IN THE QUOTE are reversed, "remember" is REFLEXIVE (vs. the original prophecy and 8:8-12 quote), and due to what context immediately preceded (10:1-14) the interruption by the Holy Spirit into the flow of writing, which was, Christ completing our sanctification forever. These changes prove that the quotation is being made again, showing how it applies to us, and how we are used to help implement the new covenant. Again, this explanation needs improving; but at least you can see what features are relevant, and thus can review them with whatever authority you trust.

Too many reputed Bible scholars today ASSume that the writers of Scripture were not inspired by the Holy Spirit. It's a sad day when you read in a reputable book about Biblical Greek a comment by one of them claiming that the Lord's Divinity is hidden (yeah, to the scholars, since they obviously didn't notice the frequent, stressed usage of LXX terminology) in the Gospels, but made clearer later -- for political reasons, lol! So no wonder these folks also mistake WHY constructions like these interpretative quotes are DELIBERATE. If someone tells you there's a mistake (i.e., in the noun reversals) in this passage, that someone is himself mistaken. Greek is obviously, deliberately, changed for purposes of interpretation, a feature of language which everybody uses from time immemorial: e.g., Windoze rather than Windows.

See for yourself: compare any OT quote with its NT counterpart (especially, the way the LORD quotes the OT in the NT). Then take great pains to figure out why the NT quotes are changed. Start maybe with Acts 2 (which quotes Joel 2) -- if that's too hard to analyze for you right now, pick some Gospel passage in which the Lord quotes. One of my favorite interpretative quotes is how He uses Matt4:4, quoting (and changing the words of) Deut8:3ff. Satan does the same thing in the 2nd Temptation, but when he quotes Ps91, he DELIBERATELY CUTS OUT a clause, so in the requote he's telling Jesus He should jump off the Temple based ON the verse. (Believers misuse Scripture this way, i.e., how Calvinists use 1Jn2:2 to support limited atonement, by chopping out the last half of the verse.) This exercise will prove very refreshing and enlightening, particularly if you or someone you love might be sensitive to the claim that the Bible contradicts itself. That shibboleth is used in ignorance of Bible. But to Christians likewise ignorant of Bible who only have a translation to look at -- whoa, it's devastating to their faith.

In sum, the wordplay in Heb10:15-17, particularly as it is the other bookend for its sister quote in 8:8-12, thus at once explains not only that Canon will be completed, but how it works during CHURCH Age to help prepare for the implementation of the New Covenant. It's very deft:

• the seeming 'mismatch' between SINGULAR dianoia and PLURAL kardia in all the quotes; which, in 10:15-17 REVERSES the nouns but keeps the verbs in the same order. This means that having written the LAW for them, WE BENEFIT, so THEY will benefit by WHO gets written in US, after Church completes. The elegance of language is breathtaking. Note how "oneness", the theme of John 17, is depicted. See also the last half of Eph2. The writer here is building up to his climactic chapter 11, which is at once a summary of the Trial and its past OT witness, but also why THEY DON'T COMPLETE until we finish (hence the pre-Trib Rapture is explained in Trial terms), end of Heb 11 (vv 39-40) .
• Moreover, the two epi prepositions stress the BUILDING of Church (Matt16:18's answer), also for the SAKE of Israel, tying to Eph2. (Significantly the more-intimate "epi", which is used TWICE in the 10:15-16, play on difference between gnosis and epignosis, replacing "eis" in the original Jeremiah quote),
• All this, with the opening fanfare of a rare testimony idiom+the effective present tense of martureo, and in an INTERRUPTING format, deftly shows the INTERRUPTION of the 'calling out' of Church: can our God be cleverer? (See LordvSatan4.htm to get how this interruption is intended ALSO to rescue Israel, which is one of the bigger reasons why Tribulation BEGINS with the Rapture...)
• Concluding, with reflexive versus not reflexive of the same "not remember" verb in 8:12(Jer31:34) compared to 10:17; and
• substitution of "lawlessness" (a moniker often used of non-Jews) for "wrongdoing" in the original Jeremiah prophecy. See how the OT prophecies about the Gentiles are so deftly referenced? See how it's now BODY which is in view? "For, He cannot deny Himself" and Eph5's 'mystery' of Christ and Church. Also, this substitution is a Very Typical Husbandly tweak of admonishment, so often seen in the OT, where the LORD upbraids by PARALLELLING Israel to goyim. For, in the original Jeremiah quote, the "wrongdoing" is Israel's. But since she played Vashti and refused the Lord during His First Advent, now SHE is the "lawless" one (without-law, a goy/Gentile). But He won't 'remember' that wrongdoing, if she becomes part of His Body. All this is communicated, simply by substituting "lawlessness" where "wrongdoing" was, in the original quotation! Parallelism by substitution of a word in the SAME SPOT! Is this written by God, or what!

  Awesome, how much information is packed inside such teeny changes versus the Jeremiah and Heb8:8-12 quotes -- in the exactly-right spots! No 'appearance' or 'vision' could be this authentic!

  So each of these differences compared to the Jeremiah 31:31-34 quotation shows CAUSALITY; HOW Israel will be rescued by Church; HOW the Millenium's spiritual life will be fulfilled and aided BY MEANS OF Church. Not, because we are anything, but because CHRIST IS TA PANTA, everything!

This section is replaced. 1 John 2:5 is undergoing extensive retranslation. See the newer version below. It will take maybe a year or more to re-translate 1John. Simplest Greek, yet the most amazing roping of ALL BIBLE through it. Don't let the simplicity, fool you. Greeks had many rhetorical styles, and simplicity of reasoned exposition was the one John adopted for this letter. For a great yet easy-to-read source on Greek rhetorical styles, try this link: http://web.gc.cuny.edu/dept/class/score.htm The former contents of this webpage are hidden under HTML "comment" commands. So you can only read the rest of the page (why bother) if you View Source.

So John SIMULTANEOUSLY REFUTES an (unstated) strawman claim of formal commandment obedience with with the TRUE OBEDIENCE of getting the WORD IN YOU. See how deft? Solely by changing entole to Logos, John CONTRASTS a partial claim (keeping the commandments) with the TRUE COMMANDMENT, keeping the WORD itself. Thus John blows out of the water! all works claims as being spiritual. So, in the rest of his letter, you know for SURE what "commandments" are NOT. 1Jn4:12-17 will harken back to 2:5 for this reason, connecting the WORD with the development of LOVE in the believer, due to SEEING HIM WHO IS INVISIBLE via that same WORD in him; thus the believer will have Confidence at the Bema. All this, because Greek word for "keeps" ALSO means CHERISH, which goes with fellowship, more than "keeps" as proper behavior. See the difference? REAL love, versus mere outward form? James 2:18-19 is parallel in meaning: No WORD BELIEVED, then no works work; but IF WORD BELIEVED, then works work, because the WORD BELIEVED is what works (theme since Jas1:1).

What's clear from even these few notes about the Greek, which the English maybe can't even show, is that LEARNING THE WORD makes VIRTUE-LOVE GET BUILT in you. Further, that all the works on the planet WON'T BUILD God's Own Virtue: you must get it FROM HIM; since He is Truth; ergo, the depositing of that Truth IN you ALONE accomplishes the result (see also Rom5:5)! And we all know the verse, "Against love, there is no law." First Commandment. Nothing comes close, nothing else fulfills it. Compare all this to a translation you have. See how DIFFERENT translations are? See how much you MISS?

So Bible TRANSLATION often sounds LEGALISTIC, dry, boring. For example, if you read 1Jn2:5 in translation, and in context (everyone knows CONTEXT is critical), the 'context' you get in TRANSLATION is that 'keeping the Word' means DOING THINGS. But that's NOT what the Greek says! The Greek says THE WORD ITSELF IN YOU does all the work, so all you need do is KEEP LEARNING and BREATHING IT under the Spirit, under your right pastor. ("Site Purpose" link in "Basics" box at page top explains how this WORD works to build Love, in more detail.)

Ok, time to cross-check with some other Scripture. Pick any passage you like. So what did James say to the straw man? BE A DOER OF THE WORD. You have to HAVE the Word in you to 'do' it, see. But hey, man turns ANYTHING into a work, repeating Adam's insane figleaves. So, look: if you INTERPRET that phrase as 'doing works', rather than LEARNING AND HOLDING WORD ITSELF, you'll end up DIVORCING the WORD from works (Jas2:18). In which case, you aren't 'breathing' the Spirit when you do them (Jas2:26). See, just like the subjective and objective genitive, Greek clauses point in BOTH directions. So also, you won't have the Truth is not in you apart from the Spirit Filling you, and you can NEVER feel IMMATERIAL GOD, because God is ABSOLUTE INFINITY, so there's no emotion (emotions change; God never changes, so is NOT EVER emotional). Etc.

SEE HOW IMPORTANT it is to get the ORIGINAL LANGUAGES? Even "faith" in translation FIRST MEANS, in the Greek (well, Hebrew also), WORD. WORD WHICH YOU BELIEVE. Bible uses MANY words to designate THE WORD, each term highlighting the WHOLE meaning from some particular 'window'. For example, "aletheia" stresses the fact that the WORD IS TRUTH. So the "truth window" characteristic is being stressed. "Faith" (pistis), and "believe" (pisteuw) ALWAYS AND ONLY mean that the OBJECT of faith/belief HAS MERIT. Never in Greek is pistis a meritorious thing of itself, which is why verses like Gen15:6, John 3:16, Eph2:8-9 are in the Bible.

Similarly, believing the WORD itself is what Holy Spirit uses to ENLIVEN the WORD in you. Same meanings of truth, riches, and other Bible metaphors are there, but now the 'window' is LIVINGNESS. Word unbelieved, dead. Belief not in Word, not through WORD, dead. WORD WORKS, the main theme of James. Yeah, the WORD WORKS IN YOU..if you BELIEVE it, rather than walking away having looked in the mirror WORD MAKES to show you, you. This is really critical and precise: if you believe a false doctrine, it 'comes to life' in you instead of the truth, so SIN is born (analogy to nonliving fetus in womb, Jas1:13-15). So without 1Jn1:9 like BREATHING (next Caveat), you're a ghoul, a walking DEAD person! ('A main theme of 1Jn.)

Preface

If you are also under the same pastor as I am, he spent a good year exegeting 1Jn.  You can find all those lessons in the NT section of the catalogue at http://www.rbthieme.org. I believe the series is called "1John" in the catalogue;  it was done in 1980-1981.  They never ask for money, put you on some bleeping mailing list or send you unrequested mail.  They limit how many lessons (recordings of live Bible classes over 53 years)  you can order each month (20 if audiotape, 30 if mp3, and I don't recall the videotape limit).  The limit is to forestall people going overboard with study. That's been a problem with us "tapers" for decades.

Really, if  you want to know 1Jn, you should get those lessons.  He updates that 1John series in pretty much every class after 1981.  So the lessons in it are constantly refined or corrected, ever after.  For example,  he later spent probably 60-100 hours exegeting and explaining 1Jn4:17.  Those lessons are in 92 Spiritual Dynamics (Series 376), Lessons 1217-1276, at least. He goes all over Bible to show the ties to that 1Jn4:17.   From those lessons forward he periodically returns to 1Jn4:12-19, as he was always refining and upgrading what he taught.  1John was a bellweather letter for him, as was Ephesians.  He felt he had to revamp all his prior teaching in light of new discoveries in the text of both books, so from 1981 onward his teaching goes beyond ANYTHING I can find ANYWHERE in Christendom, in terms of quality and comprehensiveness, answering all the questions Christendom rarely even asks, let alone explains.

As a consequence, I must retranslate all of 1Jn to see how John goes from point A to point B.  Whether you should read all this, I've no clue.  Use 1Jn1:9 and Ask Our Mutual Dad.  Then you won't be reading some human's writing, but something God wants you to learn for whatever HIS Reasons may be.  If He used Balaam's donkey, he can use any website or document.

Then I'll go back to my exegesis notes from my pastor's prior classes, and refine the translation.  The Holy Spirit knows the Truth He Wrote.  So this is the closest approximation to a laboratory-quality empirical test one can do.  Every teacher wishes his student to be better than him, just as your parents want you to have a better life than theirs.  The LAST thing a parent or teacher wants, is to raise a PARROT.  So no parroting, here.  'Pastor taught how to read Bible in the original-language texts using principles of hermeneutics even better than you learn in seminary; so I'm using those skills, breathing 1Jn1:9 as needed.  That's the procedure. 

In practice, this vetting is very objective, like balancing in accounting or testing a math formula; with Bible you go by what IT says, and generally you don't know where you'll end up, until you get there.  If you have to use the original-language texts and check them pan-Bible, then its data controls you;  Bible content is too vast, proves where there's an errant translation or interpretation.  The words are what they are, the rhetorical style is what it is, and the tie-backs ("incorporation by reference", legal term) TELL you where else in Bible, to discern meaning of whatever current verse, you're studying.  So I never know the outcome in advance, even when I know the text well.  For example, when I wrote the DDNA webseries using 1Jn4:12-17, I had no clue John was deliberately referencing Isa53:1-Isa55 from 1Jn1:1 forward!  I thought he began to do it later in the epistle (birthing rhetoric). But when starting this retranslation, boom! Text shows he begins using Isa53 immediately!   So I'll change this Word doc often.  Always some new surprise to write out.

This is how the Thinking series sites got started:  1Jn4:17 and Heb10:15-17 clicked the whole picture of the Angelic Trial together for me.  Then I was caused to discover that Isa53:10-12 in both BHS and LXX texts, explain exactly HOW God accomplishes our transformation as the NT explains: because we get the Same Contract as made with the Son of God for adding Humanity to Himself.  I don't yet know how my own pastor covers Isa53:10-12 with respect to the contractural nature of the spiritual life, but for over 50 years he's taught it as a Legacy from Christ, pretty much as I describe in my webpages (his description is much more succinct).  Isa53:10-12, so far as I can tell, explains the Origin and Nature of Our Spiritual Life as a Three-Way, God-to-God contract: Holy Spirit is in 53:10-11, the Actor making the five infinitives happen at Father's command (v.10's haphetz/bouletai references Father's delight, agreement).

English Bible translation rules are horrible, which is why often English Bible translations are horrible:  you're only allowed to translate one original-language word with one English word.  Yet you'd be fired in any secular translating job if you followed that rule!  As a result, much of Bible is horribly misleading in the English, and God's Head is routinely cut off (viz., should say "Divine Love", or "God's Love", not merely "Love", every time you see "agape" or "agapaw" words in the Greek).  So here I'm NOT adding to the Word.  The translations cut out what is in the Bible, so it's only right to put back, what IS there in the original-language texts.  So when you see commas appositively setting off verbs or nouns, it's the same Greek word with ALL those meanings:  takes more than one English word, to convey those meanings.  Refining how to phrase a translation is a never-ending process.  Bible is sheer genius -- one can never get its translation wholly right; there's No Substitute for the Word God Preserved!  Hence the many small-font notes per only a line or two of Bible text.

Word has a Print Preview function which allows you to view "Two Pages" side-by-side (Print Preview, click on "Zoom", then "Two Pages").  Once you've set that Two Pages Preview, you can scroll with your mouse wheel through the pages for rapid verse comparison.  That will prove invaluable for tracing the flow of John's words. 

1 John is about how you live the spiritual life.  It's written a generation after the Temple was destroyed.  Many had expected the Rapture to occur when the Temple was destroyed, but nothing happened.  So a lot of apostacy set in.  That's why John's Gospel has a very different structure from prior Gospels; for example, you'll notice he skips right over Matt24 material, since the Temple already WAS destroyed;  all stuff on the Temple is instead related in terms of the Incarnate Christ, because as Paul already prophetically and doctrinally explained a generation prior, WE are the Temple, Eph2.  Hebrews elaborated on why that change, since Hebrews was written in light of the Temple's impending destruction.  John thus elaborates on Hebrews, doesn't need to repeat the Temple Destruction prophecies -- they're no longer prophecies.  So you don't see John write about the Temple again until Rev11, to show how Daniel 9:27 plays.

John uses information readers know;  they all knew what transpired during the Last Supper, for example.    But they need a refresher on the legacy of Christ, His Spiritual Life going into us -- told by one who was THERE.  So John spends the most time on how we are to live in Him, tying all previous Canon into what he writes, stressing the 'now' to his audience, playing on the effective present tense of martureo in Heb10:15. 

Gospel is used to teach, not just to prophesy/certify events, by all Bible writers.  That's why each NT Gospel is so different in tone and stress.  Notice how 1Jn matches up to John's Gospel as you read it, so you'll better see the teaching role of the written Gospels.  We moderns think the Gospels were written too late to be valid, mistaking the purpose of the books.  We don't accredit the Holy Spirit with the 'memory' to transmit the details accurately to the NT writers, yet have no problem that Moses wrote about Adam?  So NT writers cover stuff they personally did not see, via the Holy Spirit -- like, John 17, a prayer the Lord prayed while everyone else was asleep.  That helps the reader validate Divine not human, authorship.  The Holy Spirit has a bigger agenda than just proving He wrote a book through some human hand.  He intends to write on us NOW, effective present tense of martureo in Heb10:15.  1Jn is an elaboration on Heb10:15-17, how it gets done.  So when you read the Gospels, look for the style, tone and goals of the writer. For God is the Writer, behind them.

My pastor said a bizillion times, the goal in translating Scripture "is to apprehend the exact THOUGHT of the writer."  To do that, requires a bit of method acting.  When I was growing up in Los Angeles, "method acting" meant you become the person: so when you say his words, you ARE him.  Only then, will his words be genuine in your mouth. So too in translation, self goes offstage, and you must become the writer, to translate his words.

So, just as I didn't know 'my' website content would be what it has become  --  I also don't know what will come out of this re-translation of 1Jn.   I will not interpret the text, but instead will only translate it and list the tie-backs John deliberately references.  I can't list all of the references, there are too many; I can only categorize the kinds of tie-backs John uses, with but a few verse examples;  I will try to add the more significant tie-backs I find (aka incorporation by reference, which every Scripture writer must do to prove Divine Origin of his writing).  Ask God to show you others, too.  Thus you'll understand even better, how Bible is meant to be read.  Retranslation begins on the next page.

1John, Chapter One

1:1 Typical Greek drama opening flourish. Some metric repetition, counting syllables. John plays on "ho own" sound both here and in John 1:1, Greek of the Sacred Tetragrammaton in Exo3:14. Phrase "ap arches" plays also on Gen1:1's "in the beginning".

 "He Who (neuter heroic accusative of hos, playing on LXX's rema=Taught/Spoken-by-God Word  and Biblion in Isaiah are also neuter nouns) always was (imperfect tense, clever Hebraism aping qal imperfect in Exo3:14, just like  in John 1:1) The Source of  (Greek prep "apw" means source of, not merely "from") the Beginning, He Who we have heard (perfect tense);  He Who we have seen (perfect tense) with our eyes;  He Who we publically beheld (aorist of theaomai, root meaning to watch an actor on stage, spectating as at games or public  trial;  1Jn4:12, 14 tie back here) and our hands touched! (aorist  tense)  (This epistle is about, lit. peri) About THE Word of Life!"

1 John 1:1  BGT  Ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς-

Notice how this verse opens like a doxology. It really sticks out that John uses the dramatic heroic accusative, but  in the NEUTER of "hos".  Very clever, since both rema (Isa55:11, Jer1:1, etc.)  and Biblion (e.g., Isa29:11) mean The Word and are also in the neuter.  So John's using the neuter to stress that He's GOD, Word Incarnate, in yet another clever way.  Who but God is this smart, to make so much Biblical incorporation by reference of a neuter case?  Proving He is the Source, huh.  So use of the neuter here is definitely NOT "what", but Who.  So John's playing on the Lord as the Revealed One from the sealed book, just like he later does in Revelation 4.  Heh:  neuter in either nominative or accusative case are the same Word.  Always the Same, yesterday, today, tomorrow, Heb13:8!

So we're talking epic drama here, using the neuter.  Not sure if "He Who" is the most dramatic English phrasing.  Greek literally says THIS One Who -- very pointy.  In English we'd find that rude (Greeks used the phrase rudely too), but it's highest honor language, here.   Further, John employs the Attic Greek dramatic accusative to stress Subject As The Hero Of The Play.   Thus you also know" He" not "it" or "what", since things are never heroes.  You further know HE not "it" or "what" because of the "hands" reference, the play on ho own, the "in the beginning" tie-back to Gen1:1 -- all of which are also tie-backs to John's Gospel opening. Hence monadic use of (nee: definite) article in "tou logou", so rendered in caps in English to show uniqueness, one-and-only meaning the Greek conveys. Get the pun?  The Spoken Word (rema) of the OT is now the Written Word (ho logos), and "ho" is also the masculine nominative article, it's soundplay!  For it's a Hebraism to show the Same God!  For "The Word" is an OT moniker for God, as well as a Greek drama and Socratic philosophy term for Divine Word (stressing Perfect Character), for example see Ps33:4 and the Philebus. All this, from a neuter postpositive article used in Greek as a demonstrative?!

Clever use of tou logou tes zwes, double genitive (required by peri, which takes the genitive) has appositive, equating force:  WORD=LIFE.  It's not merely the Word of Life, the Word IS Life.  Both meanings.  In elegant Greek you concatenate cases or position words to do double duty;  that's why for example "God" is not repeated in Rom8:28, but is rather stuck smack dab in the middle of the sentence, a dramatic heroic accusative doubling as an Object, so HE is the one causing all things to work together (intransitive verb!) for those who love Him.  So too here in 1Jn1:1, with the double-usage of two genitives in apposition:  "Life" technically modifies "Word", but is also equal to it (appositional usage of words equates them).  That's why v.2 picks up with the last of the nouns (Life) to further the discourse, as Greek rhetoric is wont to do. John paired WORD in neuter accusative, hence the logos at the end;  so he'll next pair Life here in v.1, with Life beginning in v.2.  Because Word IS Life.  His Word.  Him.  Alive.  So deft!  Two nouns in the genitive (belonging-to, related to, associated with, agency) tell you so much!  John does the same thing using a preposition and accusatives, in 2John, verses 1-2.  There, he cleverly switches from anarthrous aletheia to monadic, The Truth (Him), and then converts menw into a noun (it's more dramatic to make a verb into a noun) to show The Truth Abides in us forever.  All these deft uses of the Greek grammar as a rhetorical style which Communicate Doctrinal Truth, are signs of Divine Authorship, the sheer genius of the wording. There's no way to translate all this in English, so much of the Doctrinal Meaning and all of the wit, is lost in translation.

Exclamations here in English translation indicate Greek dramatic ellipsis or even aposiopesis (the latter type of ellipsis roughly corresponds to the ".. !" construction in English, with a punctual gap showing mouth-stopped shock followed by an exclamation at the end). 

 John thus proves his due diligence, authenticating his writing this Canonical book right from the start -- using tie-backs to the OT, to show this NEW letter, is also Canon;  that's how one validates a new book from God, via incorporation by reference (aka tie-backs).  Tie-backs must always be traced, be they concepts, prepositions, keywords (verbs and nouns repeated like bookends).  This is how a previously known Divine Word is elaborated on in the new book, so to teach the NEW Divine Material, as well as test the new book for Divine Origin.  John's NOT using the editorial we.  He instead brings in all the past Scripture witness, and then adds himself to that list, just as in Isa53:1.  So he well knows he's writing Canon, and will go on to repeat that fact in this letter.  Thus you also know that John's Gospel was released either alongside this letter, or just beforehand, since John incorporate his own Gospel by reference in this very first verse by its phrasing -- updated with affirmation that he is a witness, one of the same procession of witnesses from Adam forward.

By this you know 1Jn was written and released after or co-terminous with, the Gospel of John.  For obviously, John can't be playing on his own Gospel -- thus blatantly advertising it's CANON, for crying out loud -- if he hadn't written it yet.  Thus you also know Revelation is not yet written.  Because John here plays to Isaiah, not to Revelation.  References to Isaiah verses are rife in this letter, from here on out.  Focus in Isa55 is the Word Birthed from the Messiah's sacrifice, the Isa54:1 result of the contract of Isa53:10-12, so all of Isa53 is incorporated by reference as well, all via that simple use of the dramatic accusative in the NEUTER..  Only God is this smart.

Start tracking the prepositions John uses, NOW.  Greek preposition "apw", meaning "from" in the sense of " the source of" (not the horribly truncated "from" in English Bibles), is a major tracking device in the first five verses.  In the next verse, John will only change ONE LETTER of a verb in Isa53:2 (anangellw, to repeat-a-report, confirming witness), in order to track from apw in this verse.  Then, he changes back to Isa53:2's anangellw in v.5, to stress again (in every verse, here) that this epistle is CANON.  Nothing shy about 1Jn!  No hedging:  this is CANON, get it loud and clear!  We got it from THE SOURCE!  The Word, the Source of All, is Alive and Powerful (Heb4:12), get the pun?  Kill me now, this Word is too Beautiful!  Divine Beauty! 

Above all, in 1Jn you must carefully track the prepositions, especially when they CHANGE.  It's the little words, my pastor likes to say, which the writers of Scripture use to finesse or bang home, the doctrines conveyed.  If you don't track the usage or omission of the article and demonstratives, if you don't track prepositions, you'll miss what the writer is saying.   Frankly, Bible scholars do NOT track these things, though taught to do so, in seminary;  which is the ONLY reason why there is confusion about when the Lord came, and when He left, for example.   In Bible Greek and in 1Jn, prepositions are used heavily (or omitted where expected, another drama rhetorical device)  to track flow:  watch how John switches from "in" to "with", for example.

Further -- and you won't 'get' 1Jn if you don't do this -- you must track the TENSE CHANGES, especially in the same sentence. Tense-switching is considered bad English, but it's beautiful Greek, and Bible does it constantly.  Purpose of Greek tense switching is to show how a thing goes from point A to point B.  Here in 1:1 for example,  John switches tenses from imperfect (a Hebraism for the qal imperfect often used in OT to signify the foreverness of God) to perfect (something which began and completed, so a done deal) to aorist (point of time divorced from time, verb's action stressed apart from its time component; when used of God as here, signifies a verbal fact or result which stands for ALL time). English grammar rules generally forbid switching tenses in the same sentence, so English translators WIPE OUT the switching;  so you absolutely cannot learn what John means to say from a translation.  Notice how all the English translations, unify the tenses.  Worse, there's a sizeable difference between the imperfect and perfect and aorist tenses in the original languages, but since there's no aorist tense in English, how to convey the change in good English idiom?  I'm not happy with the English translation above, either, though it's better than any of my English translations in BibleWorks5.  I tried to put in English adverbs to show John's switching of tenses, yet keep to the English rule about unicity of tense in the same sentence.  That's the best I can do at the moment.  Will keep trying to improve that.  Where I can't yet improve it, I'll note the tense change in small font, so you can track the change.  See:  there's no substitute for reading GOD's Word in GOD's chosen languages.  See how much time and translation confusion you'd save, if you learned what HE wrote?  See why we need pastors?  It takes TIME to analyze Bible.  It's a 24/7 occupation!

NOTE CAREFULLY HOW JOHN REPEATS.  In Greek rhetoric as well as in math, you advance a concept by THREADING (repeating) part of what you said and then BUILD on it.  So John follows this style to teach the new material;  you look for the CHANGE in the repeated phrase, and compare it to the prior (and subsequent) repeats to get the organized-truth 'doctrine' John develops.  Again, this proves Divine Authorship, for in Greek rhetoric the perfection of going from point A to point B was prized.  A faulty procession meant a faulty argument.  Holy Spirit has no faults.  So you can prove HE wrote it, by tracking CHANGES in the REPEATS. This threading method of communication is also quintessential Hebrew.  Makes me think the Greeks got it from the Jews. Verbs, nouns, prepositions, tenses, even articles are REPEATED as threads, brought through as with a needle, into each successive clause: knitting together whole doctrines of phenomenal wit. Reminds you of the Temple veil.   Only God is this smart.  So you MUST track repeats or you won't understand the flow of discourse.  Of course, you can't do this in translation.  Now you know why there's so much discord over what Bible means:  we don't track its flow from the original-language texts.  No excuse for that since the late 1800's, sorry.  You really can't prove or know a Bible doctrine until you've tracked the FLOW of what a writer means by what he says.  As always, it's context context context. 

 For John apes Greek rhetorical (i.e., Socratic) exposition, and Greek Drama.  John, like Peter and Paul, love Greek drama, and even more love tweaking Greek concepts to show the REAL God versus all those fake gods in the dramas. So it really behooves the serious student of the Word to get into Greek drama in the Greek.  Barnes and Noble, Amazon all have lots of books you can buy on both Greek plays and Drama Greek.  There are many websites on Greek plays and Drama Greek.  You can download Greek plays in translation and original text from university sites like Rutgers or Tufts, etc.  I'll then test this translation for wording in Greek plays. Greek drama rhetoric employs a number of rhetorical devices and tones: from pondering (sense of heaviness and time passing, see Phili3:14), to finessed (finessed wit which slowly dawns on you, 1Tim6:5-6, Heb5:8-9),  to banging (woe woe woe passages). Bible writers make liberal use of Greek rhetorical style;  it matters a LOT in translation and interpretation, to detect them.  Silly people think that because Greek culture was pagan, God would never use pagan cultural concepts.  What rot.  ONE CAN'T UNDERSTAND BIBLE APART FROM THE CULTURAL LOADING OF ITS WORDS.  For example, if "twitched her nose" was in a Bible verse and referenced the 1960's sitcom "Bewitched", the verse would have a very different meaning from a "twitched her nose" of mere itching or emotional reaction.  So proper identification of cultural loading and rhetorical style, is vital to translation and interpretation, i.e., the repeated use of three-groupings (dramatic anaphoric style;  also used in English).

Understand that to the immediate audience, this threaded form of wordplay discourse was second nature, because Greek literature and drama specialized in the deft use of language;  big money was awarded for the best-written play. So even the common people used such wit all the time in daily speech, just as you and I might ape a style or quote a popular TV show or movie, or ape the lines of the actors in them.  Makes you feel famous if you say, do or wear something a famous person said or wore.

So you can see how Greek literature and drama used words, and then notice the same rhetorical styles in Bible.  Thus you derive a ton of PROVABLE doctrine, and often it's witty (viz here, now the Real God is coming down from the sky, not some actor playing a demon, and it's at the beginning of the play, not the end)!  The better Greek lexicons (Kittle, Thayer's, Bauer Danker, etc.) list where in Greek literature the same Greek word is used, so you can compare usage.  For a word in any language, has its meaning defined by usage.  God exploits every jot and tittle of every usage of every word in the Word.  It's a hallmark characteristic of Divinity, expressing Omniscience, Omnipotence and Infinity.  Only God could be so smart.  Thus again, you know God and not some human or demon, wrote His Book.  And what a Joy He is!

By modern Western standards Greek plays are melodramatic, overdone.  John's style is more hushed, yet very blatant and dramatic, so he does linger (i.e., using periphrasis) to show you this is an epic drama you're in, a PROCESS of growing in Him.  There's nothing shy about John, though English translations mask his boldness, even as they mask much of the Lord's Own in-your-face style of speaking.  But like all Divinely-Inspired writers, John specializes in the finessed point, leaving UNsaid (in ellipsis) the most dramatic and important meanings.  Because, just like a joke or pithy aphorism, you enjoy and remember those meanings best, if you have to think them over to 'get the point' of the joke or aphorism.  Here, John's letter is about first-things-first.  Foundational stuff in Bible is always finessed, omnipresent, and its explicit or banging expressions are usually axiomatic (phrases in passing you're expected to know already).  Thus again you know it's from God, since this same finessing style runs consistently from Genesis through Revelation.

So here in 1Jn1:1, John apes the Greek drama prologue, which is designed to clue the audience into the plot.  It matters, for the play itself is always a kind of mid-stream depiction, since the actors are in the middle of their lives. Therefore Greek drama always begins with someone (or a chorus) who "reports" the background and purpose of the play.  The reporter is supposed to be one of the gods, or authorized of the gods to speak for them, and in Greek Drama, the reporter is NOT in the play. That's how John tweaks the Greek style, instead stressing Isa53:1, numbering himself AMONG the Canon writers.  Moreover, in the later Revelation John will tie back to 1Jn calling this period a play the Lord commissions him to write (Rev1:19, bald reference to the have-seen openings for the play of the Incarnation, past;  then "the things which are" -- upcoming in the letter, NOW, Church;  then the rest of history). Notice In Revelation, John is the reporter, still, even as in John's Gospel and here in 1Jn1, a fact John will stress.  Hence in Revelation 1-3, you see John tie back to his own openings in 1Jn and his Gospel;  but in Revelation, the drama is more stylized, so John plays the role of narrator as well as the role of  "all believers".  See, originally Greek Drama entailed only ONE actor who played all the characters in the play.  So from that origin grew the role of someone REPRESENTING a group.  John represents believers, in Revelation.  So when he goes up to heaven leaving earth in Rev4:1, that's the Rapture being depicted.

The god in the play selects only certain individuals to whom he talks; they are to send the message to others.  So The God, the Lord Jesus Christ, only talks to John:  you never see Him talk to anyone else throughout Revelation;  NO ONE talks to the people on earth in Revelation except the Two Witnesses in Rev11 and the angels flying mid-heaven in Rev14.  So Church is NOT there.  In short, Revelation like 1Jn and the Gospel of John, are first targeted to CHURCH, precisely because Church will not be there then.  By 4:1, we are OFF the earth and IN heaven (represented by John).  That fact ties back to 1Jn3:2b's "if he should appear". 

So he also begins Revelation with a more stylized, formal Greek Drama prologue.  Revelation is a quadrilogy in classic Greek drama format using "meta tauta" to tell you when each of the four plays begins and ends, flashing forward and backward so you can track the chronology.  In competitions, Greek plays were almost always quadrilogies, a mega-play in four parts, akin to our "mini-series".  So in Revelation, Play #1=Now=Church (forecast of trends in local churches illustrated by seven real churches in Asia), Rev1:1-4:1, with 4:1 being 1Thess4:16-17, the exzanastasis (popularly called "the Rapture" in today's lingo from the Vulgate in 1Thess4:17).  After Rev4:1, there are no more references to Church except for the rhetorical interjection (in Shakespearean and modern drama, a version of interjection is called "an aside").  Rhetorical interjections are always to the audience, never to the characters in the play, viz., all those I-come-like-a-thief-interjections, which in the ancient world meant suddenness, not stealth.  Next, Play #2=Trib, 4:1-19:1, but the tableau scenes in Rev6, 11-13, 17 are parenthetical, hence dual, playing also in Church; Play #3=Mill and ending judgement, 19:1-21:1; Play #4=Eternal State, 21:1-22:5.  Rev22:6ff is the Epilogue, the message/moral you are to take home from the play.  RevPlay.htm shows how meta tauta is used to divide the "times" for you.

By contrast, John's Gospel and 1Jn, John reports to others who are also on stage.  John is part of them, they are part of him;  the writing is intimate, direct.  All are part of Christ.  By the time you get to 1Jn1:4, you'll be blown away by the difference in audience intimacy, between 1Jn and Revelation. For Like Malachi, Revelation is a terse, official, 'distant' book; truncated, impersonal, announcing that God must quit sending any more prophets, time's up -- for no one will listen, anymore.  So He leaves behind a Last Deposit on His Will and Testament, Revelation.  That's why Revelation is so formal and stylized, John merely writing what he's told, reporting what happens;  no direct discourse from John himself, to the audience. Completely the opposite from 1Jn.   So 1Jn is a last call, a how-we-live-now-or-else.  For after that, our play.. ends!

1:2  "And THE Life was publically disclosed, made manifest (dramatic aorist, Greek verb phaneroo, to PUBLICALLY disclose or display, evidentiary, root idea of bringing to light  -- 1Jn4:9 will tie back to it); in fact we have seen (dramatic perfect) and [now, presently (dramatic present)] testify;  in fact From The Source we report  (dramatic present, ties to Isa53:2; really interesting play on anangellw-- the latter is a retelling, but apangellw here in 1:2, is FROM THE SOURCE telling.  1Jn4:14 will tie back to the see and testify verbs) to you THE Life Eternal, (Hebraism -- Jewish The Eternal One, clever double-article official usage, same as LXX does with some official dates, conveying a legal absolute, not relative.  Also Hebraism of having the second clause rephrase and advance content in the first clause, here 1:2 on 1:1) Who (Attic Greek hostis, feminine because zoe is feminine, very dramatic) was always (imperfect plus pros, dramatic etymological usage) Face-to-Face with THE Father and was (dramatic aorist) publically disclosed, made manifest to us."

1 John 1:2  BGT  καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν-

Again, John plays on his Gospel opening.  Hebrew panim -- face-to-face with -- is often used in the OT to describe the Relationship of God to God, and theophanies;  pros has something of that origin as well, so John's incorporating by reference all the panim verses on God from the OT when he uses pros -- especially, Isa53:2b, which is an Angelic Trial statement on the reason for the Incarnation (LXX's enantion, before a judge/court).  The many kai's operate like bullet points, clause separators.  Not sure but what the kai's should be translated AS bullet points, but in English that detracts from the dramatic sense of the Greek.  So I opted for "in fact" instead, which is a way translators show the emphatic use of kai.  Again, John is stressing the Divine Origin of what he writes.  Bald as can be.  By using apw in verse 1, then CHANGING Isa53:2's anangellw to aPangellw, it's like waiving a big red flag, THIS IS FROM GOD, JUST LIKE PRIOR CANON.  See, bleeping human councils didn't determine what books are Canon, GOD FLAT TELLS YOU.  No fudging.  No hedging.  Not subtle, either.  But did anyone bother to translate all this blatancy in published Bibles, even though you're taught in seminary that apw means "from" in the sense of " the source of"?  NOOOO.  Inexcusable.

1:3  "He Who we have seen and have heard (dramatic perfect), we [now (dramatic present)] From-the-Source report even also to you, in order that even you also may have (subjunctive-of-purpose, then anarthrous, hence Divine) Divine Communion, Fellowship in association with us.  In fact now Communion, Fellowship, Ours Jointly (collective, all believers including the audience for the epistle, drama Greek word hemetera, with koinwnia now monadically using the article), in association with THE Father and even also with THE Son of His, Christ Jesus!"

1 John 1:3  BGT  ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν. καὶ ἡ κοινωνία δὲ ἡ ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

John repeats the dramatic apangellw again, from-the-source report verb.  Very strong claim, building to the climax of the next verse.  Hence the ellipsis (no verb between "Fellowship" and "with"), hence the exclamation in English translation.  John's using kai in BOTH the emphatic and ascensive ways -- latter means an equating, togetherness; so "even also" would be a better translation in English, showing John's stress.  In the Greek text, "de" transitional particle (rendered "now", both as to time and explanatory) comes right after "Fellowship".  It's a Greek grammar rule that "de" not be the first word in a sentence, but John's playing on its transitional meaning also, now that Christ is come in the flesh, tying to Heb10:5 and especially 10:15, Holy Spirit's interrupting,  Effective Present Tense Testimony about what's NOW true.  "Ours Jointly" (hemetera) is deliberately placed right NEXT to Father and Son.  So in this English translation I decided to ape that positioning.  It's very climactic, both the proximity and omission of eimi between hemetera and meta; so is dramatically shouting. In both Hebrew and Greek, when an expected verb is omitted -- especially, the verb "eimi", to be -- the omission often signifies an always-ness, as well as Utter Unity. 

 Next::  "Son of His" rather than the normal "His Son", because John uses both articles separately and monadically.  So it's not possible that Son and Father are the same person, see Granville Sharp rule.  Moreover, to literally translate the Greek is similar to drama in English, where one reverses normal syntax or opts for a longer construction.  So too, in Greek, though here "son of his" is normal Greek legal phrase.  But the monadic use of the article for EACH Father and Son is the drama. John deliberately begins and ends the sentence with Christ -- He Who.. Jesus.  By repeating "we have seen" John ties back to 1:1, which was about His Godness.  So again, you have proof that the neuter use of the Dramatic Accusative, stresses HE is GOD, not merely human.  People forget the Hebraism that one chooses to be the "son" of someone due to Love. So pity those endless and silly theological debates over whether Son is somehow not God, became God afterwards, or less than God, lol.  Bible's use of the grammar rules never leaves any room for doubt.  This is not an interpretation, but rules-of-language for THAT language.

John reserves the Lord's Human Name for last.  In Greek you normally put the most important stuff at the end of the sentence.  Here John was building up for a climax.  Notice how in each of these verses there is a pairing or tripling of verb clauses, of the "Source" clauses, etc.  But This Name is referenced by other words.. until the end of verse 3.  Matthew does something of the same reserving in Matt 2, leaving "Nazereth" until the end.  Why?  Because it means "Dedicated Town", basically.  Feast of Dedication, the Lord being born on Chanukah.  Luke plays on Matthew's reserving by mentioning Nazareth three times, showing how they were followed by the magi on their way back to Nazareth, not Bethelehem.  So it's a rhetorical style to reserve important clauses for the right dramatic moment.

In English, "in association with" (Greek "meta") is legal, boring.  Here it must be used, for in 1Jn4:17 -- which is presaged -- John makes the climactic statement that God's Love Plan is brought to completion IN ASSOCIATION WITH us. Legal promise, based on the John 17 prayer.  In short, if enough of us 'do' this letter, God's Rebuttal (my pastor's term) in the Angelic Trial ends, and the Rapture occurs.  That's a LEGAL issue.

Fellowship, Greek word koinonia, is a major NT and OT (LXX) keyword.  The Levitical sacrifices all denoted fellowship due to Christ paying for our sins.  Hence a good lexicon (Thayer's or better) follows the hermeneutical principle of listing Bible verses where a keyword (like this one, koinonia) occurs pan-Bible.  Thus you learn what Bible MEANS by what it says, in OT or NT:  trace the keywords pan-Bible.  Holy Spirit's deployment of a Canon writer is always characterized by the use of keywords in PRIOR Scripture (prior to the time of his own book), to tie back to such Scripture.  Thus you can prove Divine Authorship, for the interpretation and tie in to ALL that prior Scripture must be PERFECT, to qualify as Divine Writ.  So here, since John is the last writer of the NT (advertised blatantly in 1:4), John is tying together pan-Bible, all the fellowship verses.  Thus you know what he means.  Again, in modern legal parlance, this practice is called "incorporation by reference".  It's very precise in meaning.  Legal documents always are.  Bible is a collection of legal documents, first and foremost:  Divine Official Communication.

Theme of 1Jn is thus HOW you get in and stay in Fellowship through completion (Greek verbs teleiow and plerow, used heavily in 1Jn and all the NT).  So the reader is supposed to look up all the fellowship verses, and tie them into what John is saying here. In 1Jn2:1, John blatantly says via the subjunctive that if you master the letter, you will learn to stop sinning (not immediately, of course).  The thinking process to develop is painstakingly laid out in the letter, sorta like tic-tac-toe.  So you go through the letter slowly, analysing it carefully, looking up all the verses with the keywords John uses, so to know what he means in any given verse.  Same is true for any Bible book.  It's not a slipshod thing.

So too, as John methodically develops the doctrinal reasoning process in this letter, he 'ropes' his prior uses of koinonia and parallels them with other concepts.  Coming up, he will parallel koinonia with light (v.6a), truth (v.6b), salvation work on the Cross (v.7b).  The sentences are balanced.  The beginning is compared to the end, and then the ending is 'roped' into the next if-then clause;  he piles up parallelisms so deftly, that you have to think like a thesaurus, to see the roping.  Thus the parallels made, are clear.  You can even see the parallelisms in the English, but they are much balder in the Greek, owing to the fact that the Greek words are keywords in Bible (LXX and NT).  English isn't always consistent in translation, so tracing the keywords becomes problemmatic.  So if you are reading in English, just read for sense:  notice the balancing and equating, breathe 1Jn1:9 as needed and ask God to make it clearer to you.  He will.

When John ropes a keyword to another keyword (fellowship to light, for example), he later uses the second keyword and ropes it to another one (light to truth).  Thus you see the plodding pattern of equating:  fellowship=light=truth=Word in You, and since fellowship is based on salvation -- Christ's purifying us on the Cross, so also it's based on naming sins to God (same purifying keyword katharizw, used in v.7 for the Cross, as in v.9 for naming sins).  So that's why darkness in verse 6a, is parallelled with self-deception in v.8, with having no truth (also in v.8).  Notice the stress is on whether the Word is in you or not.  If you don't know Bible, you're not in the Truth.  That theme will keep on being repeated ever more stridently, throughout the letter, using this pattern of chained parallelisms.

John uses words the way a Roman soldier was trained to use the 18-inch Roman "machaira" ("knife").  The soldier was repeatedly trained to quickly step INTO the onrushing barbarian, quickly and SHALLOWLY penetrate a key spot, then just as quickly, jump out of his way.  In, djut! and out!  Surgical precision and timing, VERY fast.. before the long broadsword of the barbarian, came down on the soldier.  Tactical strike.  That's how John writes, so you must read every seemingly-simple word.. with extra care.

In the next extremely-climactic verse, John announces that what he writes will complete the Fellowship.  Idea is, if you master the letter's meaning and keep living it, your spiritual growth in Christ will complete to the Eph4:13 pleroma level (John uses the verb form of pleroma, quoting Christ's promise of all this back in John 16:24, in 1Jn1:4).  Verses 5-10, therefore, cover the framework of how that growth occurs, how you reason it out as a practical matter:  God is light (v.5, refers back to Isa53:11's contract), so you only have Fellowship if you are also in the Light because Christ purified you (v.7);  which fellowship purification is renewed upon naming sins (v.9, same purification keyword in Isa53:10 used in 1Jn1:7 and :9).  In the OT, that katharizw=purification keyword is used of the Temple when it had been defiled and thus needed to be purified again.  Thus John deftly ties in all the you-are-the-Temple themes of Paul, the Lord in the Gospels, Peter, and book of Hebrews, when he uses this purification verb, katharizw.  Only God is this smart:  so much said in so few words!  You need a computer to search all the verses, but John knows them all when he writes?  Yeah, because God doesn't even need a search engine to know the ties.

 As you live on Bible and grow spiritually, living in God's System, you'll find your recall of verses is so genius and apt in the pairing incorporation by reference, you'll come to realize ONLY the Holy Spirit gave it to you: John 14:26 in operation.  Pretty shocking thing to discover, actually.  Then you will better understand how it worked for the writers of the Bible, how the Holy Spirit gave them perfect Canon to write.  Your own experience will shed light on how the same process, worked in their heads.  Because, something of the same process, is ORDAINED to occur in all of us, meaning of Eph4:11-16.

1:4 "Even also These Words we are writing to you, with the result that THE [Communion] joy of Ours is Jointly being pleromized, filled up, completed!"

1 John 1:4  BGT  καὶ ταῦτα γράφομεν ἡμεῖς, ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡμῶν ᾖ πεπληρωμένη.

This is the theme of the letter. Wow, John keeps up the neuter heroic accusative to show WORDS he's writing are coming from THE WORD, by using "tauta" first in verse 4!   So I gotta translate "tauta" as "These Words" or the English reader won't see the tie.  Greek grammar demands that any use of a demonstrative tie in gender and number to some substantive which was previously mentioned in the text.  Here, hos, first word in 1:1, is in the neuter.  But the neuter gets repeated and elaborated on in meaning by other words like Word, Life, in verses 1:1-3.  So ALL of them are a kind of plural.  So the neuter PLURAL heroic accusative here in 1:4's beginning, is about as blatant a statement of Divine Origin of the epistle, as can be made. Sound-wise, it's also a clever play on the "He" usage (not mentioning God by Name because He's Sacred).  Clever way of saying God is Subject though Object though God, so technically speaking is without gender.  Isaiah and David use sound-plays all the time, so the Greek reader would get the cleverness of John's choosing a neuter of hos as a sound-play reference to "ho" used so often in LXX to mean Father, Son, Spirit (identicality-of-Essence also is referenced by not using Their Names).

1:4 is an affirmation of Divine Origin and purpose of the epistle.  So  John's either being completely arrogant, or God gave him these words to write for the purpose and result stated.  Anyone claiming to be writing for God must be upfront about it, which of course gets the true claimant in lots of trouble with his hearers, since that person got it from God, and the others did not.  As if the claimant were any better, which of course is not true.  Conversely, the penalty for NOT giving the message God gives you, or for lying and pretending to speak for God, is death (see how God handles Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1, how He handles Ezekiel in Ezekiel 1, versus how He handles Hananiah in Jeremiah 27:14ff).  Damned if you do speak and are not supposed to, damned if you don't admit and speak when you ARE supposed to.  Now you know why I keep BEGGING people to use 1Jn1:9 if they read 'my' material.  I can't write Canon, it's already completed.  So some of  'my' writing will be properly from God on what Bible means.. and some will not be.  With 1Jn1:9 you get GOD's Testimony, because you get GOD's brains.  So you know for sure, you're not hallucinating.  God will never communicate anything but punishment lessons, if 1Jn1:9 is not used.  OT version of that is in many places, with Ps32:5 and 66:18 being blatant in translation.  So that's ALWAYS been the rule.

So here in 1Jn 1:4, we see the Epic tale of the Real God birthing us, siring us in His Word, thus completing His Angelic Trial Demonstration of Love which began at the beginning, creation of Adam and the woman. 1Jn4:12-17 is on that completion, tying back to 1:4.  Here in 1:4 and  in 1Jn4, John uses Greek periphrasis (eimi+participle), which is a longer way to say a thing, so you get the sense of PROCESS, how 1:4 gets accomplished.  John's letter specializes in firsts, idiom of birthing ("male" in Hebrew (mem lamed aleph)  is used the same way);  John plays on Paul's use of Euripedes' play Ion as the framework for Ephesians.  It's about how God sires you in His Son.  Is our God great, or what!

Greek hina in both 1:4 and 4:12-19, as elsewhere in Bible, signifies a blending of purpose-and-result clause conjunction and grammatically requires the subjunctive. There's NO doubt of the outcome here in 1:4's use of hina and plerow in the SAME PERIPHRASIS as the Lord used in John 16:24 -- what God does TO you --  a done deal!  So John is blatantly saying that THESE WORDS he is given to write, will accomplish the result the Lord talks about in John 16:24.  Can't miss that.  And get this: Greek "pepleromene" is also a play on Greek verb MENW, which John repeats a bizillion times in his letter and Gospel  -- for that verb is the underpinning of John 14-17, again what the LORD said.  The exact same word is used by the Lord in John 16:24, so John is reminding the reader what the Lord said, and tying the menw concepts in the Gospel to it -- a plero-menw, a filling-up-on-Word-and-abiding-in-Him, playing on the Greek grammar form of the plerow participle, to remind them of menw as well.  Clever:  Surely only God is this smart.  We wanted the Word in writing, plein..  so now John is writing to fulfill that!  So John knows he's the last writer of Canon, not merely that he's writing Canon.  And you can't convey any of this significance in English translation -- how?  I'd have to add "just as the Lord said it would, in John 14-17, and especially 16:24", but our referencing system of verses and chapters and book names, did not exist at the time John wrote!  So true as a translation, but unethical to translate a reference system which didn't exist when John wrote!

In Drama Greek,  periphrastic construction -- eimi + participle, often in different tenses -- stresses PROCESS.   The eimi tells you something about the length of the process and its progress;  the participle tells you the goal, or stresses the kind of action in progress.    1John  is all about what IS HAPPENING, an ongoingness;  completion of Canon will result in the eventual Completion of Church, and this letter shows how you live your own spiritual life in light of that completion process.  That ties back to 1Cor13, and Heb8:8-10:17, Eph Chaps 1-4.   English should thus render much of 1Jn  with the progressive tense, so "being sired of God" would be better in many of his verses than "born of God", stressing what the Holy Spirit IS doing.  For the Hebraistic concept of a Teacher SIRING you, is in view.  So here in 1:4,  "is being" is progressive, reflecting the periphrasis -- even though eimi is in the subjunctive.  Because, again -- hina takes the subjunctive, to denote the result and the purpose are realized.  There's no doubt here, of the outcome. The only contingency is whether the believer will SUBMIT to that Siring.   What 1:3 shows as the purpose ("in order that", first hina clause), 1:4 shows as the result/answer to that purpose (hence "with the result that" should be the translation of the second hina clause, even though smoother English would require a verb clause to convey the same meaning, "which will result in"). 

When translating Bible, the translator is always faced with the dilemma of rendering the text so you can match up the keywords without always needing to refer to the original text, or translating it into good target idiom, so you know what it means.  Frankly, much of the translation philosophy behind the KJV and NAS is to enable easier tracking of original-language keywords, which is why sometimes the translations are hard to understand.  Teachers knew Greek back in King James' day, and it was much harder to compare original versus translation in those times of heavy codices, candle wax and globbing quills.  That's why the KJV became a standard for teachers, because it was easier to track.  The NAS is an improvement on the KJV, but it suffers from a number of mistakes too.  No one can get it right.  God is too genius.  But of course one must keep trying.  So you'll find all Bible translations divide over their translation philosophy.  That's why certain translations cannot be used for tracking (like New Living Translation, Bible in Basic English, etc).  Sometimes these communicate-the-idiom translations render the meaning FAR better than the traditional translations.  But sometimes, ugh -- their rendering is sheer drivel.  NIV seems to aim for a middle ground, trying to track keywords yet translate the idiom.  Again, it's impossible to get right.  So of course I'm not getting it wholly right, either.  Ergo the need for these small-font notes!

Here in 1:4, stress is on the running OT prophecy of Word-never-returns-void, concept in Isa55:11-12 (v.12 uses "joy") and elsewhere (promise began in Gen3:15, actually). So John is showing the fulfillment of the promise of Word-in-you in Isa55, which OT book ties forward in time also to Jer3:16, 31:31-34, you-won't-miss-the-Ark-because-the-Ark-will-be-IN-you, and-be-WRITTEN-in-you. Very witty.   Graphic way also to tell you YOU'RE onstage in the Angelic Trial: 1Jn4:12-17's meaning, ties back to 1Jn1:4 when you get there, closing the point of the letter.

1Jn4:12-17 will show how this pleromization gets done, especially in 4:17, using teleiow in the same tandem style as Paul and writer of Hebrews. Teleiow stresses the legal perfection of contract, whereas plerow stresses the fulfilling of contract. So plerow stresses the process, but teleiow stresses the progress. Unfortunately English Bibles often render both verbs with the same English words, so you can't track the flow of the writer's meaning.  Hence I transliterate plerow here, then appositively give its two most common English-Bible translations;  for plerow is one of the most important keywords in Bible.  Best to just transliterate where it shows up in the text.  Means to fill up and fulfill, but etymologically it means one who is pregnant with god-seed, a big theme in Greek drama.  Fullness as in pregnancy, about to give birth -- completion being what occurs when the birth occurs. To stress this fact, John uses soundplay again:  for the periphrasis of eimi plus plerow, sounds exactly the same as if the participle were dramatically converted into a noun, requiring the fronting article to denote that.  So John stresses both process and the drama of it, by that sound play.  Tell me, is this Divine Writ or what!  Kill me NOW!

John's thus using joy here to stress the birthing/siring etymology.  He'll end up stressing birthing/siring a lot in this letter, as it's the means to accomplish the purpose stated here in 1Jn1:4;  which letter, is thus constantly about firsts, foundations, from which all else springs.  John is also tying to Paul's pregnancy analogies in every letter, but especially in Romans 8:11ff. Romans 8:1-10 is on the contrast between what gets filled up and birthed if you live in the flesh versus the Spirit.  James had previously covered that in-labor analogy in James 1:1-2:26, since Isa53:10-12 is the contract to birth our salvation from Him Who Had No Descendants (Isa53:8, only NIV translates "dor" correctly as "descendants").  Isa54:1 is thus the dramatic outcome, birthing from sterility (sin).  So John is tying back to all that, also.  Again, if someone claims to be writing Canon, he has to demonstrate it comes from God by tying back to all previous Canon extant at the time.  Hence John's deft economy and genius of wording -- glossed over in the English, since the keywords don't port over in translation -- must be that good.  Not just any book can justifiably claim to be Divine Word.

Pleroma (noun) and plerow (verb) are thus very useful terms, to show how the Seed of the Word fills you up and completes you according to the Isa53:10-12 contract (use both BHS and LXX texts), viz. referred to by the Lord in Luke 8;  for the Vine and the Branches,  John 15.  So John is directly tying to all of Paul's heavy use of plerow, especially in Ephesians 1:21-23, 3:15-19, 4:13-16;  as well as to Book of Hebrews (which uses plerow as a tracking device in tandem with teleiow);  and of course, to his own Gospel, esp. Chaps 14-17.  In 1Jn4 he'll ape Paul and Hebrews' use of plerow and teleiow, thus showing how they interrelate. In English, usually plerow is translated "fill up", and the noun, "fullness" -- KJV always uses "fulness" for pleroma.  Verb teleiow is often translated "perfect", and its nouns teleios or telos are usually translated "end".  Translations aren't consistent, so not ALL occurrences of the same words are translated the same way;  which is valid to translate differently, since both words vary in nuance given sentence context.  But they are ALWAYS tracking devices to see Bible Doctrine, as are all keywords in Bible.  That's how you learn Bible's meaning, by tracking its words pan-Bible.  So you really can't track these keywords in translation, sorry.

"THE [Communion]  joy of Ours..Jointly" is a literal trans from the Greek for the same reason as "THE Son of His" was rendered thus. I had to put in "[Communion]" because it's the antecedent parallel in 1:3.   I also had to put in the word "Jointly" because hemetera in 1:3 is the JOINED "Our" John means, and in English we'd need the word "Jointly" to distinguish it. Again, the "our" is not an editorial we, so when John says "our" he's not talking of just himself;  when he uses hemetera, he's talking of ALL believers in Church, not just himself or his group.  Moreover, he uses  "Joy" to incorporate by reference (tie back to) ALL "joy" verses in the OT and NT, but especially back to Heb12:2, which in turn also refers back to the Isa53:10-11 birthing-contract clauses, the Joy of Savior Seeing Offspring Forever. "Joy" also refers back to Peter's use of chara (joy) and menw in his letters (Peter is doctrinally addicted to hupo-prefixes, so uses hupomenw, hupotassw, huparchein, etc).  So the  "Our Joint" in 1Jn1:3 is referred back to, showing how it gets done (summary statement in 1:4, rest of letter will elaborate).  Our=Collective us in Him, Church. Again, the combo emphatic/ascensive use of kai between verses 3 and 4 is rendered by the "even.. also" English.

1:5 "In fact this is the selfsame message which we have heard From The Source of (Greek prep apw again) Him and repeat-the-report to you [just as in all prior Canon], that God is Light;  in fact, in Him there is no darkness at all."

1 John 1:5  BGT  Καὶ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία.

John now uses the Hebraistic rhetorical style of repeating what was said in the previous clause, stressing yet again, the apw preposition to show STRONG assertion of his letter's Divine Origin.  He's calling in all prior Scripture witness and lumping what he writes in with them, by using "we".  Again, this is blatant claim.  So either John is from the devil, or from God, and you can't dance around the question of whether this Book is Canon. Next John SWITCHES from aPangellw to aNangellw (marked in the Greek for easier viewing), same verb in Isa53:2, so I'm changing "report" to "repeat-the-report", to reflect the meaning of Greek ana, versus apw prefix.  In 1:2 and 1:3  he'd upgraded to apw from the Isa53:2 usage of anangellw, to show Source Added and Source Gave him;  now he's asserting CONTINUITY of the previous Divine message, by reverting back to the Isa53:2's anangellw.  So how do you translate that fact?  You HAVE to translate it to provide the same meaning, for all of 1Jn2 is on this Divine continuity-yet-Divinely-new theme.   In English, John's witty I'm-writing-you-a-new-commandment-yet-an-old-one in 1Jn2, seems to come from nowhere.  But 1Jn2 is an elaboration on this 1Jn1:4-5.  So here in 1:5, I must append "[just as in all prior Canon]", to communicate the deft Greek switch from apangellw to anangellw, which is a tie-back to Isa53:2, or the translation will be in error.  To the Greek reader, this simple switch of prefix stands out in both 1:2, 1:3 and 1:5.  It's a finessed rhetorical style common in Bible, change only the smallest thing, grammatically or syntactically.  Just as John did with the neuter of hos, he now does by changing only ONE LETTER in a verb.  Greeks appreciated that kind of linguistic genius.  And God is Genius, baby.

Thus John asserts Divine consistency of what he's writing now, from Genesis (let there be light) through James 1:17 (which might have been the earliest Canonical NT book, else tied with Matthew and Corinthians or Galatians) through 1Pet2:9, which of course thus includes what Paul, Mark, Jude and the unnamed writer of Hebrews wrote.  Firsts is John's theme.  So he opens his letter with a tie-back to Gen1:1, and here in 1:5 ties back to Gen1:2ff, which is how God restores us, even as He restored the trashed-up earth.  That's a pretty dramatic claim, the assertion that what he writes is from God and ties perfectly from Genesis forward.  Nothing shy about 1Jn's text.  Pity the English sugar-coats and fuzzes it up.

Greek "autos" is an intensive pronoun, much like "moi" in French. It replaced the Attic spheis, so became the common pronoun in koine.  But it still is used dramatically.  For it originally had something of the force of English "selfsame". Here John is using it to stress continuity, so "it..selfsame" is the English rendering, with Greek verb eimi preceding in the Greek.   At the end of the verse, Greek word "oudemia" (feminine of oudeis, feminine because skotia is used) -- accompanies "ouk" so you have to say "no.. at all" in English to convey its force.  So God is Light, therefore these words being from God, are light, for the Word -- all prior Canon -- is light.  So all the Light verses of OT and NT are thus incorporated by reference.  Pity the people who think only Jesus' words or only the Gospels are the Word of God.  See how digging into the Greek so quickly resolves doctrines folks debate?  See why God preserved the original words?

John's also continuing to tie to Isa53, specifically the "dexzai autoi phos" infinitival clause in the LXX of Isa53:11.  Deiknumi is cousin to phanerow and of course to the entire phos panoply of meanings.  Making manifest and making known are both proclamation verbs (phanerow and deiknumi, respectively).  Ties also to Paul's 1Cor12:31 wit of deiknumi.. huperbalw, pointing out the Head (which is higher than the Body, get it?) which is the subject of 1Cor13, the completion of Canon.  John will return to this wordplay stridently in 1John 2.

It will be VERY important to remember how John ties to the LXX of Isa53:11 as you watch him thread the parallelisms of Light, Word, Truth, knowing Him in the remainder of the letter.  Light=Word=Truth=Communion=Knowing Him.  Notice how there are NO WORKS or religion anywhere in those parallels.  Amazing what one learns when one actually looks at what BIBLE says, rather than hearsay or goofed-up translations.

1:6 "If we allege that we have fellowship in association with Him but in darkness we are walking, we lie and are not practicing The Truth."

1 John 1:6  BGT  ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν, ψευδόμεθα καὶ οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν·

In English you must translate this sentence with the progressive tense.  John now switches into what constitutes Fellowship for the rest of the letter.  First things first.  Darkness is not light.  Greek dramatic present tense displays what IS happening whether it's a fact or a scenario. Here, it's a scenario which arises in every Christian's life, of being in a state of unconfessed sin.  The fundamental of being in fellowship is this: if in darkness, then the Truth the Word the Light is NOT functioning in you.  Doesn't mean you're not saved.  In the Greek there's NO doubt what John means, the walking (Hebraism for spiritual lifestyle) of a saved person.  So yes you can be saved and be in the dark.  You know this is the right interpretation because the parallelisms are made between light and darkness, Word and Truth. These parallelisms should be even clear in English translations:  the translations only mess up the tenses.  Watch how John plays a kind of Socratic tic-tac-toe with parallelisms from here on, in his letter.  Occasionally he will spike up the plodding, relentless logic with a dramatic interruption.  By this he demonstrates the union of the plodding quality of the spiritual life's THINKING, with its dramatic Trial Victory effects and Fellowship results.  High-low. 

Greek third-class condition is a one of five if-clause debater's techniques of exposition. Third class condition always takes the subjunctive mood, even though there's no doubt of the fact of a thing.  Debater's exposition is designed to develop a point from premise to conclusion.  The if-part of the sentence is called a "protasis", and the "then" part of the sentence is an "apodosis".  So you construct parallels based on the protasis of the prior sentence, or based on the apodosis of the prior sentence.  Either way, the idea is to demonstrate irrefutable results from prior conditions.  The third-class condition means that a thing will happen, but it won't happen constantly.  So "when" it happens, the apodosis occurs.  It's math:  so the sentences are very repetitive, and you look for the CHANGES compared to the prior sentence(s).

Hence you look for comparison and contrast, parallelisms.  The whole pattern of discourse is based upon them.  So even if you can't tolerate the Greek, look for the parallelisms in the letter within your favorite translation.  By the way, walking in darkness is NOT the same as being unsaved.  You can't even walk, if you are spiritually dead.  So it's clear even in English, that John is not talking about someone unsaved, since verse 5 is about Fellowship among saved persons.  Always read Bible in context.  The context of who is in view, was established in verse 3. 

And parallelling from verse 5, John introduces a strawman believer who is WALKING in the dark.  John also deftly incorporates by reference all the stumbling verses in the OT.  There are hundreds of them, notably Isa28, about how the BELIEVERS among Israel (subdefinition of the 10 tribes, aka Samaria) would be disciplined by God, destroyed by Assyria.  Clear reference here in John to explain why the Temple was destroyed in 70AD, too.  When he gets to 1Jn5, he'll climactically reference back to 1:6-1:10 here, to show how believers are EXECUTED by God, for continuing to walk in the dark, devoid of Word in them, which after all is the central warning of Leviticus 26 and Deut 28 contract provisions, on which the wiping out of Israel, was based.  A famous Jewish OT blessing refers to the Lord's Face "Shining" upon you like Moses (i.e., "face.. shine" verses like Num6:25);   means the Light of the Word is upon you; so Light and dark is a common OT analogy for in-Word or not-in-Word.  See how much material John can incorporate by reference simply by making analogy to Light and darkness?

Similarly, all the "by this" clauses which permeate the letter are conclusion statements teaching the lessons, driving them home. YOU MUST READ SLOWLY and think over what is said. The plodding nature (and Greek cadence) of the wording makes it very easy to gloss over what is said!  For example, John now begins a series of contrasting states-of-being, layering them.  He'll do this throughout the letter, too.  By this, he means to show the zig-zag nature of the spiritual life:  first you're out, then you're in, then out again -- just as Paul was explaining in Romans 5-8.  Romans' style of exposition is also patterned in this format throughout.  Both books are often misdiagnosed as being simple.  Which is why most Christians misdiagnose the true spiritual life, too.  The deft Greek is mistranslated, sure:  but even in English, you can see the back-and-forth nature of the logic.  Depicting, the zig-zag nature of spiritual life.  In, then out.  Then in again.

John also incorporates all of James in this verse, particularly Chapters 1 and 2.  James builds up to his "doer of the Word" climax near the end of his Chapter 1;  from that climax he next bookends at James 2:26 to show how apart from the Spirit, not only are you walking in the darkness NOT receiving the implanted Word so forgetting whatever you had learned, NOT walking in Him Who is Light without even a turning's shadow, NOT having the PISTIS -- Believed Word, clever Greek (and Hebrew)  literature analogy to Pistis and Sophia, two drama personifications of God's Truth Attribute -- but you are not a DOER of the Word.  So now you can better see why James next branches off into the alleger (Chap 2), who claims that he shows his Pistis by the WORKS he did.  Yeah, right -- no Spirit, body dead, James 2:26.  Contrasted with, Abraham who DID believe, was hence in the Light, and like Father would later do, gave up his own son. John deftly summarizes all that, playing off "doer", with the Greek verb poiew (meaning, to do, to practice).. The Truth.  Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  You don't 'practice' HIM if there's no Word in you.  So dark of Word, you lie to yourself and claim fellowship which doesn't exist.

By the time John gets to verse 10, this zig-zag series of logical exposition will have his readers on the edge of their seats, much like Paul did at the end of Romans 7:  who will deliver us from this body of darkness and death?  Then John will ZING them with 1Jn2:1.  Awesome stuff.

1:7 "By contrast, if in The Light we are [really] walking even as He is in the Light (play on Isa53:10-11's phrasing  in the LXX,, since He IS the Light, not merely in it) , we have Fellowship in association with each other;  in fact THE Blood of Jesus HIS Son purifies us away from the source of all sin [just as depicted by those sacrifices in the OT]."

1 John 1:7   BGT  ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν, ψευδόμεθα καὶ οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν·

There's a whole LOT being said here.  I almost don't know where to begin. Word placement is vital in this kind of discourse, so I translate in Greek word order (except "By contrast" had to be placed first in English).  That makes for awkward English, but you HAVE TO SEE the word order to get the points John makes.  This pattern of exposition is just like a math formula:  the placement of the variables affects the formula's results.  For example, it really matters a lot, that John puts "walking" RIGHT NEXT to "even as".  Very dramatic claim, stressed by the juxtaposition of the words.  We saw that same drama-by-juxtaposition in v.3, where "Jointly" is placed RIGHT NEXT to "in association with FATHER.."  It sticks out.

Gotta pause here and talk about Greek preposition "en", which is rife in this letter.  The preposition is almost always translated "in" by English translators, but it means a WHOLE lot more than that.  Every Bible writer using "en" plays with all its meanings when using the preposition.  "Track the prepositions", my pastor warned us repeatedly.  So notice:  "en" expresses "in" a location, within (Someone), but also MEANS and RELATIONSHIP.  So if someone is in your mind, you are "in" that person, in the sense of sharing his thinking:  fellowship.  So there's a causal connotation:  BECAUSE of Him, you are "in".  So "in Christ" also signifies by means of Christ, by Agency of Christ, in relationship to Christ, because of Christ.  Bear all that wordplay in mind whenever you see "in".  Especially, within 1Jn.  John makes a whole logical matrix between dwelling in, being in, thinking in, living in -- his Gospel and 1Jn have this in-ness as their framework.  Hence because-in, by-means-of-in, etc.

Probably should translate instead "THE Blood of Jesus THE Son of Him [Father]", because John's stressing both His Unique God-Man Nature, and Their Identicality-of-Essence again.  That's extremely awkward English, though.  Normally a Greek article used this way can itself be translated as a possessive, but John also uses autou also (Greek is probably monadic,  tou huiou autou, not merely tou huiou).  The intensiveness of autou is in view.  How to best show that in English, yikes!  Only way I could think of, was to capitalize "His".  Notice how John thus brings forward the thread of verse 3's climactic statement that we are Jointly (hemeteros) in Fellowship.  In Greek you don't repeat for dramatic effect and elegance, or you DO repeat for dramatic effect and elegance.  Here John doesn't repeat the allegation of Fellowship with HIM, but instead goes to the verse 3's consequent fellowship with other believers.  The Message:  if you're not in HIM, you're NOT in fellowship with anyone else, either.  All or nothing.

Continuing the rhetorical exposition pattern of the third-class condition, John next builds on their knowledge of how they got saved, to show how FELLOWSHIP is constructed.  It's not just about being saved, but being in fellowship POST-salvation, and the basis is the same:  the Cross.  Inter alia, this is a very clever Trinity statement.  The most common OT rhetorical mechanism for denoting Trinity is a simple "He", with the rest of a verse's sentence, telling you which "He" is in view.  Sacred Name not stated, so you know it's "God" -- and the Identicality of Divine Essence is deftly communicated as well, by leaving out the Name (i.e., not Ab-Elohim or Ruach-Elohim, etc).  Each One is Wholly, Infinitely, God.  No polytheism, here!  Polytheism depends on an INequality of Divine Essence.  Three Gods NOT unequal, is what Bible always says ("Triplets" as my pastor once quipped to convey total Identicality of Essence).  So OT demonstrates this Identicality deftly and mostly, via the simple "He".  So here, John employs that common OT rhetorical style, referring back to verse 5.  For the antecedent "Him" is both Father and Son.  Son in His Deity of course IS Light, just as Father.  Son in His Humanity BECAME Light, even as He became the Truth and the Life;  so focus here in v.7 is on His Humanity, as illustrated by the clause about His Saving Work on the Cross.  Blood of Christ is His THINKING, as stated 21 times in Isaiah 52:14-54:1.  Specifically, Isaiah 53:11's "dexzei autoi phos" is in view, one of the five infinitives of what would happen as a result of the Incarnation and His THINKING (Greek suneisis, Hebrew da'ath) on the Cross.  That contract is also between Father and Son.

There's also a clever play on the Tetragrammaton.  The "WH" in "YHWH" is a concatenation of Hebrew "hawah", to become.  So to say He is in the Light obviously represents His Humanity, which BECAME.  Wow, what a clever way to repeat He's God, huh.  Only God is this smart.

Next, Greek word "katharizw" has a very particular usage in the LXX.  It means purify, not merely cleanse.  Idea of PERMANENT separation from the past unclean state.  Of course, a new uncleanness can occur, requiring a new purification.  But the old status is permanently GONE once purification occurs.  John's setting up a parallel, here to the purification of the OT Temple, to what will follow in verse 9.  Since we are the Temple, the OT Temple being long GONE (a generation prior) at the time John writes.  So the use of katharizw (from which we get the modern English prefix "cath", idea of purity) is a special term, evocative of the Temple, specifically.  We are His Body, so Temple, as Paul had written back in 1Cor and Ephesians:  so John is incorporating ALL that meaning from OT and Paul, into what he writes here via the deft and simple choice of katharizw, to purify.

This analogy to God filling the Temple when it was in a pure state, is critical to the spiritual life, and John's setting up that climactic statement, here.  Verse 9 will clinch it;  v.9 also uses katharizw, so is the bookend for the point he's making about Light and darkness, from v.6 onward through v.10.  Thus John ties to Eph5:18 and similar verses on how one must be Filled with the Spirit.  Again, if you don't know the specialized meaning of katharizw in Greek, you won't see the pointed referernce to Filling and Temple analogy.  English cannot convey this -- you HAVE to add words. Hence the bracketed "[just as" clause at the end of the verse. 

Remember, under the Law there were TWO types of sacrifices:  individual, and corporate; and much of the corporate sacrifice was what MADE the Temple Holy, viz., the command for lambs to be daily sacrificed both morning and just before sundown (3pm or so, same hour as the Lord died on the Cross on TRUE Passover 30AD).  When the Temple was periodically desecrated throughout its history, it had to get its own purification:  that was "katharizw".  Thus John makes clever reference to the Lord's being born on Chanukah in (4BC), which holiday commemorates the first day the Temple was rededicated, after purification from the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes IV.

Thus John incorporates all of the OT law, plus Hebrews Chaps 8-10 by reference, since that was the point of those Hebrews' chapters, to contrast the Once-and-for-All-Time nature of HIS Sacrifice, versus all those temporary cleansings which were at best mnemonics of The Sacrifice-to-Come. All this incorporation, simply by referencing Blood and purify?  Can there BE another Author of this letter than God Himself?

Notice the suddenly-dramatic claim in the verse:  we CAN be walking JUST AS HE IS.  That's a setup for 1Jn4:17, a parallel statement that we are just as He is, in this world.  Simple Greek "hos" accomplishes all that drama!  John will repeat it often, as it's key to the parallelisms he's constructing.  To demonstrate that drama  I preserved the Greek word order, which is also the same word order in v.6 (exact parallelism by contrast).  The walking is right next to "just as" ("hos") in the Greek.  Pretty dramatic, huh:  in verse 6, "we lie" is RIGHT NEXT to "walking", but in verse 7, "even as" is RIGHT NEXT to "walking".  Can't be a starker contrast than that:  "even as He is", or.. "we lie".

Greek particle "hos" means "like, in the same manner as", and is usually truncated to "as" in translation, leaving a fuzzy impression, watering down the drama into an unpalatable blob you'll gloss over.  In Greek there's a stronger synonym for "hos", "kathos", which is not used here.  John is parallelling, though, and in Greek drama you do use simplicity to stress the absolute truth of a thing.  So in English, "even as" seems a better translation, to bring out the equation John makes.  It's a kind of dramatic finesse:  just a simple "i love you", just a simple absolute fact.

The translation, "away from the source of all sin" is how you must fully translate Greek preposition "apw" in this clause. References back to the strong use of apw in verses 1-4, the Report from the Source of All Things.  He is the Source of all removal of sin nature's power, too.  That's a main theme in the Book of Hebrews, esp. Chapter 10.  So John incorporates that by reference.  Same, for Isa53, especially 53:11's "apw tou ponou" -- out from His Soul's Labor (Hebrew is me amal, means the same thing, pregnancy analogy).  Hence complete and total separation from source is the meaning:  birthing something else, our salvation. 

We know this, because sin in the singular in the NT is used to designate the state of being 'in' sin nature.  That's a genetic problem, and the sins we actually sin are SYMPTOMS illustrating the underlying disease.  We have these urges, but our SOULS give into them, which creates a state of being "in" sin.  As unbelievers, that's how we are all the time, even when not sinning.  Sin nature isn't strictly a sinning thing, but has 'trends', as my pastor likes to explain:  trend to good deeds, to evil, from the source of the Tree of the Knowledge-of-Good-and-Evil (hyphenated translation here is actually the meaning in Hebrew and Greek text --  means it's ALL the same thing, sin=humangood=evil, see also Isa64:6).  As believers, we give into sin, and hence are "in" our sin nature, still.  Verse 9, removes and purifies the "temple", so we are no longer "in" the sin nature, within our souls.  That will be a main theme in 1Jn, even as it was the main theme of John Chaps 14-17.  You are "one" with your sin nature, or "one" with God at any moment in time;  1Jn1:9 takes you literally OUT of sin, and here in v.7 we see why.

Hence the need for a complete spiritual rebirth (John 3 being incorporated by reference).  Ok, but what about post-salvation?  You still have the same sin nature.  So John addresses that point here:  idea, again, of fellowship versus separation from fellowship with God.  Again, John's setting up for verse 9, which explains how to GET OUT of being in a status of sin (separated from fellowship).  Thus John incorporates by reference all of Romans 5-8, especially the end of Chap7.

It should be obvious that if John has to painstakingly explain how you can KNOW if you're in fellowship, then you CANNOT FEEL ANYTHING when you are in Fellowship with God.  So much for all the kant about feeling the Filling of the Spirit:  feeling is NOT a criterion for spirituality, and never was.  What rubbish.

Again, the spiritual life is a knowing, not a feeling;  and that means zig-zag.  It's wearing.  In and out of Fellowship, Light, Truth, Him.  When out, one fancies himself to be still in the Light, and lives a lie.  So next notice how John's focusing in v.6 and v.7, on the believer who's "good" in his own estimation, not on the believer who is busy with gross sin.  John will continue with this strawman who so prides himself on his good deeds, just like James did, just like Paul did beginning in Romans 2.  So of course all that is incorporated by reference here.  The most dangerous Christian is the one who fancies himself in the Light.  And he does so, due to all his many religiosities and good deeds, like the Pharisee did (parable of the Pharisee and the publican in the Gospels, i.e., Luke 18).  So all that OT and Gospel Divine Writ on how religious people are among the worst sinners (i.e., your-sacrifices-are-a-stench-in-My-Nostrils verses), is deftly incorporated here.

Follow this new thread of the sanctimonious believer, throughout 1Jn.  The religious believer is likened in 1Jn (and by Christ in the Gospels) to the devil himself.  It's a main warning, to avoid such persons, to not be them, to detect them.  In 2Jn the reader is warned to not even GREET them, for crying out loud.  How strong a warning can one get?  Parallel passage is in 2Tim2:26-3:7.

Paul warned often about religiosity, and of course Galatians is all a parallelling of how religious people are immoral DUE TO that religiosity.  John follows that same theme.  It's not the gross sinner, that John is stressing -- but rather, it's a GROSS thing, to be religious.  Really pointed, trace the theme yourself.  Writer of Hebrews does the same thing with nothros, from Heb5:11-6:12 ("nothros" means "dull" as in "dull knife", meaning Dull-of-Word, the  Machaira, Heb4:12).  After all, lascivious people don't pretend to themselves that they are holy.  So this isn't a lascivious person, in view.

So many shibboleths in modern and long-apostate-for-centuries fake 'Christianity' are knocked out by this verse 7.  No penance (setup to verse 9).  Obviously no works can make you in the Light, and the parallel is to the TRUTH in v.6, not to works!  Obviously too, no losing salvation, but you CAN lose Fellowship.  Further, the over-vaunted "fellowship with'Christians" requires being in Fellowship with God, not the other way around: you're not in fellowship with God just because you are in fellowship with Christians.  You have to be in the LIGHT, which means being in the TRUTH (v.6 contrast, noun just before "light" in this verse), not being in works or with people.  Think it over.  Note what is and is not said, diagram the parallelisms.  Then you'll wonder how Christianity got it so wrong all these centuries.

It's painful to say someone else is wrong.  One of the greatest of all happinesses in life, is to say someone is SUPERIOR to the self, and RIGHT.  So it's like parricide, to be forced to say someone you consider 'above' you, is wrong.  Stabs the soul.  Especially, to call "wrong", those who literally slave their lives away in religious circles.  Most religious people are extremely hard working, very sincere, and take great pains to be moral.  They work hard in seminaries, universities, churches;  so it seems quite arrogant for some brainout to say, "wrong".  But here's where we all must draw the line:  the WORD should not be misrepresented.  Never mind what initials or credentials or human approval or even achievements one has, if the WORD is misrepresented, that's evil.  Evil comes from good intentions far more often than it comes from bad ones.  Because, the more moral a person is, the more competent, so the evil 'born' from morality is thus more competent.. and devastating.  Nothing can be more evil, than to misrepresent the Word, however well-intentioned. 

And we in Christendom are the worst, misrepresenting Him for centuries.  First the Jerusalem church misrepresented Him, Acts 15;  their falsehoods morphed into Catholicism beginning in the 90's AD, which (beginning about 180AD), came to dominate the northern hemisphere, even until now;  back at the Reformation (and in spurts prior), folks who became known as "the Protestants", picked up the banner; and while in the beginning of their break with the Rev17 'Church', some Light broke out, they quickly devolved into statism and myriads of other misrepresentations;  now, the independents are trying to outdo both the Catholics and the Protestants, with an ever-widening variety of misrepresentations of This Glorious Word.  You just TRY to find a correct Gospel on the web: 95% of what's out there, VIOLATES what the Lord says in John 3:16, thus saving NO one reading those pages.  The misrepresentation goes on and on.  All well-intentioned, of course!

So John will explain how any Christian gets it wrong, in the following verses.  Century after century.

1:8 "If we allege that we have no sin nature, we are leading ourselves astray like wandering sheep; in fact, the truth is not in us."

1 John 1:8  BGT  ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν, ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν.

NT's Greek uses hamartia in the singular to designate the sin nature.  Colorful (and pejorative) Greek verb planaw is used by Paul in Eph4:14 (and by others elsewhere), so has to be fully translated here, "lead.. astray like wandering sheep".  More like the Pied Piper.  The essential meaning of planaw is that you WANDER OFF like a sheep, constantly getting yourself in trouble, utterly without sense, easy prey for anyone, quickly seduced (planaw is often properly translated "to seduce").  You have NO CLUE where you are going, you're completely LOST; anything sounds good, for you wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit you.  In fact, lies are what you crave, so you get swindled by everyone -- especially, yourself.  Really graphic and insulting verb, planaw. As in PT Barnum's, "there's a sucker born every minute." Someone you can fool easily.

Sheep cannot find food or water on their own;  they have an insatiable desire to wander off, especially to places which place them in peril.  So we're not hearing our Shepard's Voice when this verse is 'on' in our lives.  We all have times when we think ourselves fundamentally good.  Guess again.  This verse totally shoots that silly planaw'ing idea.  Original sin happened.  We like it so we give into its urges.  So the sin nature is not merely genetic, after that::  it's a soul craving.  We WANT what is bad for us. Now you know why the world is always so bad.  We WANT it to be bad.  Just like Adam and the woman post-Fall, in Genesis 3.  From the beginning.  Their qvetching nature is our own.  Yeah, in the genes.  But by choice those urges get into the soul, and by continuing choices those urges build in the soul.  Who will deliver us from these bodies of death, Paul moans in Romans 7, having explained the sin nature for three chapters prior.  John is referring the reader back to both Genesis 3 and Paul's Romans 5-7 discourse, simultaneously.

Again, this is a new continuing thread, the parallel to the religious believer who fancies himself in the light, v.6.  The parallel to the religious believer continues through the end of the letter.  Very pointed and insulting language is reserved for the religious believer throughout 1Jn, playing off Phili3:8 and Isa64:6, both very gross passages (likening man's goodness to a swear word for doo-doo, and menstruation, respectively).  You don't say "planaw" of anyone but a fool -- and who likes to be called a liar (v.6)?  No one could ever accuse John of being less than blunt!  So those who claim man's goodness, well.. give them wide berth.  It's like gravity:  the more you hear someone be 'nice' and exclaim about 'nice', the more evil that person is.  Never seen that rule yet fail.  Don't even greet such folks, John will warn in 2Jn.

This bluntness incorporates by reference many scathing Gospel and NT passages, not to mention all the OT references to easy-prey-due-to-wandering-astray from the Word (i.e., Deut 4:19, 11:28, 13:5, 27:18, 30:17, Ps94:10,  LXX). There are 153 verses using the verb planaw  in Bible's Greek (LXX and NT), alone.  That's even before you tie in all the synonyms (gotta think like a thesaurus when reading Bible).  Seems like almost every other verse from Deuteronomy onward is some kind of warning about wandering and leading the self astray.  There is a distinct parallel being drawn here in v.8 between false doctrine you believe, and lying.  In v.6, the problem is lying outwardly, though one can never lie outwardly without lying inwardly.  Here in v.8, the inward-to-self lying is insultingly highlighted.  So v.7's Light, is not 'on'.

Notice how John's advanced the doctrine by repeated, quite-similar concepts with very slight variations.  Easy to gloss over.  Here, planaw gives you OOODLES of doctrine, as it's a big Bible keyword.  So, John set it up beginning in verse 6:  claiming fellowship but walking in darkness is to live a lie you tell others as well;  v.8 advances that idea by showing someone who is SO convinced he is in fellowship, he thinks he has no sin nature anymore.  So notice how that person believes a false doctrine which flatters him.  He literally leads himself astray;  it's not his errant teachers, friends, relatives who are to blame.  Lots of falsehoods out there;  most of Christianity is falsely taught, even.  But only WE are to blame for what we incorrectly believe:  Greek verb planaw puts the responsibility squarely on the wandering believer.  Seems like John especially stresses Psalm 58:3 (57:3 in LXX) and Prov10:17 and 13:9, here.  When 1Jn1:8 is paired with 1Jn1:6, the two form a whole concatenated quote of those probably-popular, Psalm and Proverb verses.  Proverbs 13:9 in particular says, "The light of the righteous rejoices, but the lamp of the wicked.. goes out."  LXX has extra text, elaborating that "crafty souls deceive others into sin, but the righteous have compassion and mercy" (LXX synonym for Hebrew chesed, unconditional love).  So John's beginning his main theme:  Word is Love, so no Word=no Love.

Then there's Proverbs 14:22, which in both LXX and Hebrew show that chesed wa amen -- Love and Believed Truth construct the framework of true good.  Wow, John sure knows what keywords to pick to incorporate a whole SLEW of applicable doctrine into a verse!  All this is learned, simply because he chooses the verb planaw!  So apt!  Via this one word planaw, you have ALL the applicable verses to carry you throughout every point John makes from this verse, forward.  Only God is this smart, sorry. .

But hey:  once born-again, one immediately wanders off into lies.  What else would a baby do, but poop?  Baby poop is the worst kind:  "meconium", they call it in medicine.  Think diarrhea.  Paul makes reference to the same childhood phenomena using that same verb planaw,  in Eph4:14; so John is ALSO tying back to the Henotes System of getting the Truth in you via pastors (get the pun here? Pastors for SHEEP?), which God had Paul summarize, in Eph4:11-16. See Eph41216.htm, or the shorter translations in RightPT.htm.

Above all, John makes reference to Psalm 119:176, which Isa53:6 uses -- we have all gone astray like sheep, but the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all.  Both verses use planaw.  Well, that's quite a dramatic setup for the contrasting solution, 1Jn1:9.  It comes next.  Like v.8, the same third-class debater's technique, continues.  Free will, baby.  We choose or do not..

1:9 "If we name, admit, cite, acknowledge-as-a-courtroom-case our sins to God, He is Faithful and Righteous to PERMANENTLY CANCEL-the-debt-of-those-sins (literally, HE CANCELLED, aorist tense) , and to PERMANENTLY PURIFY  (lit., HE PURIFIED, aorist tense) us from all wrongdoing."

1 John 1:9  BGT  ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, πιστός ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιος, ἵνα ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας.

Well, where do I start to cover this climactic verse? The most dramatic changes from the translation you have, are in the capitalized words.  They aren't really infinitives, but you cannot translate into English without switching to infinitives.  More about the infinitive will be said below.  For the moment, the most important thing to understand is that John switches from the dramatic present (name..sins)  to the aorist.  Wow. That shift of tense punches you right in the eyes. For the dramatic present is something ONGOING.  But the aorist, is something permanently OVER.  Greek aorist tense means something COMPLETED, over, done with, permanent.  In short, time won't change it.  There may be results (culminative aorist);  the viewpoint of the action may stress an entirety (constantive aorist, lumping together as a unity, all the actions comprised in the verb);  the simple action itself being done might be all that's in view -- but whatever use of the aorist, it's got this point-of-time-divorced-from-time root meaning of permanency.  Can't relive it, can't redo that same moment, it's OVER.  So to say "permanently" might not be the best way to convey the aorist meaning in English, for in English we think that a thing permanently done, can't happen again. Clearly sin happens over and over again.   But until I can think of a better adverb to convey the aorist tense, I'll have to leave "permanently" in the translation.  If you can think of a better adverb, please let me know.

I remember my pastor translating this verse differently, but can't remember in what classes, probably during the 1 Jn exegesis.  Instead of using infinitives, he says "with the result that He CANCELS.. PURIFIES".  Which is, the better literal translation of the hina clause in the Greek, and of course follows the ENGLISH rule of using the same tense as the main verb (when simultaneous action is indicated, as here).  Then he explains the permanence of the aorist tense.  But he harps on 1Jn1:9 so much in all his 50 years of teaching, that if you have ANY lessons of his, you'll probably run into this verse exegeted, so can see for yourself what an authority says.  I've heard him exegete this verse so often I (when being pissy) would sometimes turn off the tape recorder, tired of the repetition.  This verse has in turn, saved my life (gotta be) hundreds of times:  I have the scars to prove it.  Big stupidity on my part, to not want the repetition!

The permanency was already introduced by John in verse 7:  THE CROSS.  Permanently done, point of time for all time;  thus John incorporates all of Hebrews 10:1-14 by reference again, since his focus is on how Heb10:15-17, the promise of Jer31:31-34 being fulfilled, gets done.  You'll see him shift squarely into that focus, in Chapter 2.  Right now, he's setting up the basis for it.

Greek verb homologew is a courtroom verb, usually quasi-mistranslated "confess". But in the Greek meaning, a lawyer would 'homologew' when citing proof of some legal principle, by citing a past court case or other precedence which said the same thing as he's saying currently in the courtroom, to the judge.  Verb was also used to admit some legal principle is true in one's own situation, i.e., admit one's guilt, as used here.  So it requires several English words to convey the legal meaning:  name, admit, cite, acknowledge as a courtroom case:  here, the Cross, from verse 7.  Homologew always goes by precedence, and what preceded, were the conditions of verses 6-8.  Verse 7 is smack dab in the middle.  This zig-zagging rhetorical style of compare and contrast, thus demonstrates rather vividly the importance of breathing 1Jn1:9.  Can't live the spiritual life without it, as John proves here.  Else one is lying, in the dark, devoid of Truth, wandering astray, making a fool of himself about how good he is.

Capitalized verbs are mistranslated in Bibles.  Greek verb aphiemi really means to blot out or cancel a debt, particularly a GAMBLING debt.  "Forgive" is way overused in English, has almost no meaning (people don't really forgive, they just mouth it).  But hey: we all can relate to cancelling debt!  That's a big deal to anyone.  For you owe it, can't pay it, and the One you owe, WHOLLY cancels the bill?!  See?  "Forgive" is too tame a word!

No penance here.  Not possible.  Again, it's due to the Cross, as the next capitalized verb is katharizw, which points back to verse 7.  Purified by Christ.  Not by penance or any other Source.  Apw, from the Source of the Cross, your sins are purified AWAY from you.  Period.  No partial, you can't contribute.  Don't know how John could use more ABSOLUTE verbs than aphiemi and katharizw.  Flabbergasts me, that Christians get it so wrong for centuries.  This verse is plain enough, even in English.

Naming the sins "to God" is in the Greek meaning of the text.  In English, we have to add the words "to God", because in the Greek elegance is expressed by economy, so the Greek depends on the "He" in "He is faithful", to indicate WHO receives the action of homologew.  That's the SAME "He" to whom you name sins:  FATHER.  You know it's GOD, because only the sacred "He" is used, and if you know your Bible, you already understand no one but the Father can forgive sins, Ps32:5, 66:18 (see context).  Gospels made that clear, too;  Christ was GRANTED that authority while He was down here, as He painstakingly repeated to the crowds when He did things like make the paralytic of Matt9, walk.  OT sacrifices made that clear, too:  first you did what David did in Psalm 32:5 (etc.), and THEN you certified it before a priest, giving an animal or flour, etc. to demonstrate you knew Your Messiah-to-Come would in the Future Pay.  For it's not the Son, to Whom you name sins, since the Son would become the Lamb of God as a SUBSTITUTE for sin, Isa53:10-11.  Father is the Head in the Divine Corporation, which Jesus repeatedly explained when He was down here.  Prayer only goes to Father (i.e., John 17).  So also, naming sins only goes to Father, since naming sins is to a JUDGE.  Same Judge to Whom you pray.  For prayer is a request to be adjudicated.  Legal thing, prayer.  Legal thing, to admit sin, too.  So a simple "He" is all the reader needs, to know Which "He" is in view.  For all believers are royal priests now, as Peter explained (1Pet2:5,9), as Book of Hebrews explained (main theme of the book):  so John here reminds the reader of his PRIESTLY DUTY.

"Faithful and Righteous" is a ONENESS in the Greek.  Anarthrous construction.  It's not really quite right to translate "to CANCEL..to PURIFY" as infinitives.  Yes, this is Greek subjunctive of purpose, so that's why the verbs are usually translated as infinitives.  But hina is actually the blending of purpose and result, and the RESULT is what's stressed here.  Any sins you name are really BLOTTED OUT (usual OT translation of aphiemi, rather apt).  No double jeopardy.  You are truly and permanently PURIFIED from those sins when you merely admit them to God.  Courtroom was the Cross, and in admitting the sins you are essentially citing the Cross as the precedence and basis through which you OBTAIN the blotting out and purification.  God is Faithful-and-Righteous to do that blotting and purifying to you:  again, because of the Cross, v.7.

Again, Isa53:10-11 in the LXX is stressed.  First verb in that passage is katharizw.  Sins were literally PURIFIED IN HIM on the Cross, according to v.10. The passage really should be translated in English Bibles with both the LXX and Hebrew text, so you can see the whole picture.  But alas, translators keep the languages separate.  Here, the LXX brings out the parallel point Hebraistically, that what Yahweh haphetz'd, got done.  God was PLEASED to make His Son suffer in order to purify sin IN Him.  That's what John is stressing here, the contract of purification.  Which contract, you essentially cite when you admit your sins -- sins that were paid in the PAST according to that contract.

Notice what's missing:  how you feel about your sins.  Feeling has no place in a proper courtroom.  Penance has no place.  You either did it or did not, and your penance is irrelevant.  What's relevant, is what Christ did.  We admit, God blots out and purifies:  based on the Cross.

It shouldn't have to be said, that God ought to be paid for sin.  If you have to be paid for damage to YOUR property, then God should certainly be paid for damage to us, His Property.  But who can pay God?  Only Christ.  So Christ has to be God AND Man, for the juridical value to be sufficient:  by NOT USING His Godness, and by SUBMITTING His Humanity which CAN USE His Godness -- by instead CHOOSING to submit to the Cross, then sufficient value is paid.  God-quality value.  Think it over, then see how all those fake-holy books alike deride God as somehow unworthy or impotent of getting Justice for himself (Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, etc.) -- because they NEVER ADDRESS how GOD GETS PAID.  He's NOT God if He is NOT properly paid, get it?  So that juridical fact also knocks down all claims that God is but One (Hebrew echad and Greek heis really mean "first, unique, united" before they mean one in mere number, look those words up throughout Bible original-language texts).  Yeah, if God is but one in number, then He pays Himself?  That's moving money from one pocket to another one.  So no NEW payment TO God, really occurs.  Trinity is thus stressed here in 1Jn1:7 and 1Jn1:9.  Else salvation is a juridical sham.  No middle ground.

As previously covered in verse 7's notes, "katharizw" is a keyword for purifying THE TEMPLE, in the LXX -- you can search on the verb's root (i.e., in BibleWorks) and trace out that commonly used meaning of the verb.  Post-Temple, this verb has heightened significance, so when John deliberately uses it here, he's closing the point raised in verse 7:  YOU ARE THE TEMPLE, and YOU ARE PURIFIED.  Thus he reiterates all the incorporation by reference he did back in verse 7, so you know exactly what He means:  Spirit FILLS you, just as He did the OT Temple.  The OT people didn't get filling (plerow, in Greek), they got something less (see pimplemi.htm).  But Christ was filled with the Spirit from Birth, as John painstakingly explains in his Gospel.  So John incorporates by reference the Gospel he wrote, here too.  So no filling of the Spirit, no spirituality.  You'd be defiled temple, no spiritual life.  See why now all that parallelling of no truth and darkness PRECEDED this verse?  If the Spirit doesn't fill you, you're like the Temple when it was desecrated by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.  Period.

Notice the absoluteness of the parallels.  If sin, darkness and no truth.  Not a partial thing.  If sin but named to God, as here, then CANCEL and PURIFY instead apply.  Again, no middle ground.  How mature you are spiritually, is by contrast not in view:  that comes in the next chapter.  But obviously you won't mature spiritually, except in darkness, without 1Jn1:9.  Dunno how much plainer God can make it, what constitutes being in fellowship or not.  Precedence (also incorporated by reference) from the OT abounds, such as Ps32:5 and 66:18 (see context).  Fellowship back then was not Filling, but clearly it's the same idea:  you're in or out, due to sin.  So no prayers heard, nothing learned, only discipline:  until you name the sin to God.  No works, no rituals, nothing replaces this verse.  Thus many Christians walk in darkness for centuries, mangling Bible as they amble blindly along, NOT using this verse.  Life or death, this verse.  John will 'rope' in that fact, during 1Jn5.

Notice also how John's sticking to the present tense for the main verbs, ever since verse 5.  It is a standard tense for Socratic rhetorical teaching.  If-then, two 'livenesses' as it were, being contrasted or parallelled.  You can call that also a dramatic present, action-in-progress being related.  English Bibles would do better to translate it with the English progressive whenever possible, so you can see action-in-progress is being stressed, which is what the dramatic present is designed to do: 'play' is onstage, occurring.  So it becomes VERY important when John switches tenses, from here on out.  And the first place he does it, is right here in 1Jn1:9.  AORIST results, permanent results, from an ongoing naming of sins.  Ties neatly to the "I will remember their sins no more" and "east is from the west" clauses in the OT.  So all that meaning is incorporated by reference by the simple use of the two keywords, aphiemi and katharizw, in the AORIST tense.  Blows one away.  One second, one naming, and it's GONE!  Due to the Cross! How much more drama can one take?

The readers of John's letter must be panting for breath, at this point.  They knew all this, of course.  Couldn't even read his letter, if they didn't know the procedure described in 1Jn1:9.  So what might John do for an encore?  Whoa -- verse 10!  Let's see how John tops the drama of verse 9, now.  Seems impossible, huh...

1:10 "If we allege that we have NOT sinned, we are making Him out to be a liar;  in fact, HIS Word is NOT in us."

1 John 1:10  ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι οὐχ ἡμαρτήκαμεν, ψεύστην ποιοῦμεν αὐτόν, καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν.

Well, you can only top verse 9, regarding what God's Grace Love does for man, by going down -- to the vileness man makes of God.  Religious vileness, here: the person claims he doesn't NEED 1Jn1:9, that he has not sinned.  A lascivious person isn't in view, for that person exults in his sinner status, loves rebelling, makes OTHER excuses for continuing to sin.  So the sanctimonious believer we met in verses 6 and 8, is the one threaded through here to verse 10.  Hence the apodosis, "HIS Word is NOT in us."

It would be better English to say "make Him out to be a liar", often in published English translations.  But then you miss the NOW-OCCURRING stress of the Greek.  Progressive English tense is vital to understanding 1Jn, making the Greek meaning, clearer.

Notice the parallel to verse 8.  In verse 8, the person denies he has a sin nature.  Here in verse 10, one denies having sinned one or more specific sins.  Verb hamartanw is here used, compared to verse 8's hamartia in the singular.  In verse 8, the person lies to himself alone.  But here in verse 10, the person lies to himself and lies against God, too.  For that crime, Ananias and Sapphira were executed, Acts 5.  So John's making a very serious charge here, and the readers all knew about Ananias and Sapphira's execution by God directly.  John will tie back to that crime in 1Jn5:16, using "pros";  thus incorporating by reference the selfsame scene as Luke described in Acts 5:2,5,9-10:  for Ananias and Sapphira died right in front of the money Ananias laid at the apostles' feet  -- at least John's and Peter's (Acts 3:11, 4:13, 4:19, :35, 37, and follow the plural "them" since Chapter 3).  So John was THERE:  Ananias and Sapphira died right at his feet.

Temporal death result: HIS Word is not in us.  It's a death-of-fellowship, to be in a state of sin.  The devil's word might be in us, the world's word might be in us, our own words might be in us -- but NOT God's Word.  So we then have fellowship with the devil, the world, ourselves -- but NOT with God.  Now you know why the clear words in John 3:16 are SO ENTIRELY missed, hardly a 'Christian' says the Gospel properly, anymore. No Word in them, means they can't READ it, either.  Even in translation.  No Word in you means disintegration of understanding in all areas of life, eventually.  Darkness spreads.  Thus people reading Acts 5, don't GET IT when Peter says, 'was not the property and its proceeds, yours to KEEP?' (Acts 5:4, very strong).  That's the OPPOSITE of tithing or giving to the church.  So Ananias and Sapphira died for LYING about a gift given to outclass Barnabas' POPULARITY within the church (see context from Acts 4).  Darkness spreads.  Religiosity is darkness, so lying goes with it.  All this meaning, John incorporates by reference; which you can prove, by comparing verses which talk about lying to God or about God (i.e., "false witness" verses).  Penalty in the OT for continuing to lie about or to GOD was execution -- unless, named to God (i.e., Hananiah in Jer28).  Same rule, here wholly incorporated by reference;  John will return to that execution penalty, in Chapter 5.

Technically, here we have the same pairing of definite article and possessive of autos, as we saw in verse 3.  There I translated the construction "THE Son of His" to show the Greek stress.  That's awkward English, a kind of circumlocution.  In verse 7 I opted variantly to translate that construction with a capital "HIS".  Seems like the better English translation is to capitalize "HIS", though you miss the monadic use of the article, that way.  Unique.  Only One God.  Only One Father, no one else like Him.  Only One Son, no one else like Him.  Only one Spirit, no one else like Him.  Yet, Each Wholly of Identical Infinite Divine Essence, so of the Exact Same Nature.  Well, being of the Exact Same Infinite Nature doesn't negate the Uniqueness of Each One.  You are human, unique from me.  We have the same nature.  How much more, if God has the Same Nature, would Each Person STILL BE UNIQUE?  So this coupling of the definite article with autos deftly stresses, yet again, the Unique Yet God Nature.  So to make Such A Nature out to be a Liar, is the most serious of crimes.

Notice that distinction.  The WORD is not in us.  Works might be in us, and probably we do a lot of works if we are being self-righteous religious types.  Our own words are of course in us.  We would still be saved, for We are IN HIM.  But lookie here: it's what's IN US, not Whom we are in due to salvation.  Paul spent a lot of time contrasting Who we are in, versus Who is in us, in his letters.  It's a where-is-your-thinking, fellowship question, where 'you' are in YOUR thinking, versus where you are in God's Thinking.  Clearly God loves us whether we love Him or not.  So we are IN HIM, but He is not always in us -- in our thinking.  He is not in us when we deny Him.  We remain in Him, however, since He never denies us (i.e., that clever song Paul quotes in 2Tim2).  John's main theme in both Gospel and 1Jn is how to KNOW you are abiding in Him in your thinking, as you'll see in Chapter 2 and following.  Greek verb "menw" means to remain-at-post, to remain-in-a-marriage, so it's all about how you are THINKING, what thinking is in you.  No Word, no fellowship, is the point of John 14-17, and 1Jn here.  Tracing the uses of menw will help you see the rhetorical thread for yourself, in those chapters.

So John is recalling to the reader all that material, incorporating it by reference.  So too, in the OT distinction was always made between whether God was in Israel, versus whether Israel was in God.  When God left Israel, it's because Israel rejected Him, as poignantly depicted by Ezekiel's stark vision of the Glory leaving the Temple.  But Israel remained in God;  the promises to her shifted over to the negative Leviticus 26-type contracts, and of course when the Temple was destroyed, the promise of it being rebuilt at the Second Advent, still stood (Eze Chaps 39 et seq., and Isa61 et seq).  So John is incorporating all that by reference too:  we are OUT OF CONTRACT, temporarily.  No Word in us.  Salvation remains, promise of ultimate deliverance remains, but.. no fellowship.  Word not in us.

So notice next the building parallels from the prior verses.  Stark contrasts.  Sin means you lie, you are in darkness, you have no truth in you, you lead yourself astray fancying yourself to be in fellowship.  So you don't KNOW you are in the dark, etc.  Worse, here in verse 10, you the liar now make God out to be a liar, since His Son paid for sin but you claim you've not sinned.  That sin you're not admitting, WAS paid on the Cross, and you're denying it.  See?  Only a religious type would think this way.  So the grossly-sinning believer, who is alike wrong, is not in view.

Thus John demonstrates the devastating result of religious sinning: self-righteousness, self-justification, self-deception, and -- especially here -- self-absorption.  For in saying "I have not sinned", it makes God out to be a liar, but the person really doesn't mean to make God out to be a liar.  This strawman religious type is focusing on HIMSELF, not God.  So can't see the larger accusation in his denial.  Thus he has no Word.

Notice: the FINAL indictment is that he has no WORD.  So the absolutely WORST sin is to have no WORD, trumping even the making-God-a-liar indictment!

To set up this verse following adikia ("wrongdoing") in verse 9, is a devastating, contrasting parallel.  Pattern of verses 5-6,  John 'ropes' the last word/concept of the prior clause to what he immediately says next; here he 'ropes' adikia with one alleging he has not sinned, with making God out to be a Liar, with having no Word operating in the soul, out-of-contract.  Better to be boiled in oil.  In verse 9, one is completely PURIFIED FROM all adikia.  But here in v.10, one is committing adikia, adding to his past accumulated adikia, by refusing to name, cite, admit other sins.

Adikia is far worse than sin.  Sin is essentially a shortfall, a slip;  true, it's an act of volition, but most often sin is when you feel temptation so strongly, you just flat give into it.  By contrast, adikia is the worst kind of injustice possible.  Technically, Greek "adikia" means a judge who misuses justice, skews it to his own ends.  Someone who misuses his authority.  That's the worst kind of wrongdoing.  That's the parallel here, following just after the adikia clause.  So of course the one denying he's sinned won't but commit the greater injustice of  'making' God a liar, making a mockery of the Cross thereby, essentially claiming something Christ paid for wasn't paid for, wasn't due.  We all howl about the injustices man does to man.  But how is it, we are strangely mum on the injustice done to GOD, when we claim our self-righteous acts aren't sin?  Surely we see all too often the evil of self-righteousness; it pounds you every time you turn on TV.  The severity of any wrongdoing depends on the Value of the Object wronged.  Here, GOD is wronged, so it's the worst sin, to deny one has sinned, to not use 1Jn1:9.  Shall not God discipline such wrongdoing?  Yes.. with death.  That point will be stressed by John in Chapter 5, tying back here to 1:6-10.  Thus one should be executed for having no Word -- which Word you CANNOT GET in you, if the Holy Spirit doesn't fill you -- remember katharizw in 1:7,9, and John Chapter 14?  Defiled Temple!

My pastor spent a good 60+ hours explaining why the worst sin you can commit, is to NOT use 1Jn1:9; the subseries (within series 376, Spiritual Dynamics) is called "the Law of Double Punishment";  you can order the tapes/mp3 by that name, for free.  Now as I re-translate 1Jn, I see WHY he spent so much time explaining the worst thing you can do, is not use 1Jn1:9.  John really stresses that fact here in verse 10.  Worst sin is against God, not against mere people, huh.

I testify that I know people who are dying, ONLY for REFUSAL to use 1Jn1:9; I myself almost died several times for the same reason. We all know the parallel of Moses nearly dying when he refused to circumcise his sons;  of David, Hezekiah, and other believers in Bible who nearly died because they were catywampus with God.  Paul nearly died on the Temple steps (Acts 22, read Paul's explanation there, or start back in Acts 18:18 at Kegchreai to see context of his reversion to Jewish law); all because, he wasn't using 1Jn1:9. Col3:25 uses adikia the same way.  Great or small, forget what works you do or even if you are great like Moses or the apostle Paul: if you belay 1Jn1:9, you're TOAST.

So:  if you remember NOTHING else you ever read in my websites, keep recalling 1Jn1:9 and GET UNDER YOUR RIGHT PASTOR.  Else God will execute you.  Don't be fooled by His 'slowness', Peter warned in the last half of 2 Peter.  1Jn5 is dedicated to that warning:  you can't even PRAY for a dying person who refuses to use 1Jn1:9.  Take this fearful warning seriously. I've seen it play, live.

Next item to explain:  why the "NOT", here in 1Jn1:10's translation? Greek negative particle "ouk" denies a fact;  Greek "me" (pronounced "may", "m" plus the Greek eta) denies both fact and idea. Hence "NOT" rather than mere "not" is used, to show contrast with admittance one HAS sinned, in v.9.  Notice how John switched to the PERFECT tense (of hamartanw), versus present tense.  So the denial that one has sinned, is very strong.  The religious type has a strong need to say he's 'in' with God.  The lascivious type, gets his rocks off by rebelling against God and bragging about it, even.  Neither, however, admits to GOD, the sin.  So, one "ouk" results in another "ouk":  His Word is NOT in us.

Thus all those who downplay studying Bible in favor of to-people stuff, don't know the Word and are living in this 1Jn1:10.  For if they paid attention to these parallelisms of 1Jn, even in the English (or favorite-language) common translations, they'd realize the penalty for lying ought to be severe: and deprivation of WORD, is as severe as it gets.  No Fellowship.  No Bible, no fellowship.  No matter how many works.  Again, John stresses the sins of the religious type, not the lascivious one:  the religious type puts PEOPLE ahead of God, replacing all definitions of 'holy' with PEOPLE-oriented activity -- not, the Word.  They fool themselves that they are 'in' Him.  But the Word is not in them.. and it shows.  Vilely.

As you read what follows in Chapter 2, you'll see that the above points are not interpretation, but rather what John actually says in these verses.  For he will thread the above points throughout the rest of his letter, elaborating on them.  Now I understand why my pastor totally revamped his teaching, after revisiting 1Jn's Greek and exegeting it for us, back in 1980.  Completely changed his focus.  Now I see why.

1John, Chapter Two

If you were a 90's AD reader getting this epistle, at this point you'd be thinking like Paul said at the end of Romans 7, "who will deliver us from these bodies of death?"  See, religiosity occurs because people want to be RIGHT WITH GOD.  That's a noble motive, huh.  So sin becomes something one frets over.  Good deeds become insistences; and you begin to wonder if you really closed the top of that cereal box the way God would like -- were you too hasty?  Too sloppy?  Didn't 'Hilda' do it better?  See how love can quickly become obsession, God getting 'lost' in the shuffle, eyes on people, self and things, instead? 

After all, you as a reader of the 90's AD, well.. you already know you confess sins, else John's words would go right over your head, full of sound you nod at but never understand.  What you didn't perhaps realize, is that the self-righteous religious type depicted here, really gets himself into a jam, deluding himself that he doesn't sin -- and who hasn't done that?  So one is moral, yet sinning, making God into a liar?  Who can save us from this delusion?  Who among us is exempt from thinking himself good at times, especially when doing works?  How then do we KNOW we are in Him, as He is in us?

And that's right where John means you to be thinking, in need of Major Relief.  Watch how from now on, John keeps on repeating, "by this we KNOW".  It's all about KNOWING, from here on in the letter.  Knowing, not doing.  For obviously the doing, can FOOL you.

2:1-2 "My dear children:  these words I am writing to you, so that you can stop sinning (shift to aorist tense).  In fact, if anyone sins, THE Hero Advocate we have, face-to-face with Father:  Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.  In fact, He is the Propitiation Substitute for our sins;  not only the Substitute for ours (hemeteros, jointly), but also the Substitute for [the sins of] the whole world."

1 John 2:1-2  BGT Τεκνία μου, ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε. καὶ ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ, παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον· 2  καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου.

Sometimes it's better to translate in choppy English, to portray special features in Greek which don't port over in translation.  So the Greek word order is used.  Exception:  "only" is put in front of "Substitute", whereas the Greek puts it just before "also".  Had I followed that word order in English, you'd get "not the Substitute.. only", which is misleading.

Just as in 1:4, John asserts the Divine Origin of this letter by the simple Greek "tauta" (heroic accusative plural).  See the notes on 1:4, which also uses "tauta".  What distinguishes the heroic accusative is its proleptic position in a sentence -- it's placed where you'd expect the nominative to be.  Peter uses the heroic accusative a lot, as does Paul.  This is Attic drama.  But the cadence of John's writing retains the same plodding of prior verses, so the heroism hits you softly, unlike 1:4.  In 1:4, John directly quotes Christ in John 16:24 -- and is the only NT writer who does -- using the exact same construction.  So 1:4 is very dramatic, a claim that what Christ said is being FULFILLED by what John writes.  But here in 2:1, John just uses "tauta", quickly threading forward from 1:4, the theme of the letter;  then quickly marches on to his next series of points.  He's letting the CONTENT provide the drama. It seems like a kind of finesse.  The drama 'sneaks up' on you.  He uses this same style in Revelation ("meta tauta" clauses) to bookend the "times" for you, so Revelation is quite simple to parse out.  John likes simple Greek phrasing. But the content.. wow.

See, John's targeting the reader who is just beginning to love God for Himself, and the BIG DANGER in that status, is religiosity.  When you love someone, you become legalistic about superficialities -- because, you're NERVOUS and INSECURE.  Love means the object is BETTER than you;   due to the sin nature, the soul just can't handle Someone Else being the object of attention, instead of self.  So in the soul, there's this fight;  the self keeps trying to GRAB attention, by 'making' the love-object BE about the self.  That's why you suddenly worry if you look good, if your words are right -- you become "anal".  Hence religions invent all kinds of silly food, day and dress rules; every behavior is regulated so much, it's stifling.  Thus the love-object becomes a NAG, a PAIN; and self the martyr, the hero trying to 'appease' it.  That's all symptomatic of a person with a sin nature, expressing his overweening need to be RIGHT WITH GOD.  Misplaced love is miserable love, not at all relaxing.

So John's out to relax the reader, now.  Think:  the reader here, has just been smacked upside the head with the realization that if he's busy in his works, he'll think he's not sinning and thus is committing "adikia", a huge violation of justice -- lying about God, Himself!  If you are at all inclined toward religiosity, which frankly is an obsession anyone gets from an initial desire FOR God -- this is your worst nightmare.  So by clever wordplay between adikia ("unrighteousness" in the sense of a judge ABUSING his authority) and dikaion (Righteous One, Hebraism for "tsadiq" in Isa53:11) -- both come from the same root, dikaios -- the wordplay functions like salve, applied to an open wound.  Very soothing, very memorable.  Our Savior is Our Advocate, famous Homeric Greek word Parakletos, sometimes transliterated "Paraclete" in both English Bibles and classic Greek literature or plays.  Whew.

Parakletos has a long and rich etymological history in Greek literature.  More about it will be said later on.  Most important thing to remember is this:  a parakletos is a PROFESSIONAL.  Think statesman, think lawyer, think governor even king -- for a parakletos was hired to TRAIN a king's sons.  Parakletos is one of the Holy Spirit's titles, in John 14:16-26.  So John's tying together the Lord's being Parakletos, and His being TRAINED by the Parakletos while He was down here.  Thus John reminds his audience of a pun:  the Parakletos (Lord) sent the Parakletos (Spirit) so we can be trained as kings under the King of Kings.  Kinda like, "The LORD said to My Lord, 'Sit down...'", Ps110:1.  A more blatant and humorous reminder of our Royal Training Purpose down here is hard to find.  Ahh, well that's pretty relaxing, huh.

For it's a joy to KNOW the extremely dramatic Isa53:12 in the LXX, which John invokes here by using dikaiov ("the Righteous One") in the EXACT same way as Isaiah did.  John is reminding the reader of the fifth infinitive in Isa53:11, and the "dikaion" there, coupled with the climactic piling up of (previously-omitted) prepositions in Isa53:12, the inheritance-measured-out clause.  Peter did the same invoking, in 1Pet3:18, dikaion huper adikwn -- notice how "adikia" in 1Jn1:9 cleverly ties back also to 1Pet3:18.  So John's closing the circle, incorporating Peter, too.  Paul of course spent most of his time explaining dikaiosune, so all of Paul's writing is incorporated as well, especially 2Cor5:21, Romans Chapters 4-8, Colossians 1, Galatians 3-5 -- but especially, Eph1 (which elaborates on how Isa53:12 was designed).  OT use of tsadiq in Hebrew was often translated in the LXX with dikaio lemmas (especially dikaiosune, the thinking of a Judge); so of course all the OT uses are thus referenced as well.

Most importantly,  John incorporates all of the Book of Hebrews by usage of dikaion;  for Book of Hebrews is on the change of covenant, why we are Royal Priests, how the Law was changed up in Christ, and that's what John will be talking about as well, in this Chapter.  Hebrews Chapter 10 alike ties back to Isa53 (whole chapter).  Blows me away, to see God the Holy Spirit have John choose  "dikaion" to incorporate so much meaning. Thus John also deftly threads ALL of what he said in Chapter 1, here.  For in Isa53, The Righteous One is Light -- LXX clause in Isa53:11 you can't see in translation, and His Mastery Of Knowledge (sunesis) is used to Sculpt/Fashion/Mold/Manufacture, To Make Righteous -- plassw and dikaiow, fourth and fifth infinitives in Isa53:11's LXX which you also can't see in translated Bibles.  Next word in that same Isa53:11 LXX, is dikaion in the heroic accusative, just as here in 1Jn2:1, showing How He Substituted Himself.  Placement of dikaion in Isa53:11 shows the cycling purpose:  what got done to Him FIRST, gets done to us. 

The face-to-face nature of the Angelic Trial Isaiah began stressing in Isa53:2 is deftly woven in here by using Greek pros, which has the same meaning as Hebrew panim;  that gives John the 'excuse' to use dikaion in the accusative, just as Isaiah did (pros takes the accusative case).  Blows you away, this stunning parallelism to the Isa53 passage, and it's threading from 1Jn1:1.  Thus John begins here, a long backgammon-like manuever, which will culminate the Angelic Trial, due to Church being completed, 1Jn4:16-17.  For just as He is, so also we are in the World.  Even now.  Complete with The Hero Advocate's, Trainer (without limit, John 7:39). That dual-screen nature of what's going on in heaven while we are down here, was the main theme of Hebrews 11, which alike explained why the Church completes the Trial.  John's invoking it, telling the reader to look UP and know what's really at stake.

So John jarringly switches pronouns, here in 2:1.  Trace the pronouns, trace the prepositions, trace the tense changes, when reading what God gave John to write.  He deliberately uses simple Greek whenever possible, so these changes will STICK OUT and you'll see the parallelisms.

So he stops using "we" all of a sudden, and switches to "tis" ("someone, anyone" in English). So John cleverly brings in the "Jointly" (hemeteros) thread from 1:3, forward here to 2:1.  Not until you get to the end of 1Jn2:2, can you see why John does this -- for Christ Paid For All Sins Of All Mankind.  Apparently the heresy claiming Christ died only for the elect had begun already, for John is quite emphatic, saying "de monon alla" -- strongly DENYING the idea Christ only died for believers, bracketing "monon" (only, solely, alone) between "de" (particle of mild contrast and transition) with "alla" (conjunction of STRONG contrast).  The only other place in the Bible where you see this emphatic construction, is in Phili2:27.  Phrase "de monon" has the connotation of "merely", in English.  So by placing "alla" second, John stresses that ALL mankind was paid for -- and also emphasizes how that fact benefits us.  In short, we shouldn't be gloating (or groaning) over the unbeliever.  Very strong, almost chiding.

Which all-mankind-paid-for fact, John stresses by using "tis" here instead of hemeis at the beginning.  So all the text between tis and kosmos ("world", last word in 1Jn2:2) applies to everyone, potentially.  In those days, since elegance was expressed by economy and verbs already embed the 'actor' in their endings, to use a pronoun WITH a verb, would stress the actor of it.  So as you noticed in verses 5-10, John didn't use a separate pronoun "we" for 1st-person plural verbs.  Still, you don't normally use a 3rd person singular pronoun when the main verb doesn't agree with it -- unless you wish to convey something universal and therefore impersonal. 

Greek "tis" is an indefinite pronoun, so it's more impersonal.  Ahhhh.  When you're nervous, you need the IMPERSONAL, to stabilize attention away from the natural-in-Adam fixations about the self.  Hence the plodding cadence John rhetorically employs.  Calm, steady, think-this-then-that, keep moving.  Here, reinforced by "tis" and "kosmou", incorporating John 3:16's "whosoever" by reference.  Blatantly.

Greek prepositions peri and huper both connote SUBSTITUTION, and are often used interchangeably in the Bible, when "sins" is the object of the preposition. Hence "Substitute" is used to translate the preposition peri used in 2:2.  By clever placement (really just aping the Greek word order), its English translation functions simultaneously as both preposition and the Noun it represents (Christ).  The usual English "for" is very misleading, even criminal.  Yet in seminary, though you're taught peri and huper mean "SUBSTITUTE for",  you're nonetheless required in translation to truncate the meaning to the ambiguous "for": English rotten(!) Bible translation rules require you translate one English word for one Greek word.  Incredibly blasphemous results thus occur in translation, and thus you have all those goofy ideas like the one claiming Cross 'just opened the door' FOR you to work for salvation, and similar garbage.  Sorry, that's criminal.  Now I understand why my pastor ranted and raved (a rare outburst, for him) whenever he came to huper and peri during exegesis, stridently correcting the English translations.

 John's trebled use of peri here in 2:2 is rhythmic.  John last used "peri" in his opening drama flourish, "About the Word of Life!" -- for "peri" means concerning, about, (idea of encircling a topic).  So now 1:1 is threaded forward here to 2:2.  The Word of Life is the Word for everyone.  Word Stops the Sinning is the headline for this chapter (covered in more detail below), so it's appropriate to thread the Word-of-Life opening of Chapter 1, to the opening of Chapter 2 via peri.  Because, it's still ABOUT the Word of Life.  So here in 2:2,  it's a strong way to EQUATE the payment for unbelievers, as for believers, by repeating the selfsame preposition "peri".  That equating would be important for the religious crowd to remember;  for religiosity eventually mistakes its many good deeds as a kind of superiority.  Common problem Israel had, common problem Christians have in every generation, to value the self OVER others, because saved, chosen, doing 'good works'.  John uses this device of equating (same preposition for everyone, peri, three times, anaphoric rhetoric) because he's about to lambast the religious crowd in Chapters 2 and 3 (especially 3:18).

In the OT, the lamb was a substitute sacrificed for the sinner, as were the other types of animal sacrifices.  So the LXX of Isaiah 52-55, uses both peri and huper in that manner.  Here John uses peri, just as Isa53 does;  just as Peter does, in 1Pet3:18.  Paul uses huper a lot (i.e., in Romans 5:8). Again, Heb10 is being stressed, since its theme is about how the Once-For-All Sacrifice was for all time, too -- and uses peri:  NO more repeating animal sacrifices, which after all were only shadow-teachers of Messiah-to-Come.  He's come, now.

"Propitiation" refers to the OT sacrifice, and Greek word hilasterion was the LXX word used for Mercy Seat of the Ark (i.e., in Exo25:17), which depicted God being propitiated by the Messiah-to-Come's, sacrifice (Hebrew root kaphar, from which we get Yom Kippur).  Covering.  Covered. Paid for. It never signifies partial.  ONLY TOTAL, whether Hebrew or Greek term. Complete covering.  Yeah, you repeated the sacrifices, but they COMPLETELY ended the uncleanness in question.  Again, Hebrews 10 explains that His Covering for us is PERMANENT for all time:  John thus again invokes the reader to remember that chapter.

At this point, the reader's agitation is relieved, just as the Lord said it would be, in John 14:27.  Notice that you can't think clearly if your soul is in a state of tumult (John 14:1,27) -- and only BELIEF in Him, relieves you (ibid).  First things first, "from the Source of the beginning" -- is 1John's rhetorical style.  It's almost like a hymn, all these firsts:

·         First, the Son is God, always Face-to-Face with Father; 

·         first, John's a witness of that fact, one of a long line of Canon writers (playing on Isa53:1, so NOT a bleeping 'rhetorical we'); 

·         first, he validates his witness by attestation that Word makes for communion; 

·         first, God is Light; 

·         so first, you believed, and

·         first you LOSE communion if you walk in darkness, say you have no sin nature, say you didn't sin. 

·         But first!  you are in communion, due to

·         His FIRST paying on the Cross,

·         if first you NAME your sins as they occur. 

·         Then and only then, is the Word First in you. 

·         But if you first sin,

·         then first remember:  He is In Heaven on Your Behalf;  and not yours only, but potentially He's the Advocate for the whole world, since ANYONE can be saved,

·         since He FIRST died for the sins of EVERYONE.  Hemeteros, baby.  Jointly.

The WHOLE human race is cut off except for our Advocate, Who Died Childless (Isa53:8, NIV gets it right) to Make Us One with Father, prayer of  John 17 ratifying the Isa54:1 effect of Isa53:10-12.  So John rightly jolts the reader to remember all this, by "tis".  For just as in English, you don't mix pronouns in Greek.  Main verb is 1st person plural, so technically John should repeat the construction in 1:10, with the 1st person plural of hamartanw, to sin.  But instead, John uses "tis", a 3rd person singular, in proximity with "we have".  Sometimes "tis" is shorthand for "one of", with the group referenced being subsumed in the verb (so "one of us", here) -- but since Christ died for EVERYONE, ANYONE is potentially hemeteros.  So the simple "tis" is a grammatical cutoff, and thereby communicates BOTH ideas, simultaneously.  We start out "tis", cutoff.  But we believe in Christ, John 3:16 -- at which point we become "hemeteros", jointly-in-fellowship, 1Jn1:3.

Due to the sin nature, we make peculiar conclusions: 'If I say good words, then I am good.'  No, the WORDS are good, and would be JUST AS GOOD in anyone's mouth, even a drunk's.  The person SAYING the words might be good or not, severally.  Hence it's true that when one is saved and learning Word, he is in God's Favor -- but the person himself, is still whatever he is.  It's the intrinsic value of what GETS DONE to the person, not the person, which counts as "good" in God's jurisprudence.  WHAT GOT DONE TO CHRIST, GETS DONE TO US:  that's the Isa53:10-12 contract John keeps on invoking in every verse here.  For as he says here in 2:1-2, God already loves us:  that's why there was a Cross, Rom5:8.  Consequently, the believer doing many good deeds is liable to think HIMSELF good, because of the goodness of the DEEDS.  Not so.  Just as even a drunk can mouth the Gospel which is good, so also the unbeliever can do good deeds and yet remain unsaved.

Now for the clincher:  thus John signifies how we need the Defense Attorney when we cut ourselves off by sin, too.  For then, we are electing just like an unbeliever does, to live apart from fellowship with God:  we CHOOSE the "tis" cutoff class.  Can't lose salvation, can lose fellowship.  NOW do you see why he used "tis" rather than the first-person plural?  Awesome, huh.  Again, all this sweeping meaning, accomplished by such deft use of a mere indefinite pronoun?!  What human is ever THAT smart?

Next Greek item, more detail on John's use of  "Parakletos" in this verse.  Greek "Parakletos" is here used anarthrously in the heroic accusative, meaning the normal article ("the") is absent.  When the article is omitted, often the QUALITY of the noun is stressed (for good or bad, depends on the noun and context).  Normally and especially in legal discourse, articles are used with their nouns (even with proper names).  So to say "on the 3rd of January, in the Year of Our Lord Two-Thousand-and-Seven" in Greek, the offical wording would be "on the 3rd of the January..."  If you search Chronicles and other historical OT books in the LXX, you'll see this official rhetorical style for dates and other facts.  It matters a bunch, to see it.  For centuries, people have not known the Lord was born on Chanukah simply because they don't notice the official doubled-article dating of Luke 1:26. (Annunciation came in the month of Adar, sixth month on the Jewish civil calendar.)  Hence to OMIT an article stresses a kind of relativity (compare Luke 1:24,36), therefore omission of the article emphasizes something in the RELATIVE QUALITY of the anarthrous noun.

So here, the anarthrous use of Parakletos advertises that the Hero is God -- here God the Son, previously introduced as God way back in 1:1.  Always, the hero is the Object of the Drama, the Person to emulate.  (In Greek mythology, Hero is also the name of a Greek girl who sacrificed herself due to love.  You should be able to find her myth on the web.)  Again, John stresses that Christ is God.  So to show this I translated Parakletos "THE Hero Advocate" to bring out both the anarthrous construction, and the Attic heroic accusative. You have to put in "THE" when Greek leaves it out, for a capitalized "THE" stresses quality ("THE standard by which all else is measured", for example).

Parakletos is not merely an Advocate in the sense of Defense Attorney, though that's the meaning used here.  Parakletos is a term with a lot of cultural loading, in the Greek;  English NT translations typically mistranslate "parakletos" with timid words like "Helper" or "Comforter".  What rot.  Odysseus' son Telemachus, the heir apparent, had a Parakletos named Mentor.  The man's job was to render Telemachus, fit to one day be king.  Hence in English we use "mentor" as a specialized term for someone competent who is unusually and kindly motivated to train a "protogé"; moving-us-up, grooming us for an inheritance or major promotion, training us for RULE.  That's the FIRST meaning of parakletos.  It is but one of a whole family of cognate nouns, and derives from a military context, "someone called alongside for help in battle".  (The originating verb is parakalew, very commonly used in Bible, so you can trace out all the meanings.)  Idea of reinforcement, someone who will fight for you, alongside you.  So, even Achilles is parakletos for Agamemnon, though both hated each other.  Achilles was called in alongside to aid Agamemnon in the defeat of Troy.

Of course, war isn't only carried on by traditional means;  in fact, the Greatest War is the Angelic Trial, and it's all 'fought' with WORDS.  Legalities.  Hence John's use of "Advocate", defense attorney.  Thus John deftly introduces the Angelic Trial proper, painting the scene in Heaven, much like Zechariah did in Zechariah 3 (thus John incorporates all like OT passages, by reference), and the writer of Hebrews did in the extremely dramatic Greek of Hebrews 11:1. 

John 14:16 shows that the Holy Spirit is also Parakletos, SENT BY Christ;  the fact that God the Holy Spirit would WANT to "be sent" seemed to indicate inferiority to medieval believers, so centuries were wasted in silly debate about "proceed" -- also a military verb in Greek would anyone have bothered to look it up -- as illustrated in the badly-worded, Nicene Creed.  But of course that's all patent nonsense;  just because the Holy Spirit proceeded from God, doesn't mean He Himself is inferior, for crying out loud.  Love subordinates;  God's Love being Infinite, He Infinitely Subordinates to Each Other God -- an EXERCISE of Sovereignty, not a surrender of it.  After all, the Parakletos for Christ Himself, was the Holy Spirit Himself, Who takes on all the mothering roles (i.e., depicted by rahaph in Gen1:2, teaching us, raising us).  John in fact is stressing the Holy Spirit's being sent by Christ, beginning here in 1Jn2, by choosing the well-known moniker Parakletos from the then-famous, John 14:16, 26.  In short, it's RELAXING wordplay.  Too bad all those debating the "proceed" question, missed this verse.

Again John cleverly places words to stress Trinity, Christ's God-Man Nature, and fellowship.  "Patera" is anarthrous, so means God the Father;  "Jesus" is anarthrously placed RIGHT NEXT to "Patera", with no intervening words.  Thus John graphically illustrates the "face-to-face" meaning of pros, as well as using that preposition.  So you thus 'see' Him being at the Right Hand, so to speak ("Jesus" is immediately right of "Father" in the line of text facing you).  Clever.  Cleverer still, if you know that the original-language texts the writers of Bible actually penned, didn't have accent marks, spaces between the words, or punctuation; and were usually written in all capital letters.  That was the way people then wrote, since they were familiar with the language and text, already. So all the accent marks and small letters, etc. you see in the original-language texts today, are of more modern invention for people long-separated from the language.

Major Relief is therefore spelled 1 - J - o - h - n - 1: - 9.  The Parakletos fills you again, and the meanwhile, you also have Parakletos Your Savior.  Thus John incorporates Romans 8 by reference, in which Paul also plays out the drama of the two Parakletoi we have in heaven, groaning on our behalf.  Paul deftly shows how the purpose of being granted God's Righteousness at salvation is to get the Truth filled up in you via the filling of the Spirit (8:1-10);  John incorporates all that, by his deft "My dear children.. sinning" clause.  Then Paul in Romans 8:11ff shows how the 8:1-10 individual growth, plays on the stage before God and the angels, ending in victory, no-one-shall-separate-us!  John incorporates all that by reference, merely using Parakletos in the SAME heroic accusative which Paul uses in Romans 8:28.  Of course, it's GOD who is the Hero, in Rom8:28 -- that's the ONLY use of the heroic accusative, in the whole chapter.  So notice that by using a term for God, Parakletos, and by using the heroic accusative with words incorporating Romans 8 by reference, John yet again repeats that Christ is also God, Himself.  Same drama epic, fewer words.  Greek drama loves economy.  The readers of this verse in the 90's AD, must have been utterly stunned.  I know I am.  It's just not possible for a human being to incorporate so much Scripture perfectly with just an accusative case and a famous Greek word!  You have to be God, to be this good with the language.

John is also a parakletos to his readers.  Therefore he affectionately uses the diminuitive of teknon, which adds an i before the last syllable (teknion).  Most non-English languages have diminuitives to show affection, and the word "little" is often used to translate the affection in English. Yet to say "my little children" as do most English translations, is misleading to the modern English reader, who tends to be ignorant of idioms, literary expressions, etc.  So it's better to translate "my dear children", for a modern audience.

And what news John writes, to mentor his readers!  Remember, back in 1:4, John made the astounding claim that the words he would be writing, would fulfill what Christ said in John 16:24, to complete Canon;  that from the completion of Canon, would come the completion of Church, "pleroma" being a keyword for the completion of both Canon AND Church in God's Pauline writ (Eph1:15-23, 3:15-19, 4:11-16, 1Cor12:31-end 1Cor13, all of Rom8); not to mention, Heb8:8-10:17, playing off that same promise in the OT, Jer31:31-34.  So now, what does John add with his WORDS here in 2:1?  OHHHH that these words will enable you to STOP SINNING? Kill me now.

Yet John still uses the same rhymthic pattern of if-then Socratic exposition.  Only the endearing opening slightly syncopates the 'fatherly' rhythm.  If you read aloud in Greek from say 1:6 onward, you see it's a very calm, methodical, steadied walking-of-logic.  But the content?!!  Sheer shock!  So the first inclination is to just plod along, until the meaning dawns on you, knocking you flat.  John does this throughout the letter.  Plodding with shock! thrown in.  He's depicting the cadence of the spiritual life.

Why is "stop sinning" the proper translation?  In a purpose clause (hina), Greek negative particle me plus the potential subjunctive and the second person plural, are in the same form as they would be for the imperative of prohibition: but the tense is different.  John here uses the AORIST.  (Imperative of prohibition would use the present tense.)  So because it's the aorist tense but the subjunctive mood, it's something potentially possible.  So would mean lots of repetition in living out the "words" used in the epistle and rest of Scripture, obviously -- thus putting a primacy on John's words being deftly chosen to incorporate ALL of Divine Writ in what he writes.  That's a pretty bold promise!  Again, either John is wacko.. or is really writing from-the-source-of-God, as he claims.

Of course, then the Lord Himself would be even more wacko, for John is merely incorporating by reference all of  John 14-17, the Lord's Last Supper discourse which had been known for three generations at the time John wrote that Gospel and this verse.  (Bible books are often written as a legacy to future generations, when the current and past generations which had the information, have turned negative;  or, when the prophet/writer in question, will soon die.  Idea of leaving behind a written record of what was taught.  So Paul's contemporaneous writing was a major exception to that rule.  That, because he was getting Canon for a far-flung audience which needed it right then, and he couldn't travel fast enough.)

Specifically, John is reminding them of the promise of the Parakletos in John 14, with emphasis on the command to stop sinning VIA the Peace He gives, in John 14:27 (which is right on the heels of the Parakletos discourse in 14:16-26).  In John 14:27, the 3rd-person imperative of prohibition is used -- stop doing something one IS doing.  The 3rd-person imperative is the strongest kind, in koine (maybe also Attic) Greek.  It's always mistranslated in English with "let", a horrible reversal of meaning.  There's no "let" about it.  It's a me+imperative, and with the third person, it's a universal prohibition: NEVER will there be a time when it's okay to violate the prohibition.  Moreover, the Greek verbs in John 14:27 are tarassw and deiliaw, very strong soul tumult.  Susa was "tarassw" over the Purim announcement (Esther 3:15);  King Herod was "tarassw" over the prospect of a true King being born in Israel, and all Israel with him (Matt2:3);  soul-all-in-a-tumult, royally upset, thrown into confusion, expectation of calamity is what "tarassw" means.  Verb deiliaw means to be panic-stricken, to 'crack up' as we put it in modern English -- due to a cowardly nature.  The "heart" is Bible term for the believing part of the soul throughout Bible.

So John 14:27c should read in idiomatic English, "STOP your heart's [being] upset, and STOP its panicking cowardice."  He began the chapter the same way (14:1), so it's disbelief in the WORD which causes upset and cowardice (ibid).  

So now you know another reason why John chooses "tis":  he's reminding the reader of the 3rd-person imperative in John 14:27, which was newly available for comparison.  Clever way for the Holy Spirit, the Parakletos for John, to attest to His Authorship of the Gospel of John, doncha think?

Ok, but how does one stop sinning any kind of sin;  how does one stop being agitated, when this world is one PILE of agitation?  Well, just as the Lord said in John 14-17 -- "words" -- His Words.  In you.  "Words", not "works".  Words mean you have these words in your head, obviously (Ho Logos in your logoi, Greek wordplay in 1Cor1:5).  His Word.  Him.  So the FIRST thing is to use 1Jn1:9, as John just explained, to get the Word operating in you;  the FIRST thing to remember when out of fellowship, here in 2:1, is that we have Parakletoi.  That matters, because it's a kind of promise which brings relief -- instead of guilt.  Guilt is a sin which paralyzes, Matt9.  Son intercedes while we are out of fellowship, and Spirit fills us when in.  John will spend the rest of the letter explaining this dynamic.  For clearly, if you are filled with the Spirit (1Jn1:9 used), you are NOT able to sin at the same time (1Jn5:18, presaged here).

So that's how you STOP SINNING:  keep on being filled with the Spirit, by using 1Jn1:9 -- thus John reminds the reader of Eph5 and 1Thess 5, especially Eph5:18 and 1Thess 5:19.  I really want to translate 1Jn2:1 as "If you master the contents of this letter, you will STOP SINNING."  But while that's what John means, his actual words are different.  More deft.  Leaving the reader to recognize the meaning as he reads the words, rather than hit the reader over the head with the meaning.  So it slowly dawns on you.  And THEN hits you between the eyes. 

In English grammar school, you used to be schooled in the difference between "can" and "may".  The word "may" is a more-polite form of "can"; up through even the 1950's, only ill-bred children used "can" in lieu of "may".  "Can I go out to play, Mommy?" was Bad English, shame-on-you.  But "May I go play, Mother?" was a well-bred child's request.  So English Bible translations of 1Jn2:1 use "may" -- the polite form.

In modern-day English, "may" connotes doubt more often than it denotes an ability or permission.  So I opted for "can", to delete the idea of doubt.  There's NO doubt about the results, in the Greek.  Hina clause blends purpose and result, God's Rema (neuter, in Greek means Spoken-to-Teach) Word never returns void, theme of  Isa55 which John has been invoking since 1:1 (neuter accusative of  hos). 

WORD IN YOU STOPS THE SINNING.  That's the headline of  John Chapter 2, thereby reminding the reader of Psalm 119:11's famous "I have hidden Your Word in my heart that I may not sin against You."  Sung by those on the death march to Babylon, as they were brutalized, raped, tortured during the journey.  Remember that famous verse, for John invokes it again, in 2:5ff.  You know "WORD IN YOU"  is what John means, because

a) he already threaded 1:1 into 2:1 via use of "tauta", these WORDS he's writing;

b) he's again 'roping' "Word in you" from 1:10 into 2:1, typical Greek piggybacking of a prior conclusion forming a current premise/condition --

c) for he'd just finished showing the Word is NOT in you if you won't use 1Jn1:9;

d) thus the Word IS in you, if you DO use 1Jn1:9. 

e) So the Word in you, stops the sinning. 

f) And you also see roping, due to the proximity and placement of the words, the if-then construction of the last five verses prior:

g) because he PARALLELS the most famous name for Christ, the Word, here in 1Jn2:1 with "Jesus Christ the Righteous" in the famous Isa53:11 clause -- which talks about how His THINKING paid for sins.  He Who Became the Truth (parallel from 1Jn1:6 and 8). 

h) John's style of parallelism 'arranges' words so you can see them in columnar comparison:  a tic-tac-toe diagram, three clauses per verse (condition followed by two result clauses in verses 5-10, all balancing).

So trace, beginning with the next verse (2:3), how John thereafter begins using "by this.. know", as a refrain.  Its repetition, builds.  John also becomes ever more scathing in his criticism of religiosity, much like the Lord's anti-religiosity comments in the Gospels. Why?  Because, as James tried to explain from Jas1:1-2:26, you cannot substitute the WORD for anything, i.e., works.  HE is the Substitute, so there is no substitution for Him.

The WORD is Someone Whose Word you are supposed to KNOW, 2Pet3:18, Eph3:15-19.  YOU know.  YOU.  Inside yourself.  Hence, "by this.. know" will be the insistent rhythm from here on out, in 1Jn.  You might want to read 2Jn before you return to 1Jn2:3.  Preview of coming attractions, believers didn't listen to 1Jn.  So 2Jn is pretty terse and scathing.

Of course, almost none of this meaning ports over into English. Doesn't matter that 1John is the simplest Greek to translate.  You can't tell from the English how John 'ropes' from all over the Bible, because the roping keywords are GREEK.  Bible scholars have known this for centuries, which is why lexical entries in GOOD lexicons, frequently provide other Bible verses in which the same word occurs.  That's why the KJV and NASB are translated somewhat stiffly:  they try to translate the same Greek (or Hebrew) word with the same English word whenever possible.  Problem is, they don't amalgamate the LXX verses in the OT with the Hebrew, so you CANNOT trace many of the NT quotes of the LXX.  NASB tries to help you out by capitalizing major OT-quoted passages, but frankly every NT verse is tying back to MANY OT verses, so to maintain economy, the keywords of the ORIGINAL language are used deftly.  Hence the modern reader of a translation, never learns the very mechanism by which God intends him to STUDY Scripture, all because he's using a translation.  It's tragic, it's boring, and frankly the translations all put one to sleep.  Vague and fuzzy, but what a great NAP!

So the modern reader glosses over the English and gushes, "oh, how nice."  And then promptly forgets what he read, busy piling up works.  To him, the Bible is something to argue over, be 'right in doctrine' versus a 'heretic';  so the MEANING in Bible is all Greek, to him.  Such a modern reader will pride himself on the big words he knows, on his encylopedic rattling of Church history;  on what one theologian contends versus another;  and of course he can't discern who among them, is right.  So he prizes credentials, respectability, how "nice" someone acts as his criterion for expertise, for spirituality.  He will aggregate with those he thinks 'spiritual' and villify those not of his group;  he will rattle off famous creeds, writers, and Bible verses by the score, yet never discern what they signify;  he will debate endlessly and pride himself on his knowledge.  Yet if you ask him to parse Isa53:10-12's verbs even in the English, and then answer what HAPPENED to Christ on the Cross -- he can't say.  Instead, he'll parrot what Hoary Head claimed happened (usually, that Christ's physical death paid for sins, never mind that 21 times in Isa52-53, Isaiah says it was HIS LIVING SOUL which paid for sins).  Yeah, everything but the meaning of the words IN BIBLE, he knows how to read.  No 1Jn1:9 means no ability to read the Word, as John had just explained.  In 1Jn2, John will demonstrate these and other  results of naming versus not-naming sins.  Devilish results.

Yeah, no Word in him, not a doer of the Word (James 1:22). All that tragic human building, instead of being built by his Parakletos;  ever busy, he's tragically piling up lots of wood hay and stubble for the Bema (1Cor3).  John will remind the believer of all this in 1Jn4:17, possibly the most climactic verse in the NT.  But right now, John's still setting up that platform:  we've been introduced to the Person Who Will Be Sitting On It, Our Parakletos, Jesus the Righteous One Who Will Hand Out The Spoil, on that Day.

2:3 "So by means of this fact we know that we are knowing Him (John switched to the dramatic perfect tense):  if HIS Commandments we cherish, guard, hold close, protect."

1 John 2:3  BGT  Καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν.

Greek verb terew will be the focus of the next three verses.  It has two main branches of meaning:  military sense of to guard, and marital intimacy sense of cherish and protect.   To translate it "keep" is okay, but in today's English "keep the commandments" is all huff-and-puff.  Not so the Greek terew, which is founded on an utter devotion, something you LOVE to do and don't want to live without. You might "terew" your privacy, your free time, your family, your favorite hobby, your country.  You are possessive of it;  it's always on your mind, so you are 'occupied' with it.  You linger over it, not wanting to stop paying attention.  No amount of time or effort spent on its behalf, is too much.  You ache if you can't be near it, you yearn to grasp it all the time, so it is on your MIND, all the time, kinda like tfellin.  So that's the kind of "keeping" you do, when you "terew" something or .. Someone.

If you look at the usage of terew throughout Bible, you'll realize John is blending BOTH branches of meaning, military and marital-intimate cherishing.  Here he specifically incorporates the many (64, per BibleWorks) verses which use the verb in the NT;  it was a favorite verb of the Lord's.  But surprisingly, John also incorporates all of Jude by reference.  Terew is a main verbal framework theme of Jude, with lots of wordplay on the verb's meaning;  and is all about how the Angelic Conflict gets resolved in Church, producing the Rapture (verse 1 and 21).  [Last phrase in v.21 is mistranslated, should read "with reference to eternal life".  Again, stupid translation rule of one English word for one Greek word causes blasphemous misreadings.  This is one of those verses the gotta-work-for-salvation crowd uses, never looking at the many uses of Greek preposition eis.  Verse 21 should read, "Guard, cherish yourselves by means of the Love of God, awaiting anxiously the MERCY LOVE (play on chesed in the Hebrew) of Our Lord Jesus Christ with reference to eternal life."  It's a reminder of Psalm 23:6.  Verse 20 defined what "Love of God" is -- being filled with Spirit and Word,  Paul's metaphor of Love=Word in 1Cor13.]

Maybe trace all the uses of terew by the Lord and by Jude His half-brother, before examining what John does with terew here in verses 2:3-5.

So again, as in verse 2, John ties to the Trial in heaven playing also here on earth.  Yeah, and we need to hear him do that, so we stop looking at ourselves and our things, busy with whether we're better than someone else!  Nothing like looking UP to change one's perspective.

EXEGETICAL KEY:  Obviously, you can't obey what you didn't FIRST come to know. So John switches from the present tense of ginwskw to the perfect tense of ginwskw, depicting how the present, depends on the past.  This is how you track the first-ness John stresses -- by the NON-present tenses he uses.  If you go back through the prior verses, you see the same pattern:  what is distinguished NON-presently, actually happened PRIOR;  thus the current condition, obtains;  thus the current condition is wholly DEPENDENT on what happened prior.  So the current condition (i.e., state of sin) must be CHANGED (i.e., using 1Jn1:9) and/or REPEATED (again, 1Jn1:9) in order for the current condition to itself become a "prior" with the desired result.

So all those accumulated priors, depict sine qua nons (="without which, nothing exists").  John thus talks in absolutes.  No substitutions, no middle ground.  It will be impossible to understand the flow and meaning of the climactic Chapters 4 and 5, if you don't do this tense-tracking.

Something FIRST happened in order for you to be in whatever status you are now.  God had to be First, then Christ had to be First, then witnesses had to first tell you about Him, then you had to first believe in Him, then you had to first sin after believing, then you had to first use 1Jn1:9.  All these firsts become PASTS and are precedental to how you live the spiritual life.  Idea of First Commandment (coming up, in verse 5).

If you read Wallace or other advanced Bible Greek grammar texts, you are told that the Greek perfect tense, particularly with verbs innately depicting present results from past action, should often be translated in English with the present tense, or at least the present perfect tense.  Since John will use a dual-verb construction like this one throughout the rest of his letter to stress current results from past action;  since John stresses the current action as a play onstage (Angelic Trial, introduced in 2:1), I will translate the perfect tense as progressive; or, if in English you'd still realize the action is presently occurring, I'll use the simple present. You still need to see when he switches tenses, to TRACK the threaded relationships.  I can't translate with the English perfect tense, to enable that tracking.  For the Greek perfect tense doesn't function like the English.  Depends on what "aspect" the Greek stresses;  so the English must translate the ASPECT, not matching tense name.  Trouble with that, is you'd think the tense in the Greek is the same:  so I'll just have to follow the convention above, saying in small font that John switched tense.

For  John walks the reader through a current action or state which in turn comes from current results DUE TO past action.  Because, we are all ONSTAGE.  John's demonstrating the CURRENT REALITY of Hebrews 11, especially 11:1,  from this point forward.  So to translate the perfect tense of ginwskw as "are knowing" links the present to the past as John intends it, with the same vividness that the always-mistranslated Hebrews 11:1, conveys.

Greek "en toutoi" is a rhetorical device which alerts the reader to a conclusion.  Greek preposition "en" more often signifies "by means of", especially when the object is a conclusion in an exposition, as here.  So "by means of this fact" might not be the best English translation (I'll have to refine it), but it's clearer than "by this" in the typical Bible translation  -- "by this" WHAT?  is not answered in English translations.  Again, the translator is constrained to translate one Greek word with one English word.  In English, John becomes very hard to follow, since you never know WHAT "this" refers to.  No such doubt, in the Greek.  No wonder the translations are snoozy and obtuse!

Sometimes, "en toutoi" refers to what preceded.  More often, it's what follows that is the conclusion, as here.  Then, the conclusion becomes a premise, and is explained.  This reverse pattern of discourse (conclusion first, then explanation) is also common in expositional Greek.  You go from something you KNOW now, to something you'll LEARN now.  Again, John's showing them how to THINK in their daily lives.  Plodding.

Again, the article is used with autos, so I just translated it with a capital "HIS".  Again, Christ's God-Man nature is stressed.  These are HIS commandments, specifically.  That ropes in all of what He said ABOUT the commandments, when He was here (in the Gospels).  That also ropes in what the writer of Hebrews said about the Word Paying so all is IN HIM, He's behind the Veil (Heb Chaps 1-9, showing how the OT covenant was replaced, upgraded IN Christ).  Of course, all the "in Him" discourse of Paul, is likewise roped in.  All by the simple pairing of an article and a possessive, plus the sacred use of "He".

Notice that you have to REASON OUT if you know something.  If you have to reason a thing out, it means you have insufficient or no visible means of knowing, else.  So gone are the flashy, visible spiritual gifts: just as Paul said they would be when Canon was completed.  John already baldly advertised he's the Last Writer Of Canon in 1:4, thus is fulfilled what Christ said in John 16:24, and what God had Paul prophesy in 1Cor13:9-12. (You can't see that Paul is talking about Canon from the English, because most of the "Head" and "Word" wordplay is mistranslated in 1Cor -- the wordplay begins in 1Cor1:5, and 1Cor12:31 plays on the Head being above the Body, so "Perfect" in 1Cor13:9ff means CANON, His Head's Thinking.  Greek word "agape" ONLY means God's Love everywhere in Bible -- and since the translator is forced to use only ONE word for the ONE Greek word, God's Head is effectively cut off, so you don't know from the English WHOSE LOVE it is, in Chapter 13.  Thus Paul equates Word=God's Love.. in writing.  Clever, huh: marital contract, written declaration of Divine Love.  All this gorgeous meaning is missing from every translation language I can read, in 1Cor13.)

Thus John incorporates all of 1Cor by reference, to show its fulfillment:  the temporary gifts are GONE, but the Permanent Gift of Word in Writing is come, just as the writer of Hebrews stressed from Heb8:8-10:17.  So now John elaborates on how Heb10:15-17 and Heb11:1, get done for the reader.  Because, the reader is onstage in God's Trial Rebuttal versus Satan.  More about that Trial will be said as 1 John unfolds.

2:4 "The one alleging, "I know Him", yet His Commandments does not cherish, is a liar; so by means of this fact, [we know] the truth is, NOT [in him]."

1 John 2:4  BGT  ὁ λέγων ὅτι ἔγνωκα αὐτὸν καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ μὴ τηρῶν ψεύστης ἐστίν, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν·

John switched to the impersonal, indefinite pronoun "tis" in 2:1, and now continues with that impersonality by using hos with the participle (translated "the one alleging").  You can translate the Greek participle as a finite verb when it has the same effect as a finite verb; often Bible translations, do just that.  Greek uses the participle form to stress ACTION IN PROGRESS.  Present progress, past progress:  but in all events, the participle is used to show something which BEGAN in the past.  Again, John is talking "firsts". So the participle's stress on the in-progress nature John intends, is translated here literally.  That works well in English, though elegance is sacrificed.

Same strawman is in view;  in the PAST, this strawman just can't hack the idea he's not in the Light, not in with God, from 1:6;  so by now you have a string of fantasies this strawman lives on, to justify his not using 1Jn1:9:  he lives on the rationales of 1:6, 1:8, 1:10, and now, 2:3.  Fancying himself in fellowship, no longer a sinner, no longer sinning, knowing God.  Kinda devastating, huh.  Thus John had hooked the reader into recognizing oh!  I do those same sins!  So now John can simply use the impersonal mode of exposition, to keep the reader who WANTS to get out of that fantasizing, objectively learning.  As needed, John will change back and forth from the "dear children" reassurance clauses and this impersonal method, from here on out.  Thus he anticipates the reader's reactions, to what he says.  Of course, only God is omniscient.  So of course, only God could be so smart as to anticipate so well, how a reader will react to the letter.  Of course, then the reacting reader knows the letter comes from God, as it has a 'live' effect of 'answering' the THOUGHT which occurs in the reader's mind, real-time.  Thus the reader gets the reassurance he needs, that GOD wrote this Book.

"Cherish" is the first meaning of terew listed in 2:3.  Instead of repeating all four meanings in that verse, I just list the first meaning.  John's letter is about first, and "cherish" is the root idea behind "terew", from which all the guarding, keeping, protecting, etc. are motivated.  That's also a Greek rhetorical technique:  when the full list has been presented or is already known to the reader, you only mention the first item IN the list, to remind the reader of ALL of it.  John will use this very Greek rhetorical technique, in the next verse.

Again notice the proleptic position of "His Commandments", heroic accusative.  Just as in 2:1, "THE Hero Advocate".  Columnar parallelling continues, same rhetorical structure as in 1:6-10.

Economy in English, just as economy in Greek, often means you don't repeat something the reader already knows.  The reader already knows what John said in 1Jn1:10, only a few sentences back.  So he just repeats "is a liar" and "truth is not", literally.  So "we know" and "in him" don't need to be repeated either.  Again, this is an impersonal style of exposition, to keep the reader calm -- so the personals ("we know" and "in him") are left out.

And wow, the reader needs to KEEP his calm (pun on terew intended), here.  Who of us could really say we keep His Commandments?  We all know we fall short.  But again, John is talking of the strawman who FANCIES he's 'in' with God.  One has to be quite insane to fantasize that he keeps the commandments.  So the reader needs to be calm.  Hence the cutoffs, with only the relevant keywords in 1Jn1:10, threaded forward.

It now becomes a BURNING question, "What are HIS commandments?"  After all, everyone and his brother both then and now, would be quick to TELL someone else what they should do, claim to speak for God.. lots of people then and now were living regularly in 1:6,8,10,2:3-type rationales (John will say more about them, later in the Chapter).  So WHOSE 'commandments'  are being 'cherished'?  John answers that question, next.

2:5 "By contrast, if [another] one himself cherishes His Word, in reality by means of this fact, the Love of God is being teleio'd, fulfilled, completed (John switched to dramatic perfect);  and by means of this [same] fact we know we are in Him."

1 John 2:5  BGT  ὃς δ᾽ ἂν τηρῇ αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον, ἀληθῶς ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ τετελείωται· ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐσμεν.

The Greek here is completely awesome.  One of my webpages translated this verse, I think it's Caveat2.htm.  Throw out that translation, it's too shallow. Where does one begin?  The whole BIBLE is in this verse.

In 2:4, John used the article plus the participle to denote the strawman.  Yet here in 2:5, he suddenly switches to Attic Drama portrayal, using what would ordinarily be the second part of a men..de clause; and he upgrades the pronoun to "hos".  This one.  This one on stage.  Not the other one, who is clearly off the playing field, living in his fantasies.  Usually the hos..de clause is rendered second, so "this" would be the first-listed, and "that" would be the second.  JOHN REVERSES THEM here.  The first one doesn't even rate a "hos", but is a mere "ho".  How can anyone TRANSLATE this insult of 2:4 versus 2:5, in English?

John NEXT reverses the word order he's repeated of article + his, which I've been translating "HIS" in caps.  In Attic, koine "autos" had a different meaning.  It was an intensive pronoun, not a third person.  So kinda like the French "moi, toi, soi" it EMPHASIZES the person, isn't a mere pronoun.  Like in French you'd say, "parles-toi", meaning, "YOU speak!" or.. "speak for yourself!"  So too, "autos".

Thus in John's economy, he accomplishes two goals simultaneously, simply by reversing the position of autos:  1) he stresses that the believer himself must cherish the Word, and 2) that the LORD's Word, is FIRST.  As in, First in the phase.  In :10, it was "ho logos autou", but here it's "autou ton logon".  That's not a mistake or merely stressing the believer himself 'doing' a thing.  It's clever wordplay.

EDIT, February 2011: I've reversed my contention that Hebrew text is missing from Isaiah 53. By Isaiah's Hebrew meter pattern, you can prove that no text is missing. You can also prove it, I just learned, by examining the interplay between Psalm 90 and Isaiah 53, Daniel 9's prayer and of all things, Ephesians 1:3-14's Greek! So much of what follows in this webpage is obsolete, a relic showing where things 'were'. The videos, however, are au courant, and I'm still documenting by video the astonishing meter ties in Daniel 9 and Ephesians, live Bible text onscreen: for unless one sees it live, it isn't believable. It's the most sophisticated and AUDITABLE accounting meter imaginable. Shocks me still, here as I edit this page. The reason why the Isaiah 52-54 LXX Greek keywords are used by New Testament writers is simply to build upon the Hebrew with new transformative additions.

You might already know that Isaiah 53 is a hotly-contested passage. Some of the biggest 'scholar' names in Christendom have 'decided' that there was more than one 'Isaiah', and also that Bible Hebrew has no meter. For over 100 years respectable people have also claimed that Isaiah 53 is missing some words (i.e., the Isaiah scroll). They are all proven WRONG on all three counts, SIMPLY BY COUNTING AND EXAMINING THE METER! Even a five-year old can count syllables. Guess this wasn't done! So of course, you have to see it yourself, vet it yourself, before you can justify believing it. Ergo the videos below, provide that live evidence in mss Bible text you have and can test (e.g., BHS or Leningrad). No words are changed from the standard text, and no funny assumptions about syllables are needed, either. Video text comes from BibleWorks 5, directly pasted from its WTT (which was the BHS text in that version). So you can easily verify the results.

It took seven years (heh) for me to get to this politically-incorrect (!) reversal. So, the videos below on Hypothesis #4, walk you through how I got here, beginning with an overview, followed by the first 2 Hypotheses, which still assumed Hebrew text was missing; Hypothesis #3 couldn't balance. Hypothesis#4 videos turned out to be correct. The video collection walks you through all that, and then concludes with a panoramic review of Isaiah's meter pairing (lol play on Hupostatic Union throughout!), and how you can see the predictive quality as a calendar. (Suggest you also get the Isaiah series from my pastor, especially Lessons 25-29, which cover Isaiah 53. This webpage was created before I heard those lessons, and I'm not allowed to post his copyrighted audio.)

The videos on Psalm 90's (and Daniel 9's) Hebrew meter and keywords, meaning, and how Isaiah 53 plays off them, follow in the third playlist below. You might want to start there first, as it's the most current material -- and is yet unfinished, as I'm still documenting Daniel 9. Word docs showing the mss and metered translations are provided in each video of that playlist for Psalm 90, Isaiah 53, Daniel 9, and Ephesians, so you can test the meter yourself.

Sadly, only the first 50 videos (there are over 70) will play off-Youtube. So with the 50th video you'll have to view the rest IN Youtube.

Now, one still needs the amalgamated meaning in the LXX and Hebrew in translations, so the exegesis and translations within this webpage material are still valid. However, I revised the poetic translation to the now-revised meter shown in Hypothesis #4. You'll see that, at the end of the second playlist below (last three videos of it go through the metered translation, which you can download).

The videos themselves are on Youtube with relevant updated material not yet listed in this webpage. Video descriptions contain important links. Worksheet on the historical importance of Isaiah 53's meter: click here.

Also click on a video, to put it in the main video window; then, click in that window to get Youtube to open a new window on that video directly. Thus you should be able to access the many links to the Word docs. If you have a problem, email me or contact me in Youtube.

This first playlist is merely about exegesis:

This one covers the Meter Hypotheses:

Here is the Psalm 90 playlist, which is the most comprehensive coverage of the meter ties within all four passages (Psalm 90, Isaiah 53, Daniel 9, and Ephesians 1:3-14, still in progress):

The rest of this webpage contains the old material, and is generally not updated for the videos above. Its import is interpretational, assessing Isaiah's style and the doctrinal value of what Chapter 53 means. It is mostly what you'd expect, with some minor wrinkles about Isaiah's rhetorical style which perhaps scholars know -- but I can't find them notice.

The biggest divergence from the 'standard' Christian interpretation is the proof that Christ paid for sins with HIS THINKING, while still physically alive; Isaiah leads up to that climactic statement (bedato yatsdiq clause in Isaiah 53:11) beginning in 52:13, so I trace it out, in what follows. For decades my pastor was the only one teaching that His Thinking paid for sins, and the man took a lot of 'heat' from Christians less versed in the text, who preferred to think Christ died physically for sins. However, in the last 20 years or so there has been a growing awareness of what to me is the OBVIOUS meaning (bedato yatsdiq clause in Isaiah 53:11). So today you should be able to find at least some 'respectable' people now acknowledging He paid for sins on the Cross while still alive. The old lie of physical death to pay for SOUL sins lingers, and its old illogic will perhaps never die. But the text is clear, and that's the Authority, would we but see it.

Else, there's not much different from the 'standard' interpretation. More color and nuance, which indeed affects how you read the passage, but no major doctrinal shifts -- excepting the awesome meter, of course.

To skip the Preface and go straight to the WORKING translation, Click Here. To instead go straight to the EXPANDED translation with exegetical notes, click here. To go instead to the POETIC translation which apes Isaiah's meter in the Hebrew, Click Here. The Poetic Translation is best viewed full-screen; it's designed to show wholly, in that format. Of the three translations, I think the poetic one is the most 'loyal' to what God caused Isaiah to say in his own style. The prose translations below are not exactly the same, of course; they were done two years prior to the poetic translation. They do show more meaning in the text than you can find in published translations, and help one see the wordplay Isaiah actually uses. Alas, prose versions cannot reflect Isaiah's metered style of writing, which greatly matters: for you get DOCTRINE TAUGHT from the very meter he uses. So the poetic translation, apes his meter. ALL translations here will be revised/refined as time passes. There is no substitute for the original-language texts, so every translation is at best, an approximation.

Reading tip: if you want easy side-by-side comparison with only the original-language Hebrew and Greek texts of Isa52:13-54:1 which also shows the meter in the original Hebrew and Greek, click here for ISA53.RTF, a Word.doc. The Hypotheses videos use that meter for the Hebrew, but also show alternate metering per Hypothesis. Another video collection which goes verse by verse, is in the Expanded Translation section.

Site importance: Isaiah 53 tells us how God Makes Sons From His Son; so this is His Plan for each of our lives; salvation, and then Living With Him Forever. Which means, we have to be Made Like Him On The Inside, in our souls. This Plan is a Marriage Contract provision made in Eternity Past, per Eph1. That Contract is sourced in Isa53's clauses, which constitute the most concentrated explanation in the Bible. So, to designate the Bridal Contractual Nature, this website's background uses the "Thinking" series color scheme of Bridal Legal-Pink Parchment. [If you don't like it, just change "background" in the BODY statement of the sourcecode to "bckground", and it will disappear.] A shorter version of this page is in the "Isa53:10-12" link at pagetop (Isa53.htm), which only covers the heart of the contract. But to interpret it, you need the whole context to see the rhetorical styles Isaiah uses throughout the whole chapter (which really starts in 52:13). Hence this webpage. The two pages might not have the exact same translations; God's Word is multi-storied, like a skyscraper, so it's good to vary translations to see nuances you'd otherwise miss. [This Genius is consistent in Isaiah. So I don't buy for five seconds the idea that there is a mix of authors, at least for any Messiah passages (and there are many throughout the book), i.e., the so-called 2nd and 3rd Isaiah. Possibly post-mortem, some other authors wrote down what ISAIAH taught, as all the Gospel writers tell us about what Christ said and did. But God the Holy Spirit knows what Isaiah said; same as Moses was given to know what Abram said, etc. So it's STILL Isaiah, really.]

It's worth more than all the kingdoms of the world, to see this Chapter. No wonder the Lord turned Satan's 3rd Temptation down: sorry, Charlie, nuthin' compares!

Upshot: God offers you a Contract: to exchange your (thinking, true soul) nature just as you are.. for His Own Nature. Which is a conversion from human nature, DNA+your 'soul' DNA, to His Divine DNA, which is Pure Thought: the Thought which paid for our sins on the Cross, per Isa53:10-12. So Isaiah uses this biological metaphor (expressed without our modern vocabulary), to explain what's really going on, what salvation is really about.

The Chapter actually starts in what we call Isaiah 52:13 (chapter and verse were invented by the College of Paris in the 1100's AD to make Bible easier to study). When you go through the God-breathed original-language texts, you see exactly how salvation was purchased, promulgated, and most importantly BUILT in the recipient: any member of the human race who believes in this Son for salvation. Essentially, it's the replacement of your own 'soul' DNA with Divine DNA, since God's 'DNA' (aka "Attributes") are Immaterial And Volitional. Can't divorce volition from personhood. So, your consent is needed for this transmutation into His DDNA to occur. Cross is what created the mechanism, and Consent is what authorizes it to occur. Because, That's how it happened to Christ Himself.

So what happened to Him, is to happen to us. Namely, that we are to be Made Sons Of God, which can only mean that God's Own Nature is meant to be put into us; else, we can't see Him, fellowship with Him, live with Him forever.

Isaiah deftly explains this problem in Isaiah53:2c, by the use of the Hebrew word, "hadar". The term means man's glory, man's achievements -- man's, not God's. Christ didn't conform to hadar, and we despised Him for it. We still do. We want God to make us important in our own eyes, not in HIS Own Eyes. It's that sad, that simple, and that's why He keeps on being crucified by us even now, Heb6:1-6. So we miss out on being made True Glory, from Him Who is Glory.. preferring like Esau, some red lentil stew ("pottage" in English Bibles), instead. No wonder our works are so full of wind, reaping the tornado.

Which, sooner or later, one learns the hard way. We are slaves to the body, and it is our 'god', tyrannizing us. We won't recognize that. We will do just about anything to make the body feel good (however we subjectively define the term). So we can and do invent any manner of rationalizations for what we think and do, always subservient to the body. So our souls, atrophy. We become progressively animalistic (i.e., demanding) as we age, reverting to a spoiled version of a child. Fancying ourselves all the while, holy. So when all crashes down during some adversity, or when faced with illness or death, well.. then we've an opportunity to see how futile it is, to live in this world's hadar. Sic transit gloria mundi. At which point, we hopefully recognize our addiction, and grab the liferaft of John 3:16, or Romans 8:4, thus turn and get healed...

Frankly, the angels had essentially the same Grow-up-in-God plan we do; their particulars of course differ quite a lot; so we who started out lower, end up higher than the angels, if we complete the training/surgery of this transformation in Christ, which is to say, in His Thinking. Ergo, the NT is devoted to explaining Isaiah 53, and all the OT runs through it as well: for this was an Eternity Past Contract between Father and Son ('heart' of contract is in Isa53:10-11). So, all the Bible is about the Due Diligence Disclosure And Implementation Of That Contract, to get His Nature (Son's, "Seed") into us. Each 'dot' of that Nature, deliberately made subject to our consent, since it was First Subject To His Own Consent. Love never coerces.

Functional infinity is qualitative, not quantitative, Matt4:4. God-quality, in every 'dot'. So the question, is to get the 'dots'. Thought replicates immaterially. You read the words on this page, and they remain on the page, but are now simultaneously in your own soul. Brain gets imprinted with these thoughts; your volition interacts with them, and thus mutates pre-existing thought in you. That's an RNA-DNA transaction, as DDNA.htm (link at pagetop) explains in detail. So how much more, Divine Thought replicating in you? That's God's Plan For You, So You Can Be Compatible With Him Forever, And Thus Be Happy Living With Him Forever. You can reject that plan. You can accept that plan. Your acceptance Authorizes This Plan To Act On You. You can't make it work, only God can take His Own DDNA, as it were, and put it in you.

But He won't do that, apart from your ongoing consent. First consent, John 3:16, which sets up the Compatible Structure. After that, it's all Romans 8, the Ongoing Process Of DDNA Conversion, with a 24/7 need for consent. (Paul looks at Isa53 in everything he writes, and thus likens this ongoing process to a pregnancy, in the Greek of Romans 8, with crescendoes about it after that, in Romans 9-12.) So when you finish being functionally built per Romans 8:4 (Greek), when your thinking has been sufficiently transmuted as per Romans 12:1-3 (Greek), then you are "Pleroma", Eph3:15-19: built and living at God's Level, fully. Notice this goal is internal, not external. Notice that since it requires the Holy Spirit's power to make God's Thinking FUNCTION in you, it's God-quality, "treasure in earthen vessels". That's a kind of hupostasis, union of opposites. So indeed the thoughts in you are Divine, even though you yourself, are not only a mere human, but quite imperfect. Of course, the imperfection is shed at death, but the finity remains. So does, the ACCUMULATED THINKING you learned down here. It's this thinking alone, which you take with you when you die. Something your soul, becomes.

So What Kind Of Person Due To What Kind Of Thinking.. do you forever become?

For it's your soul, not your body, which is saved and going to heaven. That's the goal, to make your soul's thinking fully like Christ's; for that's what happened TO Christ via the Holy Spirit; so that's His Legacy to each human (main theme of Book of Hebrews, Ephesians). Your choice, what of that offer, you accept. God's Choice, how He does it. His Power, your choice. Just as it was, for Christ Himself.

We all know that people become what they think. The progressively bitter-thinking person becomes a bitterness to be around. The progressively-happy person becomes a happiness to be around. Thinking of any kind literally transforms the soul by means of progressive, repetitive, association with life. And let's face it, the childhood dreams we all had, turn out to be just that: childish, not at all like reality. So it's very easy to become bitter, as one ages. The soul becomes infused with bitter thinking.. so the soul ITSELF becomes bitter. By the end, even the simple pleasures in life are bitter. For as the soul thinks, so the person is, Prov23:7.

Christ is the happiest Person in the universe. So clearly learning His Thinking makes one progressively happier. So happy, that even being made sin was a happiness to Him. How is that possible? But surely it must be so, else why would Father do that to His Own Son? Why would God, Who doesn't have to put up with anything, WANT to even create -- knowing, as He surely has always known, the horror of it all? Something He THINKS (i.e., knows) must JUSTIFY that, and it wouldn't justify creating -- unless HAPPINESS comes from it. God can make Happiness come from anything. Yet never gerrymanders truth. So there MUST be something about the Truth, which JUSTIFIES God ordaining free creation. So if we learn that Truth, we become progressively happy, even as He is, Phili2:5-10, 2Pet3:18, Heb12:1-2. That's why Isaiah 53's contract is so helpful: it gives you the entire story in but 16 verses.

God could 'make' Truth be whatever He wanted, obviously -- else He wouldn't be omnipotent. For if we puny humans can make our own souls via our own thinking -- how much more, God? So, then: the Truth He chooses to ordain must be free and happy, for Him to elect to create as He does. How is this possible?

So in a work of fabric (the Temple Veil being the quintessential depiction of God's Thinking), sometimes some threads are on 'top', and others are beneath (i.e., the Veil was, if I remember correctly, described by Josephus as several feet thick). So a little bit of a thread is variantly top, then a little below, then a little more below, but.. all threads are always present. Just like, God's Thinking. And this thinking therefore can be woven in you: just like DNA (and specifically, RNA-DNA conversion).

These original God-Breathed (aka "MSS") texts are copies of the original penning. We have thousands of these copies, denoted by codenames; some of them no more than a sentence, in length. Mostly, these copies are of the NT; we have fewer copies of the OT.

It's the OT which is more complicated, because there are two versions of inspired OT writ: the first is in Hebrew (well, and other languages, but mostly Hebrew), and is known as the "Masoretic" text or "BHS" (which means one of the Massoreh, which is preserved in Stuttgart, Germany). Three copies of the Masoretic text survive (if I recall correctly), but the "BHS" is the one most respected for its fealty. However, the Masoretic texts date back to medieval times, and we have proof from an earlier set of copies that the Masoretic text is faulty (copying errors). Not to worry, God knew all that in advance, and in fact provided what's called the "Septuagint" (aka "LXX", the Roman numeral for the same word, meaning "seventy") so we can compare to the BHS text and thus find what's faulty in it. The LXX was used by Christ and the NT writers, far more often than whatever Hebrew OT they had (the BHS of course didn't exist during the first century, but rather it's some version of what did exist back then).

Because the original-language text of the Massoreh is the same as the original languages initially written by OT authors, scholars tend to regard the BHS text as more legitimate, and all your translated Bibles (except Brenton's) do NOT use the LXX as their basis for translation. That's a real pity, for where the BHS is wrong, you need the LXX to find what is wrong. Scribes are hard-working, but who is perfect? Only God. So we should be looking at what GOD provided. But, we don't. That's a fatal mistake, if you want to understand Isaiah 53.

There are pastors trained in the original-language textual study, in every denomination and no denomination; but the congregations are bored by such teaching, so many is the teacher whose study is relegated to the five or so minutes a week when the world isn't tugging at his sleeve, to grow on his own. This can all be changed and very quickly, if we pray for them to have courage to teach anyway. Only a few believers need to pray (2Cor5:21+Gen15:6+1Jn1:9+James5:16, 2Chron7:14, Mal3:10); but if many do, then many more will be blessed (ibid, esp. last two cites). Then live the prayer, heh -- get fed up on Word, so you won't get fed up on life. For life is frustrating, boring, empty, bitter, apart from Him growing in you, 2Pet3:18.

Which three verses, you 'll see here yet again. Larger page on just those three verses, is in the pagetop link, "Isa53:10-12". Important: the translation here of those three verses is often very different, and purposely so. Idea is to show how so much meaning is in the original-language texts, you can't but lose significant amounts of it, when you translate. So any translation suffers from having too little meaning, versus the inspired text. Hence translations can differ, and quite a lot; sometimes the difference is due to sheer sloppiness in the translating, but often it's because you cannot convey all the meaning in any translation. Especially, the deliberately-fuzzy English, since that language was developed for use in law, diplomacy and commerce (where fuzziness is vital to survival, so you always have interpretative 'wiggle room'). [Law, diplomacy, commerce all are based on precision, but the language used needs to be fuzzy, so that all possible uses of what usually amount to obligations can be covered, yet negotiated ad hoc. English language is great for that; but lousy, for learning your Lord's communication.]

Isaiah 52:13ff is in the context of a deeply marital warning and promise-of-blessing to Israel, as are most of Isaiah's 'exhortations'. The words used are graphic, intimate, and even in this modern internetting age, I can't put in writing all the marital nuances. The wording is not crass, generally, but it always (nearly every word) has bedroom-intimacy connotations. For example, the word "turns" is more like a wife turns away from her husband in bed, not wanting 'it' tonight, honey. Or, running after other lovers.

This constant rhetorical usage of marital intimacy is by far the most common metaphorical construct in the Bible, starting with the very name Eve gave her first-born, Cain: from qayin=spear, comes from qanah to acquire/redeem -- do you get that pun? David sure did, using it in the Hebrew of Psalm 139:13! [NoWombLife.htm has some exegesis of Ps139:11-17, in its "Don't Abort My Word" table.] Verb qanah is used as a Temple word for our REDEMPTION (in Mosaic Law, which on the larger level depicts how God redeems His people, how Christ redeems/ransoms us from spiritual death, resulting in our salvation). Eve deliberately picks "spear" to name her MALE son. Paul picked up on that wry naming when he says that the woman shall be delivered through delivery, 1Tim2:15 (see context). [The ELB, Revidierte Elberfelder 1993 German Bible, seems to recognize that wordplay (durch..hindurch). I didn't see it recognized in any of the Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, French, English Bible translations. My pastor loves this verse, loves that pun.]

Those are but a few examples how God mixes holiness with marital intimacy, and all the rituals and Temple keywords have this connotation built into them (which you can prove from a detailed lexicon, as you search out the Hebrew or Greek LXX roots). Knowing itself is euphemistically used for the sexual act in the Bible; the idea being, Intimately Know God. Else, you are spurning Him. That's why fornication, idolatry, and religion, good deeds are all illicit 'sex', for God is not the Real Object. Bible is very explicit about all this, IN the original-language texts. Ascetically covered over, in pretty much every translation. Because, like this webpage, the translators can't exactly publicly state/print what's really 'in there'. We have to worry about public offense. God is not so encumbered.

There are many problems with official Bible translations, but their biggest flaw is they truncate/chop out from translation, meaning which is actually in the original-language texts. Quick example: say the original Bible verse read, "The Maserati convertible sped down the Autobahn". But the 'translation' of it is rendered, "the vehicle moved down the path." Notice how the only correct word in the translation, is "down". Everything else is so fuzzed over, you miss the entire meaning intended. Every verse in a Bible translation of any language, does this. Some fuzz over more than others; often, the meaning of the word is reversed in translations. But these errors are cleverly strategic, and persist over the centuries -- so there is a superhuman orchestration of mistranslation. So we don't need to blame anyone. Mistranslation is merely a problem we face, when learning Bible.

Now, switch to defend the mistranslations: it's impossible to port over the Genius of Scripture, into any other language. For example, in Isa52:14, which you'll see translated below, the Hebrew SOUNDS like this (spelled phonetically): "k'asher shamaymu alayká rabbim; ken-mish'hát me-yish maraáyhu; wuh-toáro mi-beniy adam." It's metered. The first clause is 10 syllables; second is 8, last is 9, depending on how you want to drawl the vowels; the LXX uses 10-8-9-10 syllables, because both the first and the last Hebrew clause are double-entendre for His God-Man nature. So the last Hebrew clause is intentionally SHORT, for the Most High Who Incarnated to bear the grief of and by, men. So He! was looked upon with horror and shame (not sympathetic, k? they are ashamed OF Him); so He! is beaten beyond recognition by men! Yet these who beat Him -- all of us! -- are the very ones (rabbim=many) He will SAVE! Ok: how do you meter it in English? How do you show the two ke and ken as setting up a parallel between the horror they inflicted ON Him, because He's BETTER than them; and the horror (disesteem, maxed) they had OF Him? That last clause, "wuh-toaro mi-beniy adam" is circular, and says many things -- this is the shape of the WH in YH: The Man, the Story of His Incarnation, the shape of man's evil against Him -- even as He is BEYOND man (Deity), so also man will torture Him beyond human endurance and resemblance. So God (52:13) will vehemently glorify Him above all mankind! All this meaning, running with the 'main' meaning layer, the One Incarnated, Born -- Beaten beyond Human Resemblance by those He was Born to save. The LXX writers came up with their own poetic, circular ending to show the tie back to 52:13: "apo anthropwn to eidos sou" (out from men, Your Incarnation, anarthrous+monadic), "kai he doxza sou apo twn anthropwn" (in fact your Glory [Shekinah, Incarnating, inter alia] from [the abuse by] all mankind). [If you don't count the "kai" in metering, you can see the translation matches to the Hebrew syllables.] The two "apo" parallels are a play on birthing, too. All THAT is running under the main meaning in the words: that because He is God-Man, we will hate Him for it and beat Him up beyond all human semblance. Because, we are hateful.. animals.

How, above all, do you communicate that "alayká" is soundalike for Eloheka, Your God? Preposition "al" is always graphic, visual; even as a preposition it means to rise, to go up, above, Most High; and always has the connotation of the smell of the burnt offering RISING-to-God, because soundalike ola means just that. Every lexicographer recognizes that it is a soundalike play on "El", which means "God", most ancient form of The Name, and used often as a prefix or suffix, and sounds exactly the same (ayin is used in 'al, but the sound is nearly the same). So this is an EMBEDDED sound meaning on How He is God and Man. Then, how do you show in English, the fact that "ke'asher" is an embedded soundalike for "kasher", which means Pure and Upright One (which term will be repeated later in the Chapter in several ways)? How do you play on "maraayhu" as sounding like "marah", bitter, illustrating that Who we saw (maraayhu) was bitter to our sight (marah)? You can't say all that in a translation. You don't know it's grief being expressed (the meter), you don't even know it's poetry (though the translations all try to reflect that), and you surely don't know the stress on min (birthing) preposition (birthing our salvation, a repeated sounding, since it's the theme of the chapter), compared to how we see Him -- and we are appalled, aghast, ashamed OF Him? Him, the "kasher" (English "kosher" comes from this), the Pure and Upright One? Our hypocrisy, His heheli (lovesickness, used in 53:11). You just can't make a translation reflect even the main elements of what the original is saying, without distorting meaning in the translated verse. The original is a live movie, fully-dimensioned; you can SEE the hatred, anger, beating on Him, with others who want to help, shrinking back, afraid to defend Him, ashamed of their brethren, themselves. This Pure Person reviled. Very graphic. No translation can convey it all, but the translators of commercially-published Bibles feel constrained to strip out even more of the meaning, lest the reader be offended. Yeah, shamaymu maaraayhu, even to this day.

So you might want to read Isa52-55 in your favorite translation first, so you can see something of the context. For all my harping on Bible mistranslation, if you read a lot in a context, and with 1Jn1:9 ON, the Holy Spirit will make the overall meaning clearer and clearer; He'll also point out particulars to check, or will zero you in on other aspects. But until you see the larger picture, you won't understand how to view any verses within. Don't worry about the inaccuracies, just keep breathing 1Jn1:9 so you have God's Brains. For the minute you became a Christian, you lost your brains in favor of getting Christ's Brains, 1Cor2:16.
The Holy Spirit recalls or makes you notice things when you are Filled, John 14:26+Eph5:18; which is due to being in God's System. You'll think it's you noticing, etc. For every believer is Indwelt by God (all Three Persons, see 2Cor13:14); so your 'communication' will be thoughts which occur -- which are perfectly in accord with Perfect Bible. So just keep on breathing 1Jn1:9 and asking to understand the meaning better.

Bible should never be translated, let alone interpreted, out of context. That's why we get the Holy Spirit and the Preserved Infallible and Inerrant "God-breathed" Word. [Nerd note: infallible and inerrant applies to content. Using 1Jn1:9 and study -- especially for a pastor who has that gift -- ferrets out the superficial errors in copying, vowel points, parts of missing verses, etc. When you spend time seeing this text, you'll know for sure and for yourself what "infallible" and "inerrant" mean: from the very 'mouth' (via recall, not voices, lol) of God to your ears. You have to be in God's System; else, you can kiss your understanding, good-bye.]

As you read, notice the hugely-interwoven prophecy of revealing Him to the Gentiles, in the surrounding context. Basic idea of what happens to Him, happens to Israel. What happened to Him on the Cross, happens to everyone who believes in Him. What happens to Him after the Cross, happens to everyone who believes in Him: oneness, the prayer of John 17, predicted long before the Root of Jesse was born.
What happened to Him down here, therefore, happens to us down here, 1Jn4:17 (referencing Isa53:10-11). So His Fate Is Yours. What OF His Fate you get, is up to you. You want to be with Him, believe. You don't, then don't. [If you ever believed once in Him, you can't get out of Heaven, but you will have a hellish life down here if you don't learn more than that. So at least believe once to avoid a permanent residence in hell. Where He went, first.]

So separation, divorce from God is hell, and not knowing Him is a version of separation. Disagreeing is another form of hellish separation. Rebellion is yet another. See the thread? It's Separation, in all and any forms, makes for 'hell'. That's why it's hell to live: not because life is so disappointing, so fragile, so treacherous. But because only God is 'heaven'. Inside, not outside. So true hell would have been if He didn't finish the Cross. For then we couldn't have a real relationship with God (inter alia, all other woulda been's being of no comparative consequence).

So ON the Cross, He went to the true hell of separation (judicial separation, not soul separation, which made the experience far far worse); and yet He endured it all, never once sinning Himself. So that sin joined and was converted in Him, into DDNA (explained at length in the First Aspect of DDNA.htm, link at pagetop). So the hell that does and will exist as a separate universe, post-time (aka "Lake of Fire"), is but Another Expression Of God's Outstretched Hands. For Love never coerces, but love never ever rejects, either, 1Cor13. So those IN hell keep on rejecting; God never rejects. And doesn't have to, because The Cross Paid For All Injustice to God. "Thinking" series on Home page ("Transmuting Plan, Origin" link at pagetop), is a comprehensive and epic examination of this question (subtheme of series). [Nerd note: it's far harder to be separated from Who/what you love and endure it Connected, than to be separated and DISconnected. If you were in Iraq and you didn't have any contact with your family, you'd be hurting, but the bittersweet dimension of frequent Contact (and hence contrast with where you are) would be missing. So it's easier, not harder. But if you had frequent phone calls or letters, count on it -- it would be much harder to go out into the streets, far more boring to do all those patrols and miniscule weapons cleanings, etc. -- all the while, never knowing if a car bomb would maim you. Spiritual Growth creates this latter problem. It's very hard to live in this body once you've gotten used to feasting on Scripture, no matter how nice or awful your earthly life.]

It's also and most separating, when incompatibility stands between persons in a relationship. Incompatibility means the differences are agonizing. We all have such relationships, and we breathe sighs of relief when we GET a physical separation. For when together, there's always this jockeying, gritting the teeth, trying to listen and not speak out one's agony. So imagine what God hears all the time! How, being Omniscient AND Omnipotent, does He stand it, forever hearing all the extreme willful ignorance, me-ness and pettiness which characterises human thought? So imagine what a RELIEF this true Hell of the Cross was and remains forever! to Christ Who Knew He Would Counter-think, so Father can justify all that extreme pettiness -- without which, our very soul births could not be justified?

The upcoming translation below differs in key respects from the usual published translations.
• One difference: more Bible Meaning is in the translation below. As noted earlier, translations truncate meaning so much, often the translated text reverses the meaning in the original. If the original says, "The Maserati sped down the Autobahn", the English translation says, "the vehicle moved down the path." Bible in translation is consummately vague and boring. The original is lively, engrossing, and you find yourself wishing you didn't ever need to eat, sleep, work or even do what most humans would consider 'fun'. For Bible is multiple-entendre, and uses wordplay and soundplay to communicate, just as any other language -- but God's Genius, is Infinite. So there are infinite layers of meaning in each verse.

• Another difference: where helpful, the BHS and LXX texts are amalgamated in translation. It's helpful to amalgamate, when we know where the BHS text is defective due to missing text. There has been a long-standing practice among Hebrew scribes to leave gaps in the text, pending insertion of the missing material. It stands to reason, though, that as time passed and the missing text was not found, future scribes eliminated the gaps. So when you compare the BHS and LXX text (the latter also having gaps), you need to evaluate the style, to see if any LXX text needs to be inserted (or vice versa). It appears that Isa53:3 and 4 need the LXX version of the verses to complete the Hebraic couplet style, so those verses are presented appositively, not amalgamated. I don't know if there are gaps in the BHS text of those verses. But I do know there are gaps in the BHS of Isa53:10-12, and have actually seen the gap -- in the "Expanded" Translation section, there is a link in the footnote to Isa53:11's Masoretic text; it displays a picture of the Isaiah scroll showing the gap, so you can see it for yourself.
  In the last section, "Expanded" Translation with Exegetical Notes, you can see clearly which is BHS and which is LXX, with the exegetical notes examining certain key words in each verse. So you have an audit trail.

• Another difference: word clarity is chosen over word beauty. Also, where a word in the original-language text seems to stress more than one meaning equally, the same word is translated multiple times, appositively. For example, "Arm" below (Isa53:1) is a Bible metaphor for God's Strength; if you don't know that, you'll need the word "Strength" listed in apposition. 'Arm' also is a metaphor of security, love, in Bible, so "security love" is also used appositively. "Arm" also means coming-to-your-defense; or, warring-against-you, if you are negative. So often a single word will be translated with several, not just one, appositive words. In English, this appositive-translation practice also makes the verse sound more dramatic: a wonderful thing, since the original text is very dramatic.

Isaiah uses certain metaphorical keys: rising, carrying/bearing, and birthing. These aren't easy to show in English. Italics in the translation below denote the "rising" metaphorical structure in the Chapter, using the preposition "al"; thus you can see Isaiah thread the main metaphors of rising/lifting/carried off/up to God; note also his other main metaphorical theme, birthing from sterility, via deft deployment of the preposition "min" via its more frequent "me" (short "e", more like an "muh" sound). So Isaiah heaps or stacks "al" sounds, and "m" sounds in his verses. The LXX picks up on this deft use and tries to mimic it. For when God communicates a sine-qua-non Foundational Truth, he uses the Small Features Of A Language. Prepositions by nature are foundational: they tell you How Things Are Hooked Up.

So the preposition AL (aleph lamed), a soundalike on God's Own Name (EL suffix, for Elohim, also aleph lamed), means up-ness. Going up, like a burnt offering (ola is a burnt offering, a sin offering for the whole nation, and of course sounds just like ala and al). Highness: EL, High One. Most High, Most Up, Uppermost.. God.

Wordplay like this is a speciality in literature, and especially among fake holy books which Satan&Co. author. Oddly enough, the Koran is chock full of the same wordplay, "Allah" being an "up-ness" wordplay on the consummate name for Satan himself, in Isa14:13-14's "I will make myself like the Most High". Moslems don't know that, of course. Book of Mormon specializes in wordplay as well, and in some ways is even more deft than the Koran: it plays simultaneously on the errant Bible translations then extant (mid-1800's), and on the emerging original-language texts, which were just then being collated, collected and corrected in Europe. So by learning how Isaiah uses wordplay here, you will more easily spot it elsewhere. If one was looking for proof of God and the devil, my oh my -- it's overwhelming, here. Just have to know how to read the data you got!

The second preposition is min: it only means separated from, out from, outside-from-the-source, BORN. The root meaning of the preposition is BEYONDNESS. Beyond-Human, Beyond mere biological development. Beyond, because God Is Beyond Everything. So it always and only means: outside of, out from, away from, beyond. Never never never never never never never "inside". But of course, dingdongs with a political agenda who could care less about fealty to GOD's Word -- reverse it to "inside" -- when the implication of "womb" is around. To treasonously claim that God would put a soul in a womb. It's the crime of the century, truly. Forget about which side you are in the abortion debate: God's JUSTICE is being maligned, and He puts His Word Above His Own Person, Ps138:2b. No Christian, prolife or not, would ever intentionally malign God. But that's just what is happening, with this misuse of the preposition min. So Isaiah 53, won't make sense.. nor indeed most verses translating the preposition, in the OT: there are thousands of them.
Lexicons stress the beyondness of the preposition, and you can even find in Amazon etymological experts like Dr. Badillo in Spain, who show how "min" has always retained its "beyondness", "separatist" character. Yet -- and here's your first big clue man has a political agenda he slaps on God -- all the "min" verses are always REVERSED to "in" (what a blasphemy) -- if "womb" is anywhere in the conceptual vicinity. This is a big deal. That preposition occurs thousands of times, 709 of which are unmorphed ("min" as "min", rather than the far more frequent 'me'). For God's Main Theme from Genesis to Revelation, is about Becoming Beyond What You Are IN HIM Who as God, Took On Humanity. We have to be bigger than we are, to be with God forever. So We Need To Be Begotten by Him Who Begot Our Salvation. Very deft. Every Attribute in God's Nature, every Justice Concept is woven together with the preposition "min" (and in the Greek, the counterpart is usually "ek" plus what used to be called the (Latin-like) ablative of separation). So to in translation REVERSE all mi beten and me rechem (min+"womb") verses, deprives the Christian of a Wealth of Understanding about his God, his Savior, his Salvation.

NoWombLife.htm explains more on that topic, in its "Don't Abort My Word" table, which shows how the normal published translation of Ps139:11-17, blasphemes God, totally the reverse of what God had David write. Bear in mind, this travesty continues today, even as you read this page: for every seminary requires that a) you recognize "min" is separatist, never never never "in" -- yet no translation ever translates it properly when "womb" is around (beten, rechem and their concepts). But b), you're then required to translate the preposition as "from" -- even though that's wrong in English (should at least be, "out from"). How sad. Especially, since min is used as a shorthand way of talking about birth, thousands of times -- and is thus key to understanding John 3's "born again" and all its OT synonymal rubrics! Louis Segond better recognizes the proper usage of min as a "birthing", from among the translations in BibleWorks which I have.

So note the two threads -- something is BORN(e) which goes UP to God: Our Savior. Something is BORN(e) IN HIM which makes for our salvation, and He is offered UP for us. Our sins are born(e) in Him as a 'womb' function, so when His Sin Pregnancy of the Cross completed (see Rom6-8), and He died and ROSE (Heb9-10), then the Veil was split, and the way for us to go up also occurred, Eph4:8-9, Heb5-10. Hence we are HIS PROGENY, main theme of Galatians and Ephesians, Rom8-9. He who was cut off and born(e) out from the Land, The Life (not 'land of the living', see the LXX and then the BHS).. bears all creation thereby, Rom5-9. Born(e) and UP, in both ways: 1) being crushed by us, 2) being pregnant with us, fathering us, Isa9:6 & 53:10-12, Heb12:2, Gal3, Rom6! And, just this 2/06, I learned the entire letter of Philippians is about the PROPAGATION results, the whole letter playing on Isa53:12-54:1! Paul's keyword "megalunw" essentially means to enlarge/magnify by PROPAGATING KIDS. Cultural idea of being a 'big' father or mother, which pretty much every culture has, somewhere in its past. So we can all identify with what Paul means in Phili1:20 about him glorifying God in his body. My pastor went ballistic over that (see about 20+ lessons beginning with 1820+ in 92SD if you are under him). So I'll have to weave that letter in here, somehow.
You can't see any of this wordplay in the published translations.

For it takes a long time to properly understand Scripture. We shouldn't complicate that journey by covering up what the Word says, standing pat on some old hoary head's interpretation, being stubborn to FIX what's broken in our accountings, our beliefs. Mistakes are okay: covering them up, is not. Especially, in the name of 'respectability', those holy tones to make men nod with approval, to avoid sticking one's neck out. What Will The Lord Say At The Bema?! So pray for everyone who works in Bible to learn 1Jn1:9 somehow by God's prompting them privately; and, for them to have courage to stand up and properly teach with the gift God surely gave them.

Would that the Pleroma of eternity were solely from these the scholars and pastors. That's heaven, baby, to have so informed a group, be the kings. I know my pastor is among that group, but I wish every Bible scholar and teacher anywhere anytime were in that group. For they have the worst jobs, staring at us cows, talking to us cows, who so dully want the Word...

There are many other parallelisms and multiple-entendres in each verse. So here's a brief outline of the biggest ones in the Chapter. So the translation below seeks to capture those threaded parallelisms; where I could find English wordplay of similar import, I used it; so if you think the wording below is at times 'ambiguous', it's intended as multiple-entendre, since Scripture is written that way in virtually every verse I've ever seen (even the begats): God's Genius is Total, and translations can't do the wordplay justice! So of course mine doesn't, either. But at least you'll see better why I stress Isaiah 53 so much in all other websites, just like the NT writers do, in every verse I've ever seen. The entire Chapter is antiphonal in structure, very graphic like a movie (Mel Gibson's "The Passion" tried to do justice to it, but of course even he had to tame it down): i.e.,
• causation, and the accounting 'flow' of it (God is the Ultimate Auditor);
• gruesomeness and glory, especially Gruesomeness Becoming Glory, and how man's glory IS gruesome, Isa64:6, based on our passage here, 52:13 compared with v.14, 53:2-5;
• God's 'eyes' in the Trial, versus man's -- 52:13, 53:1, 53:10-12, God's; man's are 52:14-15, 53:2-9;
• man's cutting-off, carrying off, raping/despising versus God's carrying-off, plundering/displacing those who plundered Him; ties to all the many cutting-off, grafting in actions of God since the Gen3:22 judicial pronouncement, beginning with ejecting Adam and his wife from the Garden, then perpetuated in the progeny, beginning with Cain. Cain was cut off, Seth grafted in; Shem's son Arpachshad was grafted in, displacing his elder brothers; Jacob was grafted in; Judah was grafted in; all the Egyptian firstborn were cut off and Israel instead grafted in, at the Exodus; Levi was cut out due to the murdering in Shechem and then grafted in through Moses via Aaron, and that only because Moses refused to be God's Mouthpiece; and on and on the cutting out, carrying off goes.. resulting in our salvation by the One Who was Cut off by His Own People, who were displaced as inheritors, but grafted in Him. Else, we'd all not be here.

• For God is the Chief Plunderer, Firstly For Christ -- and then also, for our sake. So God Plants and Harvests. This is the main metaphorical theme. For the whole Bible is about this Love Contract of Eternity Past, Isa 53:11's "If You will Give Your Soul as a Substitute for sin, You will see long-lived Seed." Seeds from the Seed, DDNA, baby! Luke 8, "I and the children you gave Me", Heb2; "sons of God in Christ Jesus", Gal3; "near", Eph2; Peter's "living stones" chips of the Bedrock ("Petra", used of Christ in Matt16:18); "born of God", John; "implanted Word", James 1:21, 3:18. That's us! He got planted with Word, Isa52:13, so He got planted down on earth, Isa53:1-2a; so He got planted with our sins, Isa53:5-10, so we get planted with His Thinking, Isa53:10-11, LXX five infinitives (circular); so He Who had No Descendents inherits and sires all, Isa53:8-54:1! So now we plunder our share in Him, Rom6, 8, Eph4:12-16 (esp. 4:13,16). So to be transmuted, Rom12:1-3 (Greek, mistranslated).

The most important idea to 'get' from this passage is how Father Benefits Son by filling Son's Humanity up so that a Oneness of Rapport between Them, occurs; which was the plan all along, Eph1; which Christ Himself prayed for, John 17:17-21. Isa53:10-11 in LXX flatly explains that goal, but due to the use of "autos" in accusative and dative, scholars reject the LXX. They should examine the verses more closely, not restrict analysis to kindergarten-level-usage of both cases: God isn't in kindergarten. For the Pattern of what was done to Him, is the Pattern of what's to be done to us. For God wants everything At His Level. Not, pets doing obedience tricks, which Omnipotence could bing! better and faster, saving time and hassle. Hopefully sometime in the 21st century, we will wake up to the significance of Isa53:10-11 in the LXX. It can't be crusaded on, but we can PRAY for it. What's God is God's, and this is God's Word. Don't need the world's methods, to handle the problem.
The Isa53:10-11 LXX clauses which Bauer, Danker and other reputable scholars seem to find objectionable, are essentially two: katharísai autòn tes plages in Isa53:10; and deixzai autwi phws in v.11. In kindergarten English, these are usually translated "to purge Him of the blow/stroke" and "to show to Him the Light", respectively. That's so shallow and pitiful a translation: two great men translated them that way, Lightfoot and Brenton. So of course the translation sounds blasphemous -- but, these are great men. Of course they are: but great men are human, and I bet they are both screaming down from heaven for SOMEONE TO FIX IT. Wouldn't you, if you were them? For as written, it is blasphemously translated: the Lord never sinned, so needed no purgation; the Lord IS Light, so didn't need light to be shown TO Him. But in order not to go against those two VERY brilliant scholars, modern scholars just scratch their heads, thereby DIShonoring those great men.

So scholars don't recognize that the first clause has to do with Him being imputed (the plages) with sin, and God purifying via suneisis in v.11 (hence an RNA-like conversion of sin to DDNA thinking) -- so that He Becomes A Living Propitiation, Himself -- not what He does, but The Result Of What Happened To Him. What He BECAME. The Being (Exo3:14) BECAME a Being in His Humanity, too, YH+WH! The Lord plays on this meaning of His Future Becoming and Begetting, when He so wittily talks about how the woman forgets all about her labor pains after the birth has occurred, John 16:21. In a Chapter which is all about the Birthing metaphor (which metaphor runs from Chapter 14 through the end of Chap17, hence the Vine and Branches metaphor). John has no end of wordplay to expend on that metaphor; Paul too, in Romans 5-11 (esp. Chapters 5-8).

Hence, He can be replicated IN us -- which meaning you derive from the absence of prepositions and direct objects, in Isa53:10-11 (they are reserved for v.12). That 'absence' too, is a rhetorical style in Greek Drama, emphasizing the all-sufficiency of Divine Action -- see 1Jn4:19, Romans 5:5, Romans 8:28.

With respect to the second clause (deixzai autwi phws in Isa53:11), since He is Finite in His Humanity, LIGHT (the Word) being completed in Him, even to the point of Converting All Sin In Him To That Same Light, Means He Is Light, Even In His Humanity. For God is Infinite, and even Christ as Human, was not Fully Light as God Himself is Light: until the Cross completed Him. How horrible a life He had down here, then: being God, the differential between His Godness and His however-perfect Finite Humanity must have been excruciating to live out; shoulda killed Him, frankly. But as Isa52:13 makes clear, The Word Sustained Him -- sakal in the Hebrew, sunesis in Greek -- so His Thinking fluency and mastery carried Him through it all. Awesome. Simply awesome, this Legacy from Christ!

So now this Light is EXHIBITED (Heb12:2 ties here) to Him and In Him and through Him out to and into.. US. (And only if the prepositions are absent, can you read all of them into the text, via the mere dative case ending, since the dative is a conduit case.)

That's what's being said in verses 10-11: that the PURIFY and PLUNDER produce the three other sweeping infinitives to complete the conversion: EXHIBIT, SCULPT, JUSTIFY. So these Isaiah LXX verses do not say Christ sinned (the scholarly mistake in the first clause, katharísai autòn tes plages); do not say that He is not God (the scholarly mistake in the second clause, deixzai autwi phws). They are talking about what happened to His Humanity, and hence why He is the Pattern for son-making. See how simple it is? How deft the writing of those two clauses?

So now you see exactly, strand-by-strand, line-by-line, accounting-item-by-accounting-item, how God accomplished our so-great salvation, what it is, and what is to happen to us: Rom12:1-3, every second, ideally. Of course, that passage is mistranslated also (esp. 12:1), see Rom121-3.htm.

Mechanism: We have thoughts. We learn Bible in God's System. As a result, our thoughts change gradually into His, and we are choosing that change, because we BELIEVE what we are learning (assuming we are learning correctly). That's the "Purify" "Plunder" "Exhibit" "Sculpt" and "Justify" five-infinitive TRANSMUTATION of Isa53:10-11 LXX, working in us. Akin to, Atonement Propitiation Reconciliation and Redemption, as our thoughts change. See, it's not about sin, but about the sinner. Sinner gets saved. Sin got converted already on the Cross, else we'd not even be eligible to get salvation, capisce? So over time, we become more like Him in our own thinking, which is what a soul, does. Soul gets saved. Thinking got transformed. So when we lose this unable-to-learn-anything-body (Rom8:10), well.. then we get a compatible body to go with our transformed soul. That's heaven, baby. Now compatible with God functionally, not merely the salvation structural 'floor' (see 1Cor3, 1Cor15). No longer separated, in body or in mind!

The next most important idea to 'get' from this passage is that He paid for sins with His Thinking, and it's His Soul, not His Body, which is thus the substitute for sin. For centuries, Christians have mistakenly assumed that a thought problem (sin is volitional, hence thought) got paid for with a physical death. In Isaiah it's blatant that He gave His Soul, not his body, for sins (yet another way of saying His Thinking paid for sins, parallelling Isa52:13,53:5, 53:10-11).
His Soul or Soul Function is denoted at least 21 times in this Chapter: 52:13 (lead how-to and purpose verse), :14, 53:2 (several times), :3-9 (at least once per verse); and several times per verse after 53:9. So soul function paying for sins, bearing sins, is stressed; body is not stressed, but rather the soul GRIEF. Moreover, in both the Hebrew and Greek texts, the term "soul" is blatantly used three times to show exactly HOW He died for our sins, all piled up in the contract's heart clauses of Isa53:10-12; and in each case, the "soul" is strategically placed in the verse to act as both an object of the previous clause, and a subject of the following clause -- typical of the deft economy of syntax in Scripture (Rom5:5 and 8:28 being famous Greek examples). Central, therefore, in each case. In the translation I tried to preserve the location of the term as it is in the original-language texts of verses 10, 11, and 12. Of course, you'd know that also since to bear our sins had to be a soul function, Father imputing them, 2Cor5:21.

It's real important to note that God didn't inflict physical pain on Him, but people did. Hence you can see yet another layer of logic proving His Physical Death didn't pay for sin (man doesn't help God, ever). The abuse man inflicted on Him is very graphically portrayed, depicting how we all really hate God, and piously fool ourselves otherwise.

So His Deaths (plural, 53:9, Hebrew) were two, one of which paid for sin; and the other, which was due to man's abuse of Him (but physical death is a victory, 53:9b). My pastor has taught this for decades, always explaining the two deaths in Gen2:17 being 'answered' with two deaths on the Cross; but little did I know how blatant the proof was of the two deaths, until searching moth-tamuth in the OT (to see the parallels to Gen2:17, esp. in the sacrifices); and, until translating this chapter in Isaiah for its related webseries. It's embarrassing, to keep seeing how we all don't actually read Bible, yet pass on anti-Biblical information.. even, in seminaries. So no one checks what's said with the Bible, either. Apathy toward the Word is thus demonstrated, and no Christian can claim innocence: we're all in this together. But there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus, Rom8:1, so we needn't go condemning anyone else, either: never attractive, for a pot to call a kettle, Black! "Grail" link in Grail.htm (or, via "Divine DNA" link at pagetop) will further explain and refute the common and blasphemous idea that physical anything ever pays God even a farthing! The first problem is the Dichotomy Between Infinity And Finity, which is why Christ exists. Sin only complicated the problem, creating soul rubble. Which rubble, translates into a body, legalistic spin on Bible. So of course the common idea is that physical death -- a NON-thinking mass of biology -- could pay for IMMATERIAL soul sins. Common idea, no common sense. Thus you see the soul rubble commonly in peasanty Christianity. We should be ashamed for about 90 seconds, and then get cracking in God's System learning this Gorgeous Thinking Legated to us from the Cross!

The third most important idea to 'get' from this passage is that the essence of sin is disbelief, Heb3:12-19. Adam and the woman would never have taken that stupid fruit in the Garden, if they didn't come to disbelieve God. Satan's arguments are otherwise unattractive. So the results of unbelief-in-Christ, were that people disbelieving Him, reviled Him, instead believing Him unworthy, due-punishment-from-God, Isa52:14-15, Isa53:1, 3-7. Hitler looks like Mary Poppins, by comparison! Also notice: there's nothing in Isa52:13-54:1 talking about the sins today's Christianity stresses; nothing, about the works Christianity lauds; instead, you see apathy and hostility toward Christ Himself. Which today's Christianity, thoroughly reflects, since it is thumping the Bible, rather than thinking it. After all, if we believed God, then we wouldn't believe in crusading. Caesar can never do what God can...
If one disbelieves, he is apathetic and hostile to what he disbelieves. So what does it matter, what good deeds he does? What does it matter, how moral he is? How disgusting it is, to claim that such stuff matters? Long before arriving at this passage, Isaiah has been explaining how Belief In Him alone is God's currency, and if you aren't 'doing' that, you are bankrupt. No wonder at the last Judgement, Rev20:11-15, sins aren't mentioned as the basis for the burning indictment, but WORKS are mentioned. [In BibleWorks copies of Bibles, about half of the Bibles in Romance languages or English screw up verse 12 -- it's WORKS, not deeds or "what they had done". Sheesh. "ergon" in Greek means GOOD DEEDS, and is most typically used in Bible to distinguish GOD's good deeds versus man's, showing why the latter is filthy, á la Phili3:8, Isa64:6.] For one is "not found" (judicial term) in the Book of Life, if one rejected Christ during one's entire life. So the parallel for the believer is this: if you don't believe that learning His Son is the spiritual life, you too will find your efforts and self burnt up (but you yourself remain saved), 1Cor3.

Christians constantly disbelieve God; the more erudite the Christian, the more he disbelieves. For the scholars argue on the most inane topics, proving they wouldn't know 1Jn1:9 if it bit them. They argue over how long a "day" is in Genesis 1, as if Genesis were about the origin of the universe ("Genesis" in Greek means Origin Of Man, not the universe, which any scholar should know); they are blind to how Adam is not a hunter-gatherer, therefore. They argue whether the Gospels were compiled from other extant humans (you know, that stupid "Q" thingy), for crying out loud! They treat the Holy Spirit's Power as an emotional thing, or a human-intellectual thing, priding themselves on their flashcard knowledge. So they spend millions of hours pouring over this-or-that theologian's tome, which focuses on the banal -- kinda like obsessing over whether you wear hats or long hair; all these, just like the Talmudic conundrum, how blue the thread must be at sundown -- Jewish pil-pul, but Christendom has many of its own such insanities, piously dressed up in 'holy' voices and prose. Never occurs to them, to just save time and look at what the Word says. So they argue over variant aspects of denominational history and doctrines, instead of peering closely at the original-language texts of Scripture: for after all, that's just a book, but here are all these souls! So they don't believe that God can save the heathen in isolation; they don't believe that they should leave things alone, but instead crusade for money, and in politics. So when they read we are to become "sons of God", they nod -- but don't really believe it. For if we really believed this Word, we'd be so avidly studying it to Learn And Live On Him, we'd have no time for sin!

Disbelief is the prime directive of our fallen bodies, in Adam. We give into that disbelief sometime during childhood, when we (not knowing any better) give into irritation, anger, etc. So it comes to dominate the life, in ever-wider span of thought and activity, as we age: that's why we're so miserable! That's why we long for those childhood days! For what made childhood pleasant, was belief! Back then, we weren't so permeated with disbelief, as we are now. The only counter to such progressive ennui of disbelief as one ages, is Salvation.. and then, Scripture. God knew all this. God doesn't hate us, nor does He seek to condemn us, Rom8:1. This, this, this is our so-great salvation: despite all we are, repugnant the most in our righteousnesses, He saves us, and makes us the very sons of God. For the sake of Himself, and of His Son! And can you imagine: it's Infinitely JURIDICALLY VALID to do this?!! For here in Isa53, we see WHY. Awesome!

So the Fourth Idea to get: all our humanity is worth but Garbage. To throw it away, is the greatest of freedoms. Christ is no masochist. God is Infinite, and Christ though Perfect, is finite. What a barrier! Can God do something to eliminate the barrier to rapport which finity naturally is? You bet: Isa53:10-11 is God's Contractual Answer. And He first plays it on Christ, to make Him the Copybook, Greek hupogrammos; because, He's the Prototype/Pattern/'father' (progenitor), Greek archegos -- from Whose Light, we all can be made to shine ("shine" being the quintessential OT Hebraic metaphor of Word in you). Light isn't matter. Light represents Infinity, Truth. Light thus cycling IN us makes the finity synergistic, rather than (its nature), separatist. But we have to throw away what we naturally are, walking by faith (doctrine, Bible's) not by sight.

That takes the Holy Spirit's Power, which is why Christ relied on it. You see this most clearly in Isa53:10-11, which uses the frequent Triplet rhetorical device: "LORD" doesn't say WHICH God is in view, but differentiates Them by repetition and by function. So there are two "bouletai" clauses, which denote Father's Order, Spirit's Function; then the last three infinitives of 53:11 are only the infinitives of the second "bouletai" -- each, with the clear understanding "God" the Holy Spirit Is Doing This Per The Contract: and you know that it's God the Holy Spirit, for the functions the infinitives designate are identified with Him elsewhere in Bible, especially in the NT (but also everywhere in the OT, using foundational/etymological nuances of the Hebrew). Moreover, Hebrew "soul" in 53:10-12 each have the Spirit embedded in them in soundplay on "breathing", phphphph'ing. [Item #17 in NoWombLife.htm shows another example, but there are hundreds, in the OT: think of the sound of "nephesh", and "aneph" (meaning nostril, anger, sound of it), and you can begin to see how a phph'ing sound will be a frequent rhetorical device!] So via His Holy Breath, we too learn to breathe spiritually, so to throw away our utterly-useless humanity as He did -- by relying on the Spirit, living in God's System, getting the five sweeping infinitives of Isa53:10-11 LXX: from Him doing them IN us. As Isaiah is so privileged to recount, in the following Chapter 53...

Important note: Hebrew "rabbim" means "people", but is often translated "the many" in English Bibles. A better modern term would be "the masses". Denotes a whole. So don't buy into the bad Hebrew-language scholarship of some, claiming that because "rabbim" is used, Christ somehow didn't pay for all sin. Even logic would tell you this, not to mention, absolute verses like Isa53:10-11, 1Jn2:2, John 3:16. Sin is an offense to God. ALL of it must be paid for TO God. Romans 6, 2Cor5:14-21, Eph1 go to some trouble to explain you that the Propitiation must LIVE forever, so that the payment to GOD is ongoing. So the payment was From Christ, and is Housed In Christ, and that Propitiates Father (which Isa53:5-6 literally say). So ALL sin got paid for; so those who think it didn't, unintentionally blaspheme the Righteousness of God and the Efficacy of the Cross. Who decides to believe in Him and thus be saved, of course, is quite another matter.

Here are some Youtube videos showing the Hebrew and translations which might help as you peruse this section. Hit the "menu" button and then keep your mouse in the lower row of video icons to see each title; then select the one you prefer. It will auto-play from Isaiah 52:13 if you choose; just click the play button. If you want to see the full video description, just click on the video itself: a new window in Youtube will open up on that video, and the right-hand side (shaded gray, just below my "brainouty" Sisyphus avatar) will contain the video description.

Isa 52:13, Masoretic/LXX text "Look! He will be caused to master Divine Thinking and thus prosper [in it]; hence THE Son-Servant of Mine will be exalted, raised, on high; even lifted up, carried off, leading off, heading up; and then wholly-and-vehemently glorified!" [The entire first clause is just two words in either the BHS or the LXX, but it takes all those English words to translate properly -- especially, since Isaiah closes the point with the selfsame words, in the crescendo passage of 53:10-12. The "hence" in English needs to be supplied, though in Heb/Greek due to the CAUSAL parallelism being made, one needn't use a similar word. Note also how many related meanings (indicated by slashes or multiple verbs/nouns/adjectives are in each following word: verse is short, only 7 words in Heb and 10 (really 9) words in Greek -- but each word is so multilayered, given later text in passage, so you have to see all these meanings right up front. Wow, what a Bible! Look! When Bible stops using direct objects, it enters Highest Drama, denoting sweeping, all-conclusive results. This is a feature of both (main) inspired Biblical languages. So Isaiah takes off UPWARD, using 'lift' as his theme, since it's a play on the brass serpent being lifted up in the wilderness, a prototype Gospel message to Israel while in the wilderness (see Numbers and Deuteronomy). Also, Bible's Hebrew soundplay and wordplay works often by taking a letter in a word and then grafting it (or its sound) to another word, to show the relationship between the two, and depending on reader 'getting' the wit due to the etymology of all the syllables. So that's being done here, with "ab", right from the start -- since it's "ab", FATHER, Who's Talking, in this introduction of His Son: Abba gabah meod abad, Father vehemently! exalts His SlaveSon -- the Most High Father exalts the Most High Son, John 1 -- get it? Heh. So there's Hebrew soundplay between "abedi", My Slave, and gabah meod, "wholly..glorified" which can't be translated, idea of Him being 'fathered' and 'fathering' glory, by being a Slaveson, awesome Divine Wit -- the Most High (gabah!) becomes [adds Humanity], Yah+Wah; thus becomes an abedi for Ab, so becomes gabah meod, thus Rum Nasi (Most-High Prince-over-Many) forever, because Nissa Rum, was carried off due to the sins of the many (rum/rab, wordplay in Isa53)! Oh, what Wit! Next, "meod" itself is soundplay on l'moed, the appointed time to be at the Tabernacle for worship (Sabbath) -- very significant, in Isa53:11, later on. Heb "meod" has a FORCE and VIOLENCE connotation, hence "vehemently" should be used, not the tame "exceedingly" (wow, English is a wimpy language). Meod also has a connotation of WHOLENESS, completely -- vital to translate this nuance, to show the completeness of the propitiation -- so of course it's never translated, though found in any decent lexicon! More, in this context (which continues through at least Isa55), the 'fathering' is again played on with the "me" of "meod", since "me" is Hebrew birthing preposition "min". The etymological origin of "meod" isn't from "min", but Isa uses the "me" sound FOR "min" throughout the three (or more) chapters. Watch how he grafts "me" sounds, how he uses rising-connotation words, carrying words, etc. So deft!

Paul references all this in Rom5:5-8, Phili2:5ff; and Hebrews references it all in Heb2,4,12. Next, the phrase, "caused to master Divine Thinking and thus prosper in it" is much closer to the meaning of each single verb sakal (Heb) and suniemi (LXX), which are used (for each other) in the inspired texts; but no English equivalent exists: "caused to be wise" is blasphemously vague, and to limit the meaning to "prosper" like the NASB does, is even worse. Hebrew chokma is a state of being skilled in Divine thinking, whereas sakal and suniemi denote ACTIVE DISCERNING, á la Heb4:12's 'sword' usage: Deft Skill Which Is Active, Conquering All Opposition. In Greek, a "sun" prefixed verb always and only denotes Divine Production, i.e., in Rom8:28 and Jas2:22 -- translations always cut out the Divine Actor, making it look like a mere human is doing all that good stuff! Yet this "sun" prefix meaning is easily found in typical scholarly lexicons, like Thayer (i.e., see how Thayer covers sunergew -- forget Strong's, which is WAY too weak). Published translations of Isa52:13 are completely pathetic, all of them, in any language I can read in BibleWorks, completely missing the point of sakal and suniemi! Travesty! Yeah, Satan's so clever to surgically strike, the surgical-strike Thinking Skill which Isa is talking about, using sakal (and which LXX translators 'preserved' by using Greek suniemi)!

In fact, the English word "skill" comes from Hebrew sakal (most modern Western languages derive from either Heb or Greek, sorry). This phrase "caused.. in it" is the KEY to Isa53:11 in both Hebrew and Greek texts, so you have to study sakal and suniemi here deeply. Else you'll never understand how Isa53:11 is so climactic and foundational, nor how it's the heart of both how salvation was accomplished, and Christ's Legacy for each of us. Capital "THE" is to stress HIM, in both texts: Heb does it by leaving out the "ha", and Greek by making "the" monadic (signifying uniqueness of person, as is done in 2Cor13:14 and many other verses). Nerd note: just making these brief observations in the verse took over three hours (well, subtract the 30 minutes I ran around my flat screaming with happiness over the wordplay, probably disturbing my neighbors). See why we need pastors doing this? See why translated Bibles are at best a watered-down, tasteless and thoroughly anthropocentric mess?]

Isa 52:15, Masoretic/LXX text "For that very reason [v.13-14], He will [also] be caused to atone (lit., 'sprinkle', over HOH Mercy Seat) for the many goyim (clever wordplay, puts Israel in with them); on account of Him, even [goyim] kings will utterly shut their mouths [in amazement]; because Who/what had not been recounted/accounted to them, they will see/perceive; Who/what they had not heard (of), listened to, obeyed, they will be caused to intensively discern/understand." [The "Who/what" is multiple entendre in both Heb and LXX text -- notably plural, in the latter, meaning more than one Person (i.e., Trinity), more than one item to hear/understand. Heb text doesn't have to distinguish between singular and plural via the relative pronoun marker, but Greek does. Next, LXX uses suniemi here, so parallel between His Mastery of Divine Thinking and their being given that Same Thinking is deliberately predicted, counterpart to Israel's seeing and not perceiving, hearing but not understanding, Isa6:9, quoted 4 times in the NT. Also, wordplay between nissa in v.13 and naza here -- the latter is apocopated, designating His being cut off to cut our salvation covenant, same wordplay as in Dan9:25-26. Same usage of al+person as in Isa 52:14, smack dab in the conceptual middle of the verse.] Isa 53:1, Masoretic/{LXX} text "{Oh Lord!} Who was caused to believe in our caused-from-God-communication, report? And [arising, rising] up to whom was the Arm, the Strength, the SECURITY LOVE of YHWH uncovered, revealed, disclosed?" [There's something like an aposiopesis between Isa52:15 and 53:1, a silence of consternation; the expected waw or ki doesn't begin 53:1 in either inspired text. Niphal perfect of galah is usually translated has been revealed, but this chapter stresses the EFFECT of what He has done, and is dramatic: so in English, "is" better denotes that, imo. Next item: "rising" is my attempt to translate the wordplay in Heb prep/conjunction "Ael" (pronounced like "ale", the beer); which is critical to passage; words playing on it will be italicized. Oh, the mi-soundplay and wordplay in Hebrew of al-mi can't be translated -- both plays are critical to interpretation of the whole Messiah prophecy: Isa thus uses soundplay of pregnancy/labor, from the very beginning. No doubt about it: YHWH is a concatenation of two verbs, to be+to become, the heart of the Hypostatic Union, God-man! Look up substantives associated with the prep/conjunction "al" (ayin+lamed), esp. the ones which are the names of God and burnt offering, ascent, stairway (ties to subjective and objective genitive in Romans 5:5, and to Rom5:8); ma+al="What [Quality, Character] is God?", and soundplay of ma/mi with preposition min. Then, see in Isa53:11, "me amal" (see how min+al are replayed?), ammi, idea of God making sons. Incredible genius! Note the wordplay between "rising" and "born" and "rise again" and "born again" throughout the next three Chapters (Isa53-55). See the Lord reference and claim this verse in John 17:6-21, esp. v.20. Really, all of John 17 is about it -- note the use of reveal, manifest, disclose-the-glory concepts.)

Isa53:2a, Masoretic/{LXX} text "{(report content follows) We reported, announced, disclosed, declared, proclaimed, taught that} in [the court case before] His [Father's] 'Eyes'/Presence, the-One-to-be-cut-off, become a Burnt Offering grew up, arose, rose; [for Son's Humanity was] caused [to grow] like a 'sapling' [from infancy] abundantly nourished, despite all opposition:" ["Al" and apocopation of alah, w/ola soundplay. Term for 'sapling' in Hebrew (root ynq) per TWOT, has this underlying meaning of ABUNDANCE and HONOR due to NOURISHINGNESS; happy, well-nourished, thriving. Idea of THRUSTING STRONGLY UPWARD -- upwardness being a major sound/wordplay concept in this chapter -- idea of thrusting strongly upward in the sterile, enemy 'soil'. So, growing in honor (i.e., in the Truth, so those seeing Him admire Him more and more as He grows -- Father, Spirit, elect angels); so, growing in the ABILITY to nourish all others. Masoretic and LXX "enantion" show it's a court case, this Infant growing: Idiom "before Him". Next item: Heb "ki" has so many meanings, with CAUSE and GENESIS paramount among them, so "caused to" is needed in English. Him, even as Infant, continually on Trial, being approved facing Father; but opposed, in the face of/by everyone else. So to say "like a tender shoot" is way too tame, and doesn't reference the causal nature of "ki", here: especially, since it's paired with another "ki" in the next clause. Father's or Spirit's testimony, sounds like. You gotta look at the wordplay with panim, "Face" (with dagesh), all its related root meanings of inner, turning.. awesome! So in the next verselet I use "p" words in English to show the panting, pining, prosecuting, parching parchment-making of Him Who is our very Prosperity/Peace. If you investigate those aspects of the original texts, the reason for this translation will be seen. Oh, and for another bizillion dollars, look how John dramatically plays off wordplay with panim, and LXX's aNangellw in Isa53:2 -- in 1John 1:2, with aPangellw! Both terms are usually translated to proclaim or give-a-message/report: but there's a big difference in the 1Jn passage, simply by changing one letter in the word. In Isa53, Greek particle Ana, 'again', idea of carrying back a report, sorta second-hand; but in 1Jn1:2, apo, idea of reporting DIRECTLY from the SOURCE, the Son/Holy Spirit (varies with context) -- it's a blanket term. Oh: "gg" in Greek is pronounced "ng" (i.e., aggelos=angelos, the angels).]

Isa53:2b, Masoretic/{LXX} text "the-One-caused-to-be-the-Prosperously-Upright-Source, like a Root [was] {stuck/planted in} born out from the pining, Parched-with-thirst Promised Land, the world." [Heb/Greek text is elliptical, extremely dramatic and poetic. They didn't have punctuation, so to show drama in English you put in punctuation instead of translate. Seems wakashóresh is a waw conversive, given the contrast -- but I'm not sure how to explain all that. The waw conversive was used in the restoration of the earth and in the creation of Adam and in reference to his fall, so you have to refer to such uses in Genesis' inspired texts. See your pastor. Typical (doubled) "and like" in translations of this verse seems way too wimpy, because ki+root idea are doubled, even as He is double-Essenced; soundplay of ki+shoresh is "kashoresh", so with yanaq+kashoresh, you get soundplay on KASHER and YASHAR, Holy, Prosperous (kasher also means to prosper) and Upright, taking root -- which no one can uproot (play on Heb verb sharash): hence "caused-to-be-Prosperously-Upright" precedes "Root" in the translation above -- so God's not talking of mere similitude, here. Shoresh means the root of all existence. TWOT significantly observed that the parallelism between yoneq and shoresh is that humans felt the sapling was suckling nourishment off the main stalk (them), so cut Him off. No tame idea, that. So "and like", the baby/basic meaning of "ki", is not the point; rather, CAUSE, GENESIS. Next item: pining/parched/thirsty are meanings covered by the word in Heb or Greek. Negative concept of no-Word-in-them is included, but emphasis is on the NEED for the 'rain' of Him. Heb "ha eretz" (Greek: ge, pronounced "gay") usually means the Promised Land, but it's wordplay: earth, what Adam's body was made from; emeth, the Truth; earth, the entire planet, all on which need salvation; earth, the womb of life, without which man can derive no sustenance; earth, a Real Body so a BODY is made against all opposition, to become a Burnt Offering... Next item: Min preposition is birthing, and it's a running sound theme, so is translated "born"; dramatic text substitutes verbal nouns for verbs, prepositions -- in short, whatever 'normal' syntax you seek, won't be there. Here, for the most Abnormal Person in History, Who grew from infancy! against all opposition, pleasing Father!]

Isa53:2c, Masoretic/{LXX} text "Yet by human standards we regarded His Incarnation as NEITHER comely NOR [Shekinah] Glory; and His Appearance did NOT delight us {we considered His Incarnation no good at all}." [This is an awesome verse! It ties first to the Incarnation itself, due to wordplay of raah, toar and marah/mareh; but also, back to Isa52:14, on how He was beaten up beyond all recognition, horrible to look upon. The translations are way too tame: overall, Isaiah makes comparison between Him rising up to save us, becoming a sweet savor rising to Father; and our putting Him down, abusing Him, deriding Him. But how to convey so many layers of meaning? I can't figure out how to translate all the meaning with raah-mareh-marah. Wordplay is awesome, still sticking to the m-birthing-sounds. Heb raah stresses From-Godness (i.e., a seer); and mirror, the exact image of God, the Glory; and marah, bitter (in sound, marah= mirror and (different root), bitter, dried-up soul, Num11:6 and other passages). Look up how Mirror and reflection is used in the NT -- awesome stuff. Then there's the soundplay between hadar, glory (human-standards' type), and hamad (human delight, veneration/admiration). We didn't see his plain hadar, so we had no hamad for Him. In Isa53:2c, Heb text gets real elliptical. Greek text helps you see what's meant, and the NO stress repeated is.. kinda embarrassing. Idea that here He is, veiled Shekinah Glory, but still how could we MISS how Gorgeous He is? Not from outward appearance (human-glory words are used in Heb, but in the Greek text, "doxza" is used), but from INNER THINKING. "we judged Him NO good" is a better translation in the context of the court case, and prophecy of His being judged in court as no good, esp. considering every verse after this one, is about that 'verdict', topped off by Father judging our sins on Him. So that LXX text probably ought to be put in the Masoretic, or at least included in translations. Greek verb "echo" then was used in offical rulership/judgement decisions; legal connotation of "holding" or "held" even remains in jurisprudence, today.]

Isa53:3, Masoretic text "So He was despised, disdained, held in contempt; wholly forsaken by all mankind, the Man of Sorrows, intimately knowing sickness-of-grief, the One Who 'causes' people to hide, turning away their faces in contempt; and we reckoned Him of NO account." [Wordplay between hadar (splendor) hamad (delight) in previous verse and hadel (forsaken, adj.) in this verse: instead of hamad, He got hadel, even though He was hadar, more than all mankind put together! Jadah is to thoroughly and intimately know a thing/person; verb is frequently used as a euphemism for the sex act (wordplay on davaq) throughout Bible, and starting right away, in Gen4:1; Bible uses this in wry wordplay for how Israel is unfaithful, 'knowing' everything and everybody BUT the Lord; NT carries that analogy into the Husband and Wife metaphor of Christ and Church. See LvS4a.htm if you don't know how Church derives its spiritual precedence (but that webpage is long). So it's downright blasphemous to translate it "acquainted", imo! There is so much wordplay here on 'face' (prep lipneh, usu. translated "before Him", with TURNING concept referenced) in v.2a, and on mareh/marah in 2c with masetar here in 3a, I'll have to write about it later. A pastor should be paid a bizillion dollars a year. Takes hours just to think out a few layers of meaning! "turn..contempt" is min+baza in the niphal participle, and more closely follows the min-birthing idea Isaiah started earlier, since he is working up to a crescendo in v. 11. There's a lot of wordplay on Incarnation, Face, Appearing, Appearance, too!]

Isa53:3, LXX text "But His Incarnation, despised! forsaken, deserted by all mankind! Being whipped, beaten, wounded, in fact He knew how to carry/bear sickness, weakness, because He was rejected; [Attic dramatic accusative of Hero!] His Person was utterly, degradingly, immorally abused; in fact He was accounted worthless." [Some of this text appears to be missing from the Masoretic. In Attic Greek, which this has to be, a lack of verbs and substitution of verbal nouns is High Greek Drama, stressing the enormity of the action done by/to the Hero, so a more-literal translation here, gives you a better sense of the emphasis. Verse is very complex. Conceptual and rhetorical parallels are made based on the word forms: nouns to nouns, verbs to verbs, participles to participles. Dunno if this can be translated properly, ever. LXX "en plege" will be brought up again in the LXX of Isa53:11, and because of the case of autos in the latter verse, scholars have a problem with its being really in the Bible. How can they think that???? When the phrase is first used here, as a setup? My rendering of "wounded" is way too tame, will have to fix it later. This is also the first place carrying is used (phero), repeated also in Isa53:11, to 'answer' v.3a. Verb astrephw is used in wordplay -- Hebrews 12:2 references it, with the way too tame "set before Him" translation. Trans of "utterly abused" goes back to Isa52:14, which this verse references. When my pastor talks about that latter verse, one can't help but cringe from the vividness. He was so beaten up by people who hated Him, He Didn't Even Look Human Anymore! So how can anyone look back into history, and not know this was Messiah? Beating Him up, till yet...]

Isa53:4, LXX text "This One carries our sins, in fact as a substitute for us He is deeply in tormenting pain; but we accounted Him [deserving] to be immersed in punishing [pregnancy-] labor and in whipping, beating, wounding and in cruel rapine." [The last three verbal nouns are anarthrous in the LXX, and each have "en" as a preposition, signifying maximum bad quality, totally trapped -- I don't know how to better translate the "en" usage except as "deserving to be immersed in", since "we" are accounting Him 'worthy' of it all. Peter seems to be referencing this verse in particular in 1Pet3:18. Funny thing about the most graphic words: lexicons suddenly get real 'quiet' about the meaning, and the meanings they provide are very vague. Greek words Ponos plages (used also in v.3 and 10) and especially kakwsis are used in sexual euphemism, parallelling maaneh in the Hebrew, and me amal in Isa53:11's Hebrew text -- idea of labor in pregnancy, here caused by exceptionally cruel rapine, beyond-the-pale even by ancient violent standards (root meaning of kakos is immorally reprehensible, which means a lot worse, compared to the always-violent standards of that day). The terms deliberately evoke Genesis 3's dual prescriptions of work for Adam, childbearing for the woman, esp. in Gen3:16's "multiplying I will multiply", a wry comment on how the future Savior would take on Humanity and 'mother' our salvation for the 'many' (rab, in both Gen3:16 and passim in Isa52:13ff). The analogy is repeated again in v.7ff. It's very significant that LXX/NT sometimes uses "poneros" to designate Satan -- the one who first made Adam work (Gen3:11, Hebrew, always translated wrongly as if God was hiding something). But Isa53:4 in the LXX as a whole, as we have it today, is very much euphemized or parts are missing, compared to the Masoretic text.]

Isa53:6, Masoretic {LXX} text "We all/completely have wandered astray [from God, see Ps23], like sheep; each one turns to his own way; but the LORD [Tetragrammaton, Father] caused Him to be lacerated with our punishment due for all/completely/for everyone/once-and-for-all:"[Verse in Hebrew starts and ends with Soundplay between kol ("all", whole of a quantity), and kalal, a verb for completing-to-perfection. So a parallel is drawn between the completeness of His Payment, and the completeness of our sins. You need to know that, to get the crescendo of the next six verses, because that meaning is repeated in them. You also have to know that sheep are stubborn and flighty, prone to wander; that Isa is reminding the audience of Psalm 23; so when Isaiah uses the term pagaa in the hipfil, it's consummate wordplay. The verb has a whole range of meanings from laying-a-burden to intercession/entreaty, but a hitting is the action; like hitting an animal to keep it from going a certain way. Idea being, all those meanings got completed ON Him, and FOR us. So I translated it as "lacerated" to go with the verbal idea of the javelins hitting Him. Finally, "Iniquity" is really a bad, fuzzy translation for the Hebrew noun, "awon" (pronounced ahh-WOHN). "Guilt", and specifically the punishment due for being guilty, is its technical meaning in the Mosaic Law. Hence "punishment due" is the translation here. The tense-switching between imperfect and perfect in the Hebrew, between the verses, is hugely important for showing completion. Oh: in the LXX, the verb for "wandered astray" here is the same one Paul uses in Eph4:14, planaw, so Paul's alluding to Isa53:6, in Eph4:14, especially since he's tracking Isa53 in all of Ephesians, paralleling it with "Ion", a play by Euripedes, and then using both to show God's Superior Begetting. LordvSatan1's "Fit Bride" table has a brief on that tracking.]

Isa53:7, Masoretic {LXX} text "and so He, [publicly] Oppressed-as-a-slave! He, Humiliated-as-a-woman-beaten-and-raped! Yet He does not open His mouth [to protest, cry for help]; like a lamb He is carried to the slaughtering; like a ewe facing/during shearing, He is bound and made silent; so He does not even open His Mouth."[It's really hard to translate anah's many meanings, but they all signify PUBLIC ENJOYMENT Of Someone Being Shamed; the verb has an everyone-busy-raping quality, PUBLIC shaming and forcing of submission as would occur after a town has been raided. We saw this verb back in Isa53:4 (ma'aneh, there). "Afflicted", the usual translation, is blasphemously tame. Same with the LXX Greek verb kakow: here it's used to cover Hebrew anah; but also refs back to v.4's Hebrew verbs naga, nakah and anah; in 53:4 the cognate kakwsis is used, so v.7 points back to that in v.4 as well. Verb kakow and its cognates always have a sexual-abuse connotation. The sexual-abuse analogy here is not literal (the Lord was not sexually abused) -- but Our Sins On Him is worse than the vilest of sexual abuse, and that's the point Isaiah keeps stressing, so we won't miss the violence of what happened to Him. But then who'd publish a Bible if knowing its real, sometimes-X-rated words? Rest of this verse's words are simple and should not be mistranslated, but they are: e.g., "ewe" should be the translation, not "sheep", since Isaiah is continuing the sexual metaphor of raping, forced-submission. No excuse for mistranslations. Especially not in THIS passage, the very mechanics of our salvation, sheesh! Aren't we grownups, now?]

Isa53:8, Masoretic {LXX} text "OUT FROM the source of barren barracading, and OUT FROM the source of governmental condemnation, He was seized-and-carried-off [like booty]; so concerning his progeny, who can [even after searching one's recollections] recount them, being as He was [violently and unfairly] snatched up/cut off OUT FROM the Land, The Life! Born(e) from/due to the revolting transgressions of My people, whose due molesting rape.. struck Him {resulting in His [substitutionary spiritual] death}?"[The first two out-froms reference what would be Jewish and later Roman judgements, the six Trials, my pastor teaches (as do many others). Notice well that the verdict came after, stressing the injustice of the governmental condemnation. It's really obvious Isaiah treats these Trials as birthpangs, for Isaiah really piles up the birthing preposition "min" in this verse (rendered here "OUT.." in caps), to begin a crescendo: Father's fathering purpose being realized. Thus he ties back to Isa53:2's growing up out of parched ground, Israel, and 53:5's pile ups of m-sounds with min. Wry soundplay on oser/eser with preposition min, because otser/etser essentially means being shut up, whether womb or prison (soundplay with yatser and yasher, too). Then there's laqakh (pronounced lah-KAAKH, the ending rhymes with "plaque"), to snatch/carry off; Isaiah ties back to the lamb/ewe being carried off to slaughter/shearing; Isaiah also ties forward to how He'll carry off our sins and us as booty (verses 10-12). Verb laqakh always has the seizing-female-booty connotation (result of a raid). Greek LXX equivalents make the same wordplays. next, "concerning his progeny", oh, the double-entendre, setting up the crescendo of Isa54:1! Here He is, Himself having no natural progeny (big point in the verse), but -- heh, just as promised AbRAHam, who will be able to count His Descendants! LOL! All those who believe in Him, whose sins He would pay for, THEY become his spiritual kids, v.10-12! So Isaiah is making an advance pun, I love it! Greek LXX really picks up on the punning, using the fully-listed-report verb, diageomai; Acts 8:33 interpretatively quotes this Isa53:8 from the LXX; also by using en and apo for min. And again airw is used, just as it was in v.4 and will be used again punningly, in vv10-12. Oh, what Rich wit! Ergo the double-entendre meaning of the Hebrew verb, shiach: WHO among these future kids sought justice from Father, to save their spiritual father (get the soundplay on Yeshua HaMaShiach)! And who has, ever since? For we've all crucified Him. Verses 5-6 made that all too plain. The significance of thanatos in the LXX text is picked up all over the place by NT writers, when they differentiate between the type of death which paid for sins, and the type of victory OUT FROM among the dead ones, that His Physical Death represented. What buried treasure is this Bible -- oh, You'll want to research that use of thanatos, or else read the "Grail" link in DDNA.htm if you lack the time. Also pay close attention to how Daniel 9:26's karat references back to gazar here in Isa53:8: the latter term means to cut off, cut down, divide, snatch, with a root meaning of APPORTION (see also v.12); but also, to Decree (setting a rule in stone); and karat, refers to the cutting of a covenant, a kind of ratification of something previously decreed; so when the angel talks to Daniel using the term karat, he's also referring to the fulfillment of Isa53:8 -- now there will be progeny to 'remember', to 'tally'. Judaism is real big on tallying progeny, as the begats and kings books show: all because they lead to and descend from, Messiah-to-Come, thus fulfilling the promise to Abram that his descendants couldn't be counted (which promise Isa53:8 is playing on). Oh: because preposition min is yet again used with gazar, it means the cutting off is violent, says TWOT. Noun nega refs back to nagaa in v.4 and the combined referencing in v.7, so "molest" is still the theme. As for "land of the Living", which is used in all the published translations, it isn't "of the living", because it's an appositive -- He is the Way the Truth and the Life. I bet it's to be translated properly as denoted above; LXX translates it the same way as here (which is how I was alerted to it). Much more sensible, much more dramatic, especially since in 53:2 the world is depicted as dead, thirsty for the Water of the Word -- but He IS the Word. It's used as a plural for ONE man, Adam in Gen2:7; it's plural for two types of life, spiritual and soul, as my pastor taught so often over the decades. 85 hits in BibleWorks 5 on hayyim to review. It's not necessarily an adjective, especially given its position in the sentence, and the themes of this Chapter.]

Isa53:9, Masoretic {LXX} text "So He {I} displaced the [same] wicked ones for His burying-place, and the wealthy {men -- or -- "riches"} for His Deaths {spiritual death}; up-to-God, for He did no violence, nor was there {found} treachery/deceit in His Mouth."[There's some reason to suspect that the LXX is supposed to be added or goes in front of the Hebrew text, given the common Hebrew pattern of interrupting testimony, contract acceptance, and antiphony (I - He speaking structures, Father and Son talking back and forth). All of Romans 6 is based on Heb53:9. "Give" should be "displaced", because it's a substitution, and because the LXX uses anti to denote that. So to say "with a rich man" is not at all correct. It's replacing them. Christ instead of them. Next item: The word "found" in the LXX brings out the judicial meaning in the Hebrew -- God's Judgement is that no deceit (etc). English "up-to-God, for" is our friend "al", but the syllables for "up-no-wrong" sound out Elohim -- I've seen David and Isaiah embed the Names before, and here's an example. Resurrection, Ascension in soundplay. Lexicons tell you to watch out for this with respect to 'al preposition (TWOT does); so another upwardness is stated -- and here, the normal Hebrew preposition for "because" should be ki, not al, so you know the sound embedding is deliberate. Sometimes 'al is used as a substantive or substantive-like adjective, and here yet another soundplay is on the verb's sound, "alah", to rise up [specifically, the smell of the burnt offering to God] -- and to use 'al alone, stresses that He's God as well, since that's often how the short Name of God is used. Hebrew embedded soundalikes are always important, and always employed in salvation or God-essence passages, especially in this one, where rising/carrying up/off is a central rhetorical theme. So the typical translation, "because" is not right, too truncated -- you need the upwardness and to-God As God connotation, too. How deftly the tiny preposition 'al shows Resurrection, going up to God as an Offering, then going up to God to sit at His Right Hand. Only God Is This Smart In The Use Of Words!

Wordplay on His Substitutionary Spiritual Death AND Physical Death, is communicated so deftly by a displacing appointment for His two Burials, one on the Cross (the spiritual death, thinking through it which paid for sins), and one in the grave (physical death). You have to use the English "displaced" to convey nathan/dosw. Hebrew is bald that what belonged to the wicked and the rich is given to Him, instead. Greek uses the preposition anti in wordplay (prep will be used in v.12 as well), showing instead of, against. So to make sure English doesn't mislead (it's not just a prediction of Him being between criminals and being in a rich tomb, ok?) -- you need "displaced". We were displaced from Hell, He IN our place, so now He is IN our place in both substitutionary death, and physical burial. He was buried with our sins on the Cross, Romans 6. He didn't die physically for our sins. See Grail link in DDNA.htm.

Yet "displaced" as a translation in English still isn't good enough. Isaiah is making wordplay in this verse to set up the Hebrew "tahat" (tah-HAT) in 53:12. That preposition/particle is first about restitution, in the Mosaic Law: the eye-for-eye, SUBSTITIONARY PAYMENT, an EXCHANGE. So God is making a wry setup statement (in the LXX, the verb "to give" is in the first person), showing His [Father's] Decree of Contract Completion. I have to think more about what English word(s) would better include both the restitution/exchange concept as well as the displacement concept. Displacement is first in order of concepts: the cutting-out, then grafting in nature of God's Salvation, Making Sons Plan which He first announced in Gen3:22, making witty use of the min preposition as the legal basis for cutting Adam and the woman out of the Garden.

Also, it's very interesting that the Hebrew word "hamas" means wrongful violence. Hebrew asah means to make something out of something; note that mirmah, from which we probably get the English "murmur", is a mouthed deceit/treachery/talk of rebellion. This verse is typically pronounced fulfilled in the way He was crucified with the two thieves, and in His body being buried in Joseph of Arithemea's tomb. It's significant that two types of dying events are depicted here in either text, which might explain why "death" is in the singular in the LXX. It's not just a location association per event. This is not a figurative depiction, but two real deaths. So He gets truly buried while on the Cross [though that manner of death wasn't yet depicted here]; next, His body is truly buried in place of the rich man. Greek plural adjectives are to be translated as substantives, so the normal meaning is multiple rich 'men'. But note the play on words here: multiple riches are substantival, too. "True Riches" is a PLUNDER theme in the NT, referring back to this Isaiah passage, through 53:12. So that's a more accurate interpretation of the plural plousious, here, since it's what the NT uses (note how Christ stresses "true riches" in the Gospels, for example). So note the wordplay in 53:12, how We Become Rich 'Men' (great ones), because the True Riches got IN us -- a major theme throughout the NT (see how Christ uses the term "true riches", and Paul's refrain about "riches", and how merizw/meros in 53:12 is refrained in the NT. Astonishing Genius: God's. Ack! Emphatically true! See how important it is to research Bible keywords? This is how a good lawyer drafts any contract/agreement to make it airtight in meaning.]

Isa53:10, Masoretic text "Therefore the LORD [Father] greatly delighted to crush Him; He made Him sick-with-Love's-grief; since [due to eternity-past contract with Father] appointed in 'her' place as a guilt offering, His Soul.. will see [as first-born, play on Reuben's lost inheritance] seed/offspring [which is] caused to be long-lived; therefore the Great Delight of the LORD [Father] will prosper [as per 52:13] in His [Son's] Hand [Humanity]."[Here the equality and agreement of Son and Father are stressed (since both qualify as "Lord", see). Such deft economy of words! Putting His Soul as Guilt Offering smack dab in the middle of the verse, so the Object becomes the Subject of the next clause! So the inspired Hebrew and Greek texts don't need to tell you which "him" is in view, because you are presumed to already know from the activity in a sentence. Because the Equality and Agreement is something foundational to Their Nature, the fact of it is repeated in a foundational manner, by not naming (idea of the Sacred Name). So a pronoun is often used instead to denote their Sacred Equality and Agreement. Of course, Isaiah has been using that pronomial structure throughout this passage, but here he reaches a crescendo. Next comment: "Crush" is dakah, again, tying back to v.5. Then there's the mind-blowing, "appoint": which is Hebrew verb sim, and is a Temple keyword meaning to put, place, appoint, set, set aside -- as a SUBSTITUTE for whatever else. Hence Appointed times set aside, at the Tabernacle/Temple; hence appointed sacrifices set aside, for appointed times; hence appointed blessings, due to those set-asides. And one of the most important appointed sacrifices, was the red heifer offering for the sins of ALL the people. So to decline "sim" suddenly in the active voice, with a female suffix, and then couple it with the Hebrew Temple word asham (=guilt offering, see also Isa52:14 and 54:1 which use the cognate verb), means HE makes SUBSTITUTIONARY atonement for 'her'! What deft Hebrew! So He becomes a 'she' for purposes of this atonement, the living Red Heifer Forever! Hence all the marital/rape/pregnancy language in this passage. Awesome! So of course the shallow translations don't reference that important gender switch, but should. In English, you have to unfortunately convert "appoint" to passive voice, thereby missing the stress on how it's HER fault HE becomes a substitute -- or, you have to add an entire clause to accomplish the intended Hebrew stress, as was done here (well, it still sounds somewhat passive, in English). Considering the marital/rape/pregnancy analogy throughout, and how heheli is used also for lovesickness, this deft gender change is awesomely consistent. Hebrew verb halah means to become sick, weak, diseased, grieved, but is often used for lovesickness, unrequited love. Its soundplay ties back to hadar (human glory), hamad (delight) in 53:2. But the LORD haphetz's His Son (soundplay of the fff's denotes more intense delight, based on the intrinsic qualities of His Son) here in v.10. The placement of nephesh in the sentence makes Him both the Object [His SOUL, notice, not His Body] Who is sacrificed for 'her' [mankind]; and He's thus simultaneously the Subject Who sees His endlessly-living seed/offspring ("caused to be long" is the literal Hebrew, and "yom" makes for the never-ending meaning), the fruit of his Soul's substitutionary labor (v.11). So note again the tie to the sarcasm in 53:8, "who shall recount of His Descendants, since He was cut off from the land, The Life?!" Well, GOD IS MAKING SONS! Right here. Right now. Due to the contract, at the appointed time, with the appointed Substitute!]

Isa53:10, LXX text "In fact, the LORD delights to PURIFY through and due to whipping, beating, striking, raping Him; [quoting from the contract, invoking the clause] 'If You [plural, God-Man] will give as a Substitute for sins, Your Soul [singular, Human]...' [thus] will see long-lived seed/offspring; in fact [another contracted function], The LORD delights [also] to PLUNDER/RAPE"[This verse must be missing from the Masoretic text. See if you can't see that fact for yourself, as you read it in context with the rest of the passage. Next comment: Greek uses present tense when it switches to Attic Drama, as here. Most of the NT is actually written in the present tense, and most Study Bibles have something in the Preface to alert you to that fact (well, all of my Study Bibles do). English customary use of the past tense for dramatic replay is the reason given for the mistranslation, and it's really bad to do that, for when the Greek makes a tense switch, you can't tell from the English. So you miss really vital stuff, like how past belief in Christ, saves you forever; how past learning of Him enables you to serve God through your thinking. But I digress. Here, the Greek tenses are properly translated. Next, Greek drama switches to verbal nouns instead of verbs, to separate out some epic action versus the comparatively-less dramatic, so you can sort importance in a recounted sequence. Moreover, prepositions get dropped and then piled up in the crescendo verse(s). The reason to drop the prepositions is to assert an intimacy so deep, no preposition 'intervenes' as an actor. Here in Isa53:10-11, that happens: dropping dia, leaving only "auton tes plages" in v.10 ; dia goes with either of them, since it takes both genitive and accusative case, so it would be good Greek grammar to drop dia altogether, so you're clear that it's THROUGH the plages, but because of Him, that PURIFY occurs; next, dropping en, leaving "autoi phos" and "tei sunesei" in v.11, prepositionless; again, this would be good Greek grammar, especially since the dative all alone represents conduit, beneficial interest. But then! Both prepositions are put in v.12, plus the other salient prepositions in the passage are also piled in -- anti, eis. He Who is God needed no prepositions to intercede; but man does! That rhetorical dropping and then piling up is used also in 1Jn. I've not yet checked it in Paul or Peter, but I know it exists, because regularly my pastor translates what seems a simple genitive or dative (etc.) as a prepositional phrase, and he explains that; you also sometimes see it recognized in translations (NASB or NIV), but rarely. Also, note that Drama Greek omits objects, too: making the verb sweeping in scope, especially if an infinitive -- covering every object in some way. Here we have five chained infinitives piled in one verse (v.10-11 are syntactically one verse). Also, the Heroic Accusative is put smack dab in the middle of each clause of the verse, His Soul; to distinguish His Greater Nobility from other normally-nominative-case 'actors'. All this special use of Greek for dramatic emphasis is in here; and has been, since Isa52:13. But since this verse is missing from the Masoretic, special attention to these Greek Drama Language features, is vital to note, so you can see better how this verse is missing from the Masoretic. Note particularly how "he psuche humwn" is in the nominative case, but in the accusative (word order) position. The Subject becomes the Object, substituting! That's the Contract Clause being quoted, from Father to Son. For "opsetai" is in the 3rd person, which makes it an interpretative quote. Which we know, because more detail is added (typical of Hebrew style, especially in Isaiah). Again pointing to the fact this verse is missing from the Masoretic.

In English we have no exact equivalents, so I tried to translate using English Drama -- not good enough, I'm afraid! So you are to understand that "purify" means simultaneously that the Hero (Son's Humanity) buys it all for 'her', and that He Himself is made the Temple -- for "purify" is a cultic word in the OT, and in 1Jn1:9, for Purifying The Temple. And the Wife is the Temple of the Husband, get it? So He Sanctifies Her. So "tes plages" (pronounced TAYSS play-GAYSS, the "e" is an eta), which appears in the LXX in 53:3,4, and here in 10; here, in the instrumental genitive, focusing on the in-His-Soul meaning, versus the action done TO Him, en plague, v.3 and 4; and of course it's a feminine noun, lol! First meaning is whipping, beating, striking, and the wounding thus resulting. This graphic verbal noun is like watching Mel Gibson's "The Passion", the scenes where He is struck with the Roman stone-and-bone lash, emphasis on the beating itself, happening. Rape is like that, but I shouldn't describe in a public webpage the phallic (and mental) activity which "plages" also signifies. In sum, plages signifies total plunder/devastation with extreme hostile, beating force; so it's a raping like the Rape of the Sabine, the Rape of Nanking -- all happening to One Person, and all-at-once! Gibson's movie was actually too tame, and he wanted to show more graphically what Isaiah was talking about: I remember hearing him and Caviezal talk about it on TBN or the i channel, as promo for the movie. So of course he himself was beaten up for telling more of the truth. Well, the Hebrew and Greek exonerate him from the charges levied; the verses themselves would be banned by 'moral' (read: hypocritical) 'Christians' in any published translations. So no wonder they are euphemised, else no Bibles could be sold. Only half-truths and outright lies, sell. Just as Isaiah explains in this Chapter.

Surrounding context has so many synonyms of this raping activity in both Hebrew and Greek -- after all, the entire Chapter depicts the Raped One Without His Own Descendants Who birthed Eternal Life for the same "many" who Raped Him on the Cross! -- the meaning here must stress the raping significance. The noun for rape itself was used earlier in the passage, 53:4 (associated with kakwsis, a deserved-rapine noun); then verb-converted (traumatizw) with a like-dramatic noun (molopi) in v.5; the noun plage itself is used in other Isaiah passages like Isa10:24, :26, 30:26. When you check out the almost-100 uses of plages in Bible, you'll realize it depicts a total calamity, not a few bonks on the head. Here, the calamity is the plundering after a raid, theme since 52:13, so means in the feminine 'side', sword-slaughter (cutting throats, really) and rapine. So that is why Greek infinitive of purpose, aphairew is used. Many carrying/bearing/pregnancy nuances. Here, the verb lays stress on PLUNDERING, pillaging; and always, RAPE. The defeated town's women were carted off and forced to be wives (well, that's euphemistic). Prior carrying verbs were phero in v.4, ago in v.7-8, airw in v.8; all these carryings lead to Him carrying us off as plunder, by the end of v.12, thus realizing the predicted purpose of Isa52:13.]

Hebrew sabea and sheba, respectively satisfied and seven/promise, are being soundplayed in this verse. The first verb means to be happily full from a meal, so comes to mean being in a state of rest -- which of course is what the seventh day was for, and the promise being fulfilled was to bring rest (wordplay used in Book of Hebrews). The Word is rest (ibid). We are progeny of the Word, and that is how we get rest (ibid). So it then makes sense to see this promise of manufacturing His Thinking in the next clause, with the stress on tsadeq being the 'fruit' of it, which ties back to 52:13's purpose, making sons from the Sons by means of His Thinking; since, as even the BHS text here states bluntly, it was His Thinking which paid for sins on the Cross. All the BHS text lacks is the elaboration from v.10 in the LXX, and elaboration from v.11 in the LXX. So "justify..make righteous" is one thing, One Whole Result. In the Bible, the concept denoted by the Hebrew tsadeq (and tsedekah, the verb's cognate noun) do not divide Righteousness and Justice. Same for the Greek dikaiow (dikaiosune). So if a whole, there's nothing you can add to it, huh...]

Isa53:11, LXX text "[birthing] OUT FROM the source of His Soul's [pregnancy] labor to show, point out, EXHIBIT to-and-in-and-then-via Him [in-and-from-His-Humanity], [Who is/from Whom comes] Light; in fact [another contracted function], to SCULPT [in-and-then-OUT-FROM] His Mastery-of-Divine-Thinking [per Isa52:13], to MAKE RIGHTEOUS/VINDICATE/ACQUIT/JUSTIFY [someone for God]: The Righteous One Well-Serving, on behalf of/instead of/for the many; [because, contract clause of v.10 fulfilled] in fact/even He bore/carried up their sins.[Note the procedure carefully delineated in this verse by the judicious omission of prepositions plus the judicious OMISSION of direct objects FOR the infinitives (a Greek drama rhetorical technique): He Is The Original, and we are to be made copies of Him in the Exact Same Paradigmal Manner as He was made. Parts of this verse are obviously missing from the Masoretic. The end of v.10's "kai bouletai kurios aphelein", as you've probably noticed, should be at the beginning of v.11. Every NT book makes liberal reference to this verse, accessing and tying to its keywords; extra-Biblically, you can even find "Clement I" misusing it at the end of his letter to the Corinthians (in order to browbeat them into his false claim of authority). The Isaiah scrolls found among the Qumran documents do not have the text. But clearly it was known, because the light metaphor was popular in the OT and remained so, in the NT. Light of His Thinking: thus is an immaterial transmission which (like material energy) converts what it touches, get it? Heh: so all God has to do, is SHOW it; so all you have to do, is see it; as a result of which seeing, you change (hence the need for volitional consent, to get that sight). Light never has another meaning, in the Bible: even when literal it denotes being able to SEE God. The entire Book of Hebrews is built on this verse, showing how it comes true, especially in Hebrews 10:15-17, which is the crescendo announcement of the fulfillment of the shining-of-His-Face-on-you promise, going all the way back to the restoration of the Earth in Genesis 1:2ff. All the unlimited atonement verses point back to this LIGHT meaning in the LXX, viz Titus 2:11's use of epiphainw, all of John's writings, and of course every word in Paul. "Light" is the quintessential Jewish term, not a gnostic one, not a Kabbalistic one. (Kabbalah turns God into a genie doing pet tricks -- as if His giving us a brain had no value. Same goofball idea as in ALL religions.) So all appearing/manifestation/revealed-type wording in the NT, point back to this verse's fact that Christ Is Made Light in His Humanity (in His Deity He's Already Light), and so ON the Cross the Mechanism For Making That Light In Us, Is Crafted, as depicted in this LXX verse's sweeping infinitives (five, since the syntactical beginning of the sentence in what we label, "verse 10").

This is a very graphic verse, switching to verbal nouns; when a preposition is deliberately missing, as here (the prepositions are 'saved' for v.12), you have to add them in English. (Well, you miss the Greek multiple-entendre by inserting prepositions, but in English you need them first for sense.) So, this verse elaborates on the contract functions and their results. Every word in here is technical, Bible-defined. So the main verbs of each clause are capitalized, so you can see the outline better. It's significant that tei sunesei is in the dative -- So God Uses His Son's Thinking-In-His-Humanity, To Make Righteous. Why lexicons seem to think this LXX verse is spurious, makes zero sense -- this verse is the reason why we have salvation, and have a Bible to learn. Else there'd be no Romans 8 and the entire Book of Hebrews, which center on this Mind to be written on us (well, throw out 1Cor, since that's its main theme, too). Oh well. So it couldn't be more dramatic than for Infinite Truth To Get Written Into Our Finite, Sinner Minds (hence the need for the Holy Spirit). Hence the verbal nouns, dropped (really reserved) prepositions (watch how they pile up in v.12). So with this verse included, the entire flow of 52:13, means a CIRCLE of thinking from God, to man, and back to God, finally compatible. No wonder He wanted to carry our sins! Note the ending 'carrying' metaphor: there, the verb is anaphero, and is a technical offering-to-God verb. So He was plundered, and now His Thinking IS the plunder, just as 52:13 purposed! So now we can become worthy AS plunder, for God. So now v.12 flows perfectly, the next conclusion: Shall Not The One Who Paid And Got Plundered, Get All Plunder Made Out From Him, To Fulfill The Promise Of Long-Lived Seed; To Fulfill The Promise In 52:13 Of His Mastery Of Thinking Prospering? Heh.]

The great ones are both OT and NT, but the NT running explanations of these "great ones" usually has the word plerow, pleroma, teleios or telos or teleiow, somewhere nearby, and use the LXX keywords to tie back to this passage. Verse is not properly translated in any Bible I can read. Which is weird, since the LXX faithfully translates it. Note how "HIS SOUL" has been strategically placed in the center of the verse, throughout this Isa52:13ff passage. Bible uses word order to convey centrality a lot, so look for it in any verse you examine. Translations (sometimes unavoidably) change the word order, so you MISS what Bible says. Here's proof all by itself God doesn't want us to learn Bible in translation (except as an adjunct). For practice, look at the word-order-centrality of God, Christ, in verses like Hebrews 11:1 (where "hupostasis" means CHRIST, always mistranslated -- but see Heb1:3 so you know Heb11:1 means "Christ"); Romans 8:28, Eph2:10, pretty much any verse in Peter, and in the first 18 verses (which are but one Greek sentence) in Eph1:1-18. Greek has many different ways to use word order to emphasize, and each way tells you something essential.]

Isa53:12, LXX text "For that very reason, He will inherit the many; in fact, [52:13's completion] He will divide the people-plunder with the great ones; on behalf of whom [the plunder] He was given over to Substitutionary Spiritual Death, His Soul; in fact, with the revolters He was accounted; in fact, the sins of the many He carried up to God; in fact, because of their sins He was given over.[In Greek you wouldn't need the Masoretic "I will assign": it'd be already known Father was the Awarder, from the prior context. Greek verb merizw and its cognate meros are frequently used in the NT to point to this verse, usually with metron, as the latter always means The Portion Assigned, and that "portion" in Bible, always means a Portion Of Thinking, in connection with God. Idea that everyone has a place, and all the places, l'moed! fit together in time and space. You can run a check on how metron is used pan-Bible, to see all that. Partitive genitive is used to denote Who Gets The Shares Of Spoil. Lexicons clearly say this (i.e., Bauer Danker), so there's no reason to mistranslate this verse or its NT tie-backs, such as Romans 12:3 and Eph4:16. I can't find a verse in the NT with these keywords which isn't referring back to the LXX of Isa53:12 -- and hence, to the entire plunder/carry meaning throughout the passage. Christ's Thinking AS the plunder to be produced and hence produce the great ones, is a major theme of the NT, once you recognize all the NT tie-backs to this Isaiah passage, of which v.12 is the crescendo. In case a reader doubts that meaning, Isa54 and 55 are exhortations to Study The Priceless Word, which of course are also referenced often by the NT verses.]

So here's a working poetic translation of Isaiah 52:13 through 54:1, where the poem logically ends. 54:1 doubles as the first line for the next chapter, as well: but you can't see how Isa54:1 comes to BE there in translation, because all the birthing wordplay rife in Isa53, is stripped out from translations. Hence it ends the chapter here, too. As always, some introductory notes are needed before you view the translation, else it won't be meaningful.

Meter matters altogether, here. If you load up ISA53.RTF, you can put both this page and that doc side-by-side, to see how the poetic translation below apes Isaiah's meter, clause for clause. Or, you can see the meter count in the Exegetical Notes section below the poetic translation 'brochure' table which follows. Poetry in Hebrew isn't like English: meter, not rhyme, specialized vocabulary, not evened rhythm, characterise it. So for English, the objective is to make the translation 'sound' as it does in Hebrew, using the same meter and cadence, both of which a Bible writer choses due to DOCTRINAL significance. For God exploits every nuance in the original languages, including meter, soundplay, wordplay, and cadence -- to TEACH. For example, 9-syllable clauses are used by Isaiah to denote Unilateral Divine Action; 8 syllables, to denote either God's action toward/for mankind, or mankind's attitude toward God's action. Next, 7 syllables, is used to denote Trinity and the God-man nature of Christ Himself. Really bald, the way Isaiah parses his text. Can't miss Trinity, for example, when you have so many 9's, and all the seven-syllable clauses, are trebled together.

LXX apes Isaiah's style; but since Greek requires almost twice as many syllables to convey the same Hebrew meaning, in the LXX you find clauses cast in multiples of the Hebrew syllable structure. Also, Greek has its own drama and poetic style, and this is likewise used. For example, in Isa52:13, LXX rather dramatically and cleverly 'reserves' Hebrew yarum, subsuming it into upsow (verb after first kai).

Next, the LXX's 'read' on the Hebrew will be more closely referenced here in translation. After all, these were Alexandrian Jews, Christ hadn't come yet, so you can't accuse the text of 'Christian' bias. Lots closer to Attic, too. So when there's doubt about how a word should be interpreted, I'll go with the LXX 'interpretation', since clearly those guys would know better.

Hierarchy in translation: real meaning first, then Hebrew word order (so you can follow along in the Hebrew/Greek); then, word- and sound-play; then meter, cadence and sound. If there is a good English idiom which conveys sufficiently the same meaning, I'll use it. Also, Bible conveys many layers of meaning at once. That's why people mistake it for ambiguity. By short and pithy word choices, you get an omnidirectional branching of meaning. So, Bible writers specialize in pithy words. Hebrew verbs and nouns are created from certain consonantal stems, thus when you see one word which sounds like another, God means you to TIE those similar meanings together, too. Greek is not so economical as Hebrew, but it has the same feature. So look for what seems like ambiguity, and recognize instead, that multiple, branching layers of meaning are intended -- as in a building of multiple storeys.

Thus you get closer to what meaning was heard by Isaiah's audience, and what God meant them to know. No translation can be as good as the original. Language features just don't wholly port over in translation, as any professional translator can tell you. Best to learn it in the original. That's true with all Scripture: the controversy in Christendom is about 99.75% due to people not using the original-language text, or not properly using the original-language text. Go By The Language Rules To Interpret Bible, Within Its Own Definitions In Its Own Text: that's what Peter meant, when penning 2Pet1:20-21. Of course, you cannot do that with Bible, unless 1Jn1:9 is breathed as needed -- and only a believer can use 1Jn1:9; so first 'do' John 3:16 if you don't remember ever 'doing' it, and then use 1Jn1:9 as needed.

Again, here's the 'key' to Isaiah's meter: he probably uses the same meter in other Chapters, but I've not had time to vet that idea.

• "9" stands for God's unilateral action (i.e., Decree);
• "8" stands for God's action with reference to mankind, or mankind's REACTION (i.e., to Christ).
• "7" stands for Christ's own God-Man nature and Perfection, all by itself.
• Notice how Isaiah always trebles 7's. That stresses Trinity, and particularly the fact that He is the Son in Trinity, Israel's Husband (neither Father nor Spirit are ever depicted as Husband).
• Of course, so does "9" depict Trinity.
• Look also for antiphony, a sudden switching of speaker (usually to Father), a kind of stylized 'reply' to what's been said in the immediate context. It's real common in the OT, and is another major way Trinity is depicted. (LXX often changes person from third to second or first, when this happens.) Antiphony happens in this chapter at least four times.

However, I can't always get the English meter to exactly match Hebrew without sacrificing meaning, especially before 53:1, and in verses 10-11. So the longer clauses you see, DO match his Hebrew meter; but short clauses of one or two syllables, didn't fit in English. So, they are set off as separate 'lines', but remain words Isaiah actually uses. Thus you can get the flavor of the real meter in the longer clauses, without sacrificing meaning. So for example in 52:13, Hebrew hinneh is actually part of the first 9-syllable clause, but I couldn't make the rest of it fit in English; so I set off the interjectory hinneh, as a first clause.

Alternatively, when the English meter requires more than two extra syllables, I instead follow the LXX translation convention. In the LXX, you'll see they first tried to match Isaiah's meter; failing that, they doubled or added the number of two of his metric choices together, to create one clause in Greek (usually 7+8, 7+4, or 10+7=9+8). (Greek requires many more syllables than Hebrew for the same words, and sometimes the translation is explanatory, rather than word-for-word.) Or, like Isaiah does himself in 53:2 and :4, taking what would be an 8-meter 'whole' clause, but dividing it into dismissive-sounding, 4-syllable clauses, showing how people despised Him. So the LXX apes that, sometimes dividing the verse's meter into shorter clauses which in composite equal a whole meter Isaiah uses. This multiplying or dividing of meter wasn't intended to tally to Isaiah's total number of syllables; but rather, to provide the same rhythmic flow. So that's what I did, too. For example, 52:14's last Hebrew clause is 9 syllables. In English I needed 14, to show the same wordplay Isaiah makes. So I broke it out into 5, then 5, then 4 syllables ("His Incarnation.. sons of men!" clause). Thus the double-entendre of sons of men (4 syllables) ties as it should to EITHER "His Incarnation" or "Beyond, born out from" (the latter doesn't even 'cost' a syllable in the Hebrew, but is appended preposition min). Another example: 53:10's first Hebrew clause is only nine syllables, but in English required 14. So that one Hebrew clause is divided in English, into three 'lines' of 5, then 4, then 5 syllables. So when you add any two 'lines', you still get nine syllables. (The other three clauses in verse 10 exactly match Isaiah's meter, per 'line'.)

In the Exegetical Notes following below the poetic translation is a header denoting each verse and its Hebrew meter, so you can compare to the English rendering.

Hebrew "hinneh" means Attention! Look! Look at this! Look here! and is a kind of command to someone you know well: intimate, not distant; friendly, not unfriendly; good news, generally. Hebrew yaskil emphasizes this happened TO Him (hiphil "ya" prefix plays on God-caused) the skill of Divine Thinking causes prosperity. See TWOT on the meaning of sakal: its synonyms are bin and chochma, but sakal stresses the knowledge of the reason, not flashcard knowledge. Fluent motivation, therefore, due to fluent understanding of the whole. Two "mutual flanks" (my pastor's term): 1) Love for the Reason behind 2) Truth: not at all a chore on Sunday to get human approbation. So really should be translated "Through God-Caused Thinking SKILLS" -- God's Own, running in His Humanity. I wish I could render this in more poetic English, but to do so robs meaning and requires more syllables than the nine allotted, and misses Isaiah's cadence. For example, "Via" would be much better than "Through", especially since it means "Way", "road", as well; it has precisely the required double-entendre of He Himself becoming the Conduit for the building of that Thinking (upcoming in verse 11, Hebrew bedato, see how LXX translates that clause). But "Via" is two syllables, and messes up the cadence. English "By" fits the cadence but is too vague, in English; you'd not know it was IN Him, the Thinking Skills. I can't think of a better English term than "thinking", to stress the active process which sakal depicts. "Thought" is too static, and synonyms for thinking are all too limited. "Genius" would be a great translation, because it means a thinking process which masters a whole subject, and the word itself connotes from Divine Enablement -- but few readers of English know that meaning, and would mistake it for His Godness doing the thinking -- which we know is not true, here (doctrine of kenosis is embedded in the hiphil). Paul refers back to this incessantly in his letters (i.e., Eph4:13, the goal, Eph3:15-19, played on by John in 1Jn4:12-17, 1Cor2:16). Peter's dying letter ends with a command to get the same knowledge, 2Pet3:18. LXX translates yaskil with sunesis, which has the same meaning in Greek: a MASTERY of knowledge which results in a fluency of thinking (Word, here). It's a keyword in the NT, used by all the writers.

Hebrew "abadi" means both a slave and a son (the "i" means "my"), and in LXX is translated with that duality. God-caused nature of the three verbs translated here raised (which also plays on the "yah" sound in Hebrew), promoted, glorified are thus translated in LXX as well, and are in parallel. Hebrew meod is usually translated "exceedingly", but "utterly" works better as a translation. This verse is parallelled in 53:11, to make the sons: His God-Caused Thinking will be sculpted in us (hiphil of tsadeq, LXX translated maybe with plasai to reflect the hiphil). That's why the prosperity result of His Thinking is here Decreed, and reiterated as a success in 53:10 (end of verse).

Hebrew naza means "sprinkles", and is the specialized Hebrew term for what's done over the Mercy Seat on the Day of Atonement: that's the parallel day in Ethanim, to the Lamb Set Aside Date in Nisan. It depicts the Cross, Messiah paying for sins. That's why the Levitical sacrifices all involved blood. As we saw in 52:13, this 'blood' is thinking, so Isaiah refers the reader back to how He gets glorified. Blood is used for thinking throughout the Bible, even as heart is used for the believing-part of your soul where you do your thinking, Prov 23:7 being the quintessential example ("soul" is the literal translation, but to translate it "heart" conforms to the other uses of "heart" in Bible). Next, Isaiah has had as a running theme, the prophecy of God 'coming' to the Gentiles. Jews knew they had superior knowledge, so often didn't go out to 'share' God with the Gentiles. That uppity attitude is censured in this verse, and Paul plays on it in Romans Chaps 2, 4, 9-11, and in Galatians. Idea that the hated goyim will be seeing Him, but not the Jews who reject Him. It's pretty insulting.

Isaiah 52:15's use of naza is translated with thaumazw, which puzzles me. The latter verb usually stands for other Hebrew verbs, but never for naza, elsewhere in Bible. The normal Greek verb standing for naza, is some version of rainw. Maybe 52:15's LXX is missing text? You wouldn't need to add a verb like thaumazw to the Hebrew. So maybe they then used thaumazw to designate that most Solemn Holy Day of the Year, during LXX times?

The wordplay on "who" in verse 15 is here double-entendre. First, stress is on how almost no one believes, and also on how anyone who believes, receives the results of seeing, knowing well, and the Strength/Love/Protection of the Lord. So to show that stress I used "whosoever" and a ?! punctuation. There's also a clever soundplay on preposition min's birthing meaning. In Hebrew, "asher" would be the way to express the relative pronoun "who", whereas the interrogative form is "mi". By pairing "mi" with Hebrew verb aman (he'emin, hiphil stem used), you are reminded of the birthing which takes place due to belief in that very report. Cute. In the seconding clause, al-mi plays on upness-to-God in sound -- To Whom All Goes, of course. So it goes up to God, and God responds with revealing Himself to whomever believes. Again, that's cute. So on the surface level, mi is "who?" and al-mi is "to whom?" but underneath that surface is all this embedded up-ness, deliverance, salvation meaning, which of course is the main theme of the chapter. "Report" is literally a proclamation, a type of official news from a king; Greek word for this is euangelion, which in English is semi-transliterated, "Gospel". But here in the LXX, the legal contract term akoe is used, which plays on the shemah (i.e., Deut 6:4) in Hebrew, pretty much everywhere in the OT (akoe is used 24 times, beginning at Exo15:26, but see especially Deut 11:13) and NT.

The first 4-syllable Hebrew clause I had to 'multiply' the way the LXX does, to keep to meter: Hebrew is "lo toar lo", but the second "lo" is the preposition le coupled with 3rd sing masc suffix. It's colloquial speech, depicting how 'drily' He was received; so I had to use eight syllables, "Yet Incarnate? Oh no, not Him" to capture the negativity. (The "Yet" comes from the waw attached to hadar in the next clause, which is also their reaction, that He is not the Glory by THEIR standards.)

Content of the report to believe starts here. LXX explicitly says, "we repeat-the-report that" -- which John plays on three times, adding himself to the list of the God-appointed reporters, in 1Jn1:1-5. (John is very bald about this, changing anangellw to apangellw and then back to anangellw again, can't miss it in the Greek.) "On Trial" is the LXX rendition of lepanayw in Hebrew, which is a Trial preposition (enantion in Greek). When you go 'before' a judge or court, that kind of "before". Son, "before" Father in the 'court' of the world. Hence opposed. Hebrew preposition min is translated here "born from", because that's what it means, even though it's a preposition. Hebrew prepositions are often used as verbs in this chapter, as elsewhere in OT. So Isaiah switches to a live-action cameraman kind of mode. So in the first two clauses you have the Divine View live from Heaven; in the last two clauses -- which Isaiah divides into five subclauses @four syllables each -- you see the human reaction. So you're watching live TV in split-screen, here; the typical translations don't pick up on Trial in the first half of the verse, so they also don't catch onto the head-wagging going on, in the last half of the verse. So I translated the Hebrew into what would be the equivalent idiomatic English, which really doesn't differ that much from the literal Hebrew. People never change, lol. (First 4-syllable Hebrew clause begins at "Yet" and ends at the first "oh no" in English translation here. The rest of the English clauses tally to the Hebrew syllabification exactly, and the same look-back-look-forward nature of the four-syllable clauses is also preserved in English, hence not punctuated.)

This latter is a play on the famous "seeing, they don't see" (originally in Deut 29:3ff, see also Isa6:9-10, 28:10-12, 42:18-20, 43:8, 44:18, Hebrews 5:11-12 ("nothros" wit), 6:1-6,12, usually mistranslated). Contrast between the true Sight of Him and the blindedness we choose. So Isaiah breaks meter into 4's at the end of the verse, showing our soundbyte attention and outright hostility toward Him at His First Advent, with a suddenly-bobbing Hebrew cadence. Tsav latsav, baby: you'll see it again in verse 4, so parallels with verse 4. That meter is captured here in English, so you can 'feel' the flavor of the crowd's reaction. So 53:2 is split-screen: how Christ looks to Father in Heaven, versus how He appears to us on earth. Everywhere you see "the Land" in Hebrew after Israel's founding, the term means the PROMISED Land, Israel. So should almost always be translated that way. So is translated that way, here and in v.8.

Isaiah changes style here, starts to repeat the same word or words, and assumes a beating, striking rhythm. Thus you 'feel' something of what happens to Him Who Will Be Beaten Up for Our Sins. Here, Isaiah commences the beating rhythm with Hebrew verb baza -- to despise, disdain, hold in contempt, here in the niphal participle -- and he bookends the verb twice. Isaiah will similarly bookend other words in the following verses, continuing the rhythm, increasing the repetition. By verse 6, you feel the blows: in English, US US US US will be the repeated ending in verses 5-6, seven times. So to show this striking repetition, I'll repeat the word in translation like Isaiah does in the original, though the original has more meanings (so look up the Hebrew word). Back here in verse 3, English "abandoned" is a better choice for translation than either the typical "rejected" or "forsaken" in translation, because "abandoned" is more all-encompassing, closer to the Hebrew hadal. The idea of hadal is that people either never believed in Him, or once they believed, they stopped; or, became lukewarm, especially under pressure. English "rejected" or "forsaken" are good translations of hadal, but they are too narrow in perceived scope. Here, it's the fault of the reader, not the translator. For to the average reader, "rejected" doesn't include a previous acceptance, and "forsaken" doesn't include an initial rejection. For example, the average Christian contends that if you commit some big sin "you're not saved!" blissfully ignorant of David's being after God's Own Heart, though everyone caws about his sins. So here in 53:3, to translate Hebrew hadal as "abandoned", seems to better include the whole range of reaction.

And here we see the fourth demonstration of how THINKING pays for sins. In 52:13, we are flat told the Decree that by God-Caused Thinking He will be raised, so the success of the Cross was bought by that Thinking; verse 11's bedato yasdiq will echo back to 52:13, confirming it got done. In 52:14, we see Him live, beat up beyond Human resemblance -- got to be Thinking Toward God (Ps22:1ff) to stay sinless, in that state. Obviously the third Thinking is Him on Trial, in v.2's "Sapling" clause, paired with the Root (of Jesse), despite the want-of-Word-Water in the Land. So fourth, here in 5:3, we see "The Heartbreak Man": that's really a better translation than "Man of Sorrows" -- though I like that translation a bunch -- because "holi" is a kind of LOVEsickness, not merely body sickness (i.e., used by Solomon, and earlier by David's son as a ruse to rape Tamar). Isaiah will repeat Him carrying our holi in the next verse; will repeat His Own holi caused by FATHER, in verse 10; so this begins the setup toward verse 10. From verse 3 onward, the Soul-Paying Meaning of the Cross is repeated often, with a crescendoing repetition of "His Soul" by the time you get to verses 10-12. I counted 21 of His Soul functions depicted throughout the chapter; you might find more. Can be no doubt whatsoever that His Thinking paid for sins, just as the Decree of 52:13 states. Now I understand why my pastor repeated over and over that THINKING is the spiritual life. Didn't used to understand his stressing that so much, the congregation wanted to vomit: but now I do understand. We really don't get it about what happened on the Cross; and for a long time, I didn't get it, either. No excuse, really.

The "Faces 'shelter'" clause is a group of nouns making a TV picture in Isaiah: visual play on how He is the Rock, Our Refuge of salvation -- being sheltered away from, ironic use of birthing preposition min. 'Picture of rejection, people turning their faces away from Him. Again, Isaiah takes advantage of sound: panim is a singular noun with a plural ending because a face has many expressions. Also doubles as more than one face. Root idea is visual, a face you see is turned toward you: panah means to turn. So here, you get this double-entendre, graphic picture of faces turning away from His Face, one by one. Hebrew seter means a hiding place or refuge -- a place you hide something valuable, or go for protection; so by using "mas'ter", Isaiah draws a picture of The Refuge being refused, folk hiding away from Him, rather than in Him.

Again, preposition min is used like a verb, idea of separation, beyond-and-awayness. Here, turning away from the One Whose Birth will give them spiritual birth -- but they don't want it. This mode of expression really matters, for it's a Hebrew aphorism about how Moses' face shone when seeing God face-to-face. The common Jewish blessing of "May His Face shine upon you", the quintessential wish that you learn Torah so well you see God face-to-face -- is here evoked by Isaiah (see the end of Num6:22ff for the origin of that blessing, context of Nazirite vow of dedication/separation to study the Law). So all that mouthing and dreaming about SEEING Him face to face, well.. Here He is! You're SEEING Him face-to-face now! yet everyone turns away?! We don't change much over the centuries, do we...

LXX stresses all that, converting both min and the verbs into passives -- what He receives -- and translating the Hebrew "keh" not as "like", but as a "ki" (because, using hoti in Greek). LXX spends an extra clause to slow the action, so you can ponder Him who was not given another thought by those who would see Him (ouk elogisthe, last two words in the LXX). So while the conventional English translation of this clause is okay, it's not graphic enough. No doubt that the Jews translating Isaiah into the LXX, knew what would happen. Again, you can't accuse Christians of rendering this chapter -- even today, we Christians have but a kindergarten-like understanding of it, thinking His Physical death paid for sins! The Jews who knew the LXX had no such ignorance, that's for sure.

I wish I could say "The Heartbreak Man well knows Lovesick Grief" because Hebrew yadah is an intimate knowledge -- yadah is euphemistic for the sex act in OT, not a mere acquaintance -- but that extra "well" is too many syllables. So "knows" ends up being finessed, quiet -- which someone in truly deep grief, really is. (Isaiah uses 8 syllables per clause in this verse.) Deep grief is silent, too deep for words -- Paul will play on this verse in Romans 8:26 (context starts in 8:11, picture of a woman in pregnancy labor, evoking Isa53:11). Isaiah is also parallelling the "bin" (intensive understanding), last word in 52:15 (hitbonanu), with the intimate knowledge of our rejecting Him (and of our sins, per the LXX stress). Because He knew Grief, we get to know Him, is the idea: The Man 'knew' His Wife on the Cross, so that she could come to know Him (Pauline concept-play in Ephesians 5). So Isaiah begins to use terms of rapine and pillaging, beginning with the next verse. Euphemisms will be used.

The repetition of the "US" beating on Him, begins in earnest, now, but the us-ness isn't metered at set intervals until the next two verses. So here, Isaiah just starts the repetition of us-ness in each clause. Yeah, because we're so full of ourselves! You probably should pull up ISA53.rtf now, to see how the rhythm of the clauses have this overhand-beating sound, quickening pace by the end of the verse. Here in verse 4, each clause ends on an upward beat. Verses 5 and 6 will end each clause on downward beats, 'feel of the stabbing, hitting in Him.

So Isaiah had begun right away with the up-to-God, 'lifted', 'Most High' (play on Hypostatic Union), meaning. When you hear theologians pontificate on whether they are sub-, supra-, or infralapsarian, ask them what's the first item on their version of the Decree list. Notice how they never say, "Christ": but instead, they tangle over anthropocentric pil-pul, like whether Father decreed to save us before or after the Fall (=lapsarian, with sub being after, and supra being before, and infra being in the middle somewhere). 'A silly debate begun by the Calvinists, who prefer to think of God throwing at a dartboard, blindfolded; as if He wouldn't be Objective were He looking at foreknown facts. Puleese: clearly God would do everything from what He Knows, never casting a blind eye at The Truth. So in all this human-centric debate, they all miss the point: there would BE no Decree to Create, if CHRIST isn't the Subject and Object of ALL of it. The rest of us are in the middle, in Him -- by contract (coming up in verses 10-12). The Decree is but One: Christ, Filling all in All, Eph1:23, which points back here to the entire 53rd chapter (52:13-54:1). Not angels, not even our physical births could be justified at all, if it wasn't to glorify Christ. Father shouldn't see less than His Son, anywhere He looks, true spiritual isotropic property of the universe. Else, it's unfair to God: Each God.

So here in Isa53:4, Isaiah begins a new parallel analogy again with nasa: this time, to 'booty carried-off', a theme which dominates the rest of the chapter; verb is used yet again in the princely sense of lifting us up with Him, still as His Booty (paired with paga), in verse 12. So here, one must use the word "lifted" for nasa, to see the wordplay on "promoted", and on the upcoming synonyms Isaiah will use for plunder. Idea of Him being treated by us as no more than booty, a toy to abuse; but in the end He gets ALL of us as booty, one way or another (we believe and are booty in heaven, or never believe and are forever reviling Him in hell). So, like barbaric attackers coming into a town, stealing everything they can, killing all the men, raping and capturing all the women. So here in v.4, "lifted" is better wordplay, fitting the Hebrew, having the same dual-entendre in English. Writer of Hebrews will be referencing this section of Isa53 using the same wordplay (and even the same LXX infinitives in verse 10, i.e., aphairew), especially in Hebrews 10. Idea that what you bear burdens you, and is also your PRIZE. Clearly, what we become post-death is nothing like we are now, or we wouldn't be a prize worth a tinker's dam.

Isaiah's cadence is now like a sewing needle's steady up-down; each clause ending with a "u" sound, signifying US; same, in verse 6. Notice how in the English here of vv5-6, each clause ends with a STRIKE. That's how it 'feels' in the Hebrew, too. It's pretty graphic. This verse is horribly blanded out in published Bible translations, thus belittling what He went through. Worse, translations typically dignify by vague euphemisms, the shocking horribleness of OUR rejections and sins. No one intends to do this: our sin nature is easily tapped by Satan&Co., no matter how credentialed we are. After all, there's a Trial going on. So Bible obfuscation in translation is a major satanic strategic goal. We can't but fail.

Isaiah continues the beating "us" ending of each clause as he did in verse 5. Here, the bookending word is "kollanu": all of us. Isaiah also slows down, here: so you must drawl the syllables of the first two clauses to add one syllable per clause, to keep to the meter; then, you have to swallow two syllables in the last clause, to keep to the meter. Slow down, wander off, speed up like an arrow -- bullseye! In Him forever! When sewing, you'll notice there are moments in the stitch when you have to slow down, 'wander' as it were from the fabric, moving the threaded needle away from it. Then, zoom! In goes that closing stitch, circle completed! And to think, like every other prophet this Divinely witty information just came out of his mouth, perfect the first time!

TWOT lexicon (which is bundled in BibleWorks) brings out a meaning of this verse I hadn't thought about before: it's a type of 1Jn1:9 usage, admitting one has sinned. You'll see the prophets do this a lot, admitting sin on behalf of the whole nation (see also Daniel 9, verses patterned on Psalm 32:5 and 66:18, frequent refrains in the prophets, really). That's pretty ironic, since many Christians today pooh-pooh 1Jn1:9 and its many refrains in the NT. You're spiritually comatose, without it. Bible can't be read properly, without it. So to see it again here in Isa53:6, is pretty important, and reminds the reader to admit he's sinned also, lest the rest of the chapter become tsav latsav, gobbledygook in his head. Now you know why Israel, the prize people who received this Precious Word, only mouth it on the sabbath, understanding nothing. We should beware, for we do the same dang thing, for kollanu ka'tson, ta'inu.

Hebrew tainu, paninu and the Greek planaw all connote wandering off a known path, one you're supposed to be on, in favor of one you prefer -- but calling the path you prefer, the 'right' one. "Way" means "road", as in "the way to Mandalay". Or, more famously, "The Way, the Truth, and the Life". Hebrew word is derek, and Greek word is odos. So there is an objective road going to a destination in life we need to be on (Eph4:12-13), but we choose to wander off it, pretending we're on a 'better' or the 'right' road (Eph4:14). So "wander astray" is used rather than either one alone or "go astray", because LXX uses planaw, which has this connotation of wanting to wander off into what's bad for you, being an easy dupe of any ol' claimant as shepherd. LXX repeats planaw twice, first for Hebrew tainu, and then for Hebrew paninu. It matters to know all this, because the NT constantly plays on the right and wrong way; because planaw here is often referred back to (i.e., in Eph4:14 and many other verses, search the Greek to see them all). Of course, everyone knows that "sheep" metaphor is constantly referenced in the NT.

Hebrew paga -- pronounced pah-GAAH -- ending ayin -- to rhyme with the "a" in "lab" -- is generally mistranslated. One should not translate paga as "lay" or "intercede", for paga means something HITTING at the intended place. Something that hits the mark and thus joins; hitting paydirt, hitting a bullseye, going exactly where intended, are the concepts behind the 'hit' of paga. Thus creating a unity, and that means Substitution; so the English verb "shot" is most appropriate, and correctly connotes both violence and AIM. The LXX stresses this fact by using paradidomi here and twice in the climactic verse 12 (which also uses paga, there also translated "shot"). Yes, paga is in the hiphil: and if you look in TWOT or other lexicon you find "make intercession" as the first meaning listed for the hiphil, so that's how translators translate paga. But in English, that's not what's meant here or in verse 12. Isaiah is using all meanings of the verb, starting with the meanings in the qal, ending with the success of it being Substitution for us; the LXX reflects that range, by using paradidomi in the aorist indicative. Moreover, English to "make intercession" is inaccurate, because in English that action merely denotes a plea, whether or not accepted; but here in both the Hebrew and Greek, you're flat told it's a His Substitution That Succeeds in wrapping us up in Him: the Substitution Contract, comes up in verses 10-11. So "make intercession" in English is misleading, at best; at worst, it belies the efficaciousness of the Cross. Now you know why billions who call themselves Christian think we can either lose our salvation, or that Christ's Payment on the Cross only made us 'eligible' in some way, so we must add works or getting wet, to be saved; thus unwittingly deem the Cross Payment a mere "intercession", a kind of bribe?! So here in translation we wander off the Road, proving by it Isaiah's use of awon, twisting everywhere -- versus being united in Him. See how we sheep twist Scripture, 'translating' His Work on the Cross as mere "intercession" for us?!!!! Yuck!

So in the last clause of verse 6, awon -- translated here as "twisting sins", verse 5 -- is truncated to "twistings", to also encompass our wandering off. Isaiah means that, in context, sewing metaphor. (All thread is made by twisting fibers, in case you didn't know.) So English has a handy way to render what Isaiah means, by using "twistings" here in verse 6. You can see the tie to twisting sins, easily enough. Thus God threads ALL our salvation IN Him!

This is a verse you really have to view in the Hebrew, because the last clause deliberately UNcouples parts of speech normally appended together; to fit the meter in speech, you have to ellide two syllables. Visually, you see preposition beh stand on its own, no verb, only appended with "Him" -- thus sounding like Hebrew verb "bo", GOING TO Him; the particle 'et (denoting the next word as a direct object) stands alone, no Hebrew 'hyphen'; so, awon (twisting sin, singular, denoting nature, collectively) stands alone; kullanu ("all of us") stands alone, bookending the verse. Thus Isaiah visually stresses the sewing of v.5 completing in verse 6, all these separate 'pieces' hitting and thus joined in HIM. Parallel verse is 2Cor5:21. Get the irony? In the Hebrew, properly you should slow down and enunciate each syllable, they are separated, conceptually and actually -- but instead you must speed up, to close the stitch, to keep to the meter, join what shouldn't be joined! Can't translate that wit!

Thus again we see the Real Divine Decree to Create: Him. Thus the Calvinist conundrum is answered. No, God did not have to put on a blindfold, as it were, ignoring what He knows about us to Elect; for, He Sovereignly Elected Christ. As a result, He can justify creating, in the FIRST place. Surely no one in his right mind thinks we'd have a right to be born, even if we never sinned. Any creation is still insufferably finite, never mind being perfect; after all, even a perfect child is but a child, SHORT of the Parent, 2nd prong of Rom3:23. So by Electing Christ, creation can be decreed in Him, by Him, for Him, everything -- Him. Then, the problem of sins gets handled also -- in Him. So, God Elects Anyone Who Believes In Him To Be Saved, John 3:16. Knowing who that will be, but not based on anything we are -- but Based On Christ, John 16:9. See? Perfect Sovereign Solution, never ignoring what God knows. Only a liar ignores truth. God is no liar.

Same is true from our end. Think: is life really worth having in the first place, if it only means you engage in animal functions and seek/get the approbation of other humans? Then you die? Whatever for?! Don't we all find ourselves wondering, "is this all there is?" like the famous Peggy Lee song? Well: is it worthwhile, by contrast, to be alive in whatever condition you are or become, in order to learn His Thinking, Psalm 139:17? Which, as you see from Isaiah53, is the very contract for our existence, the Divine Decree? So what satisfies Father, is to beget His Son's Thinking in us. So, He must first Decree His Son to become finite, YH 'joining' WH, haYaH plus haWaH! Now, that's a reason to create! At His End.. and at ours. Even though, we do not deserve to be created, it's still a question of what's worth living for. And it's only worth living for Christ, 2Cor5:14-21. Can't live for Someone Whose Thinking you don't know. Awww, poor baby, cry all the way to the Bible Bank to get your daily deposit of His Thinking, Ps139:17, Eph3:15-19, to get Eph4:13, 2Pet3:18!

In this new poetic paragraph, having seen human attitudes toward Him, we now see Father's View. So Isaiah here switches to 7 syllables to show His Divine Perfection, and the clauses are trebled, depicting Trinity. Last two clauses are nine syllables, depicting Father's Decree and the Trinity's role in it: to be silent, allow the abuse to hit Him. Most of Isaiah's verses are in four clauses. This one is five, and Isa53:12 is six clauses' long. The number of clauses will matter, for text in Isa53:10-11 missing from the Hebrew, is in the Greek and vice versa, so one must estimate how to meter those two verses. The estimate is based on what verses are paralleled. Isa 53:10-11 parallel 52:13, here to 53:7 via 53:9 (beginning of the contract summary, Decree of 52:13-14 elaborated), and ahead to 53:12 (contract delivery terms).

The major mistranslations in this verse are: Hebrew ana is euphemised, and Hebrew rahel means "ewe" (from which we get "Rachel") -- not "sheep". It matters to get the sheep's sex right, considering that sexual words are used throughout Isaiah to denote how He was raped with our sins on the Cross. Not good, to belittle the Cross via euphemism in the name of 'decency'! So the second verb in the sentence, abuse verb "ana", is repeated as a participle: but not from the standpoint of those thinking Him evil (same ana, last verb in verse 4).. but from God's View. This is a parallel verse to 52:14, which of course is the Decree; so 52:13 is realized VIA the abasement, and thus is a promotion -- Paul will point out this parallel in Phili 2:5-10. So again ana is here translated "Abased". LXX subsumes both Hebrew verbs of the first clause, into the quintessential abuse verb kakow. This all-purpose verb denotes the kind of rapine and pillaging which occur when a particularly vicious people plunder a village. Greeks had their moral standards, too -- and kakow signifies that even those far-looser standards, are utterly violated. So when you see this LXX verb, you are to understand inhuman injustice of extreme magnitude, utterly beyond-the-pale, is practiced. Kinda like, skewering babies. "He stays mute" is a better translation of "alam" (which LXX translates with aphonos, so He's not forced to stay quiet). Isaiah is stressing how He chose not to speak, repeating that fact twice in the verse, bookending it. So here you see His Thinking toward Father, stressed. Beyond-human: requires Divine Thinking, to stay mute under so much abuse. Whenever my pastor covers this passage, he stops to remind us that the Lord didn't begin to scream until imputed with our sins (screaming out Psalm 22:1, therefore recalling that whole Psalm while receiving the blows of our sins in His Soul). Beyond-human thinking begets beyond-human stamina, even in The Human. Yet we think the spiritual life is dead-corpuscle stuff? LOL.

Each clause depicts man's raping attitude. Back in verse 7, we saw through God's Eyes. Here in v.8, Isaiah begins a kind of tic-tac-toe, parallelling the first clause in this verse with the first clause in verse 7, to advance the meaning further. (John uses that same rhetorical technique in 1Jn, beginning at 1Jn1:5). So in verse 7, you get a graphic picture of His Arrest and His being abused by authority. Here in verse 8, you hear the abuse-of-justice 'verdict' by those kangaroo courts (6-7, per NT verses, see PassPlot.htm's "Daily Chronology" link).

We still are seeing through God's Eyes, but from the standpoint of what man did TO God's Uniquely-Born Son. The birthing wit in this verse is totally absent from translations. In this climactic verse Isaiah again piles on the "m" sounds, parallelling verse 5, stressing min-birthing. It's super-important to get that birthing wordplay, because every word in this verse is playing on it, all leading up to the Plunder Decree in verse 12. For example, the first word in the verse, Hebrew noun otser, means barren, as in a barren woman; it sounds just like "oppression", too (which is also consonantally ayin tsade resh). So Isaiah 'couples' barren with the birthing preposition min -- anticipating Isa54:1! Not only that, but -- play on mishhat in 52:14 -- "mishpat" here in 53:8, means judgement by a duly-constituted governmental court (translated "Trial" in the LXX and here in English), is also 'coupled' with yet another preposition min! Moreover, the word for "take away" or "led away" is the raping plunder verb, laqach. If my pastor reviewed that verb once, he reviewed it a thousand times. "Laqach" (pronounced "la-KAACHHH", to sorta rhyme with "black", last syllable deep and hard in throat) means you SEIZE a woman after a campaign for your prize, carrying or dragging her off, usually raping her on the spot to 'mark' her. See, after a raid, usually there would be this long collection period after a 'city' was razed or taken, with the goodies and the women and children, all assembled in the center, facing the leader, with the raiding party around them. Then the leader of the raid would apportion all of that booty out, keeping the best for himself. There would always be leftovers, women and children who weren't assigned, who anyone could just grab: laqach. Prior to that, you might have a contest over one of the women or some article, with two or more of the victorious raiding 'soldiers' battling each other over who gets it. Life was brutal. It shouldn't be whitewashed in translation.

So the first clause in the Hebrew, uses brutal language. It explicitly declares a Miscarriage of Justice against Him as 'birthing' His Death. For "otser" is double-entendre: 1) oppression by authority; but also 2) for a woman who is barren or only capable of bearing stillborns. "Miscarriage of Justice" is thus an exact equivalent English translation of otser (barrenness, miscarriage) plus mishpat; but since the LXX renders mishpat as "he krisis", which means Legal Trial Verdict, I use English "Trial" to defer to the LXX: "Verdict" or "Sentence" would be even better, but that's too many syllables (only 9 alloted, in Hebrew); also, to the English reader "Trial Miscarriage" is clearer than "Verdict Miscarriage". (By the way, Christ wasn't born yet for almost three centuries when the LXX was written; you can prove that from the archaic nature of its Greek and its Atticisms. So to translate the more general term mishpat with "he krisis", means they knew in gist what would happen, long beforehand.) Hebrew laqach is translated in English with two verbs, "seized and "borne", because "laqach" means both actions: 1) the booty is seized violently, and then 2) borne/carried off. One English verb would be misleading. So for translation, I opted for soundplay on "born" with "borne", to demonstrate Isaiah's own wordplay using min. Another reason to use two verbs: LXX translates both laqach and gazar in this verse (latter means cut off) as "airw", which does have all the same meanings. So if I use "seize" and then later "snatched" (for gazar) in translation here, you'll see the same synonymal meaning as is conveyed by using the same verb twice in the LXX. Of course, "snatched" in English has sexual overtones, just like it does in the Greek, and when Isaiah uses the Hebrew gazar, he uses it with preposition min -- again, playing on What Gets Birthed due to His Death. LXX will keep on translating min with apo.

See what gets missed when translations euphemize? So now when you see the second clause about "descendants" (which only NIV correctly recognizes) -- it makes sense! [So much for that Da Vinci Code nonsense -- poor Da Vinci must be turning in his grave, to see the mess being made of his Lord and his own reputation. So here you have a verse telling you Christ had no kids. Could He have kids? Sure He could have. Wouldn't have been wrong -- but the fact is, He didn't marry and didn't have kids. Isaiah tells you that He won't, in advance. For, His Kingship is not like a conventional kingdom, but that of Son for Father. Christ Himself Will Always And Only Be The King, It's Not A Dynasty. That's the very promise of Messiah -- He Personally Remains King Forever, 2 Sam 7, Ps110:1. So of course there will be false gospels of a lesser kingship, promoted by Satan&Co. Anything to denigrate Bible: and prove how ignorant we are of it. So ignorant, we can't even properly translate Isa53:8 in any Bible I can read. Sheesh: I've known Christians who "lost their faith" owing to the Holy Blood stories. What nonsense, how little the faith there was to start with, that they didn't even bother to check Isaiah 53. No wonder Satan&Co. burlesque us all so much.]

Now do you see why the second clause of this 53:8 talks about the Lord's Descendants being zero? See the irony setup? If you don't know the Hebrew wordplay, if the English is mistranslated, this comment about descendants comes from nowhere. But all this in Hebrew, leads up to the final climactic verse in 54:1, He Who Had No Descendants, Sires All. But of course, since translators always cover up sexual vocabulary and innuendo, you don't see all this meaning in translation. What a travesty, to in the name of 'decency', mask our so-great salvation mechanics! That's not really the translators' fault, of course. Translation committees have to be concerned with selling the translation, and uptight, ignorant Christians will not tolerate a faithfully-translated Bible when it's frank. So often euphemisms are chosen.

Next, as the LXX reflects faithfully but our translations do not, Hebrew shiah means to memorize-and-recite, here. Its root idea is that you learn something important so you can narrate, retell or reuse it many times. A story you ponder to learn more about -- again, because it's important. But always, the final objective of shiah is to TELL someone, pass the information onto the next generation. So you rehearse, ponder how to present the information, after you've learned it. Memorizing one's descendants is one of those important things you pass down to your children, so it's a "shiah", to narrate. Hebrew noun "dor" means one's descendants, family tree, generations of the family line; so you "shiah" your "dor" as a member of it, like Genesis 5, 11; like Matthew in Matt1, or Luke in Luke 3. Both the latter two genealogies play on this Isa53:8, by narrating His Family Tree for Him -- a cool way to say they are 'children' of the Cross. For only the CHILDREN have the right to recite the generations; it's considered a privilege, to keep your ancestors' memory alive, to remember your origins. That's still a common practice in the Middle East. So here in Isa53:8, Isaiah laments this "shiah" for the Lord Himself: there is no one to recite Him as Parent -- for He has no kids. The English neatly leds itself to this dual-entendre, for "Descendance" and "Descendants" both have the same sound. So who narrates His Descendance, among His Descendants? Answer: no one, because He has no kids to inherit that narration role. The irony runs rife through the OT. Psalm 110:1 and Book of Hebrews are on this prophecy of no natural children, because He begets EVERYONE for Father. Isaiah plays on Psalm 110:1, when he writes this Isa53:8; and Psalm 110:1 is a play on the 2Sam7 promise of a Forever-Reigning Messiah, under Whom all humanity will be His 'children'. Hebrews 2 quotes yet another OT verse, "I and the children You gave Me". Then there's the quip in the Gospels the Lord makes about the "dry tree" -- since that's Who He seems to be. There are a lot of verses like this in both OT and New, but even from these you can see it's a threaded doctrine. See all the Bible ties we miss, simply due translations masking sexual wordplay Isaiah used in this chapter -- continuing Adam's figleaves obsession? Ouch!

Next, Bibles routinely mistranslate the third clause, too. Hebrew verb gazar means to cut off, cut down, snatch -- but also, to decree, allot, cut a COVENANT, idea of separating off one group of assets or people to get those assets. Hebrew verb karat is the circumcision, cut-a-covenant verb in the OT, and TWOT says gazar is used as a synonym for karat. So I need an English verb which signifies both meanings, and I can't think of one. First, the snatching must be referenced in translation, because preposition min is used; per TWOT the violence must be translated in English. But also the second meaning of the decree/allotment must be translated, as it is a main theme of the entire chapter! But my brain is out as to what English verb would naturally include both concepts, drat! In short, gazar means "to snatch out as booty", and "to decree/allot as booty, inheritance". It really matters to put the right English verb in here! Alas, for now, I had to use merely "snatched". Next, Bibles routinely mistranslate this third clause with "the land of the living", for crying out loud. He is The Life. It's Him Who is Life Who is Cut off; Isaiah bookends the clause in Hebrew so you see hayyim=Life, in apposition with Hebrew nigzar (=He is cut off, snatched, decreed as booty). LXX got that right in translation, ingeniously placeming "autou" after "he zoe", to nicely feeds into the next clause like Isaiah does: and to make the Greek meter fit (else it's two syllables short). This is a common rhetorical device in both texts, to place a key phrase or word so it points back to prior clause, yet ahead to the next one. "Ha Eretz" is a technical Hebrew term for the Land Promised Israel, just as it was in verse 2. So this verse 8 'looks back' at verse 2, which showed Him growing like this strong Sapling -- now, Harvested. So here in v.8, He the King, is snatched out from Land Promised, Covenanted to Him. That's the point Isaiah stresses. Next, "out from" is again our friend the preposition min -- Isaiah is not coy. Idea of a man who snatches off a woman in conquest as his booty, his allotment for the raid -- violent. Again, the violence must be translated, due to the preposition min, when gazar is in the niphal, as here (see TWOT lexicon's explanation on gazar in the niphal, how using min affects meaning: it's a standard and respected lexicon, and is bundled in BibleWorks).

Isaiah's fourth use of min in the final clause, attached to pesha ("revolting sins", also in v.5, twice in v.12), again anticipates the climactic 53:10-12, where His being Pregnant with our sins, births our salvation per Divine Contract with Father. LXX is real blunt about this, using thanaton. Hebrew min is attached to pesha, this time in the singular; so really I should translate it "revolt", tying to verse 5. LXX translates pesha as anomia, lawlessness=revolt, revolution, widespread criminality in the form of overthrowing rightful Authority: God's. It's really insulting, for at this time Israel was hyper-legalistic about the Law. So is depicted by "mepesha"="anomia", as a raiding tribe of savages raping Israel, by its miscarriage of Justice, against its Messiah. Isaiah here stresses the NATION's revolt against Him. Isaiah is quoting his contemporary Hosea when he uses "ammi". English Bibles all translate "ammi" as "my people", so I should also. I also must reflect Isaiah's fourth use of min, here. Best way I know to do this yet preserve both the syllable count and the Hebrew word order in English, is "My people's revolt, 'birthed' Him.. Struck?!" For Isaiah also plays on how He is the Messiah BORN FROM the Promised Land. From which Promise, He is snatched away to death by the very people whom He was Promised (play on His Husband Role). Wow. Sometimes English really can convey the dual-entendre in Hebrew, huh. Published Bible translations of this clause often end it with a question mark of shock, how what is NOT due Him, but us.. strikes Him. Hebrew words do show that same kind of shock, for Isaiah separates the usually-attached le preposition, and appends to IT a third person masculine singular suffix, leaving nega as a noun. Isaiah could have opted for an attached construction, le with naga a third-person suffix, instead (which is more normal). That Isaiah separated all these parts of speech, tells the reader to slow down, notice how it's so unfair HE gets struck. Hence the shocked question mark, in English.

As in 52:13-15, 53:2, 53:7, here in :9 we see again Father's Court Order, and it now continues to the end of the chapter. LXX translates this verse 9 using the 1st person, a common rhetorical device in Greek to show the Subject is Father; seems like they do that for clarification of the Hebrew -- so you know WHO is in view.

This time Isaiah reverses the syllabification of verse 7, with a 9-syllable clause first, followed by trebled 7-syllable clauses; he slows down for dramatic effect in the last two clauses, so you have to drawl a syllable per clause, stretching it into two. In the third clause, drawl the "'al" sound, because that represents the sound of God, which is intended, as 'al uncharacteristically stands alone, visually. In the fourth clause, maybe drawl either mir'mah or b'phiw (maybe separately sound out the waw, which represents "His"). The answer is in four clauses, not five; it seems He does this, because the third and fourth clause in verse 7 are two metaphors of the SAME Submission. So Father answers in the same order as verse 7, clause for clause, but concatenates the third and fourth clause of verse 7, into an 'answer' contained in the third clause of verse 9, which is also in 7 syllables. So the "niggas wahu na'ane", first clause of verse 7, is 'answered' by the "wayitten et-resahim qibro" (9 syllables) in the first clause of verse 9, and so on.

Isaiah thus focuses on FATHER's Verdict upon His Son's Sacrifice, 'answering' His Son's being passive and mute in verse 7, despite all the violence done TO Him by mankind. Man had a chance to render verdict upon Him, and that verdict (verse 8) was resoundingly abusive, negative, miscarriage-of-Justice. So now, God talks. That's the pattern in the Bible: first man renders his opinion, and then God 'answers'. That's why often God seems 'silent', waiting for men to decide without any 'influence' from Him.

The wordplay in this verse is so saturated with irony, proper translation is well-nigh impossible. Key to the verse is the use of 'et, a direct object marker which Isaiah simultaneously uses as a substitutionary preposition. LXX catches onto this, by using anti, which is better than huper, in the context (it's not "together with", which in Greek is "meta" preposition). Idea is an EXCHANGE of our hostility and goals in killing Him, for God's goals and results. In Hebrew and Greek as in English, the direct object of a "give" (or decree) verb is the gift itself; Hebrew expresses that with 'et. For the indirect object, the beneficiary, Hebrew uses of le preposition or no preposition, with word placement of the beneficiary, telling you who it is. Greek uses accusative case for the direct object (here, the gift, the wicked themselves); but the indirect object is expressed with prepositions or with the dative case. You can prove these facts in but a few minutes, simply by searching on dosw here in LXX of verse 9, throughout LXX and NT: about 207 uses, so plenty of proof. (Of course, scholars of the past didn't have computers with Bible software like BibleWorks, so it would have taken them maybe a year or more, to plot out all the usages.)

The Recipient of the Decree, is Christ. So no indirect object is directly stated, and actually everyone is affected, Christ first. So the high legal language here, using the sacred He to designate Christ, is all-encompassing. Now you know again why all those "in Him" and "in Christ" verses saturate NT discourse. Of all OT quoting by NT speakers/writers, Isa53:9-12 get referenced the most.

So by verse 8, what man wanted out of Him -- abuse -- is now answered by what God Decrees shall come out of Him INSTEAD, birthing our salvation. Sarcasm is really deft, here. Best way to translate it in English, is double-entendre. So that's what I tried to do here, with the two-way English wording: are the wicked the beneficiaries from God, getting what they want -- or are they really the booty, given over BY God as plunder to Him forever? Answer? Both. And from verse 9 on, you'll see that duality stressed, leading up to the crescendo in verse 12, and Isa54:1. So technically verse 9 reads something more like "So He [Father] shall decree the wicked INSTEAD OF (displacing) His Grave" -- cool way to say He'll be resurrected, and our sins 'die' in Him. So we are the grave; hence the tomb itself, will be empty. The full idea is in two clauses, and would be best rendered in English, "So Father decrees the wicked and the wealthy to replace His Grave, because of His Deaths", so you can see that "His Deaths" is the reason for the Decree. So the world gets the grave for all its trouble, and those who believe in Him, become wealthy in Him. Instead. Can't render that idea in 9 syllables each clause, so I opted for the dual-entendre wording shown. If you can think of a better translation, please email me. This verse is vital.

Notice how the meaning is much higher than the usual shallow interpretation that He'll be crucified alongside guilty men on Calgary, and be buried in a rich man's tomb. It's true He was, and even NT calls attention to the fact. But that's just a surface tie-in to the much larger Decree in the verse. So when folks read 53:9, they nod and remember the mere people at the time He died -- thieves and Joseph -- they win Bible trivia contests, oh boy! So they miss out on the real iimportance of the verse, and keep on fantasizing their body do's and material life (poverty OR wealth) as meaning they are 'spiritual' before God. Empty lives, therefore.

So the second clause is technically, "and the wealthy INSTEAD OF (because of/by means of/ 'in') His Deaths". Hebrew bemotayw really covers both the wicked and wealthy, explaining why they are gifts decreed: His Deaths 'bought' both those who will believe in Him, and those who never will. Unlimited Atonement means ANYONE can be saved. That's true wealth. Again, all Wealth Comes Through His Deaths, so displaces and replaces, all other forms of wealth. This answers the "wa lo hadar" clause in 53:2. All wealth is thus replaced, given over to Him Through Whom we are made Wealthy. So normal "wealth" is displaced, emptied, too. All this wit, by means of a mere 'et usage?! Yeah, only God is this smart! Again, translation misses this much higher meaning by tying the second clause to Joseph of Arimethea. Tradition is more important, see. Never mind how much it obfuscates the Word of God.

So-called 'new' translations of this verse are downright awful, paying even more misplaced attention to tradition, and NOT to what's in the text! Hence four important divergences from typical translations are here, to correct those translations. (I'm sure that if good Bible software was available to folks in the past, they'd not have made these errors. Trouble is, now that we can easily prove the errors, we won't admit them and instead COPY them forward. That's inexcusable. It's completely excusable that there would be translation errors, because it was utterly annoying and impossible to work with the heavy globbing ink, paper, candlewax, musty codices, horrible life people in past centuries, had to deal with. But we since 1950 or so, have no such excuses.) As usual, you can tell where the published translations are amiss, by cross-checking the LXX. So:

1. It should be "HE shall give.. His Grave", not the usual passive "was given", because natan is in the qal imperfect, not the niphal -- qal imperfect is used for prophecy and decree, meaning God is decreeing the giving, here. Typical He..He clause depicting Trinity (here, Father and Son). In Hebrew, natan requires a direct object, and that object is set off with 'et to denote what is the gift given. Here, Isaiah takes full advantage of double-entendre; you can tell translators are puzzled over this verse, missed the double-entendre in translation (yet they seemed to get the idea OF a double-entendre). Here's the double-entendre: it is the Lord Who will be 'given' the wicked on the Cross: our sins; His Grave is the Victory Decree of that fact, for He will be Raised FROM it. At the same time, the Lord will be 'given' as PLUNDER the wealthy He MAKES on the Cross by means of receiving the imputation and judgement of our sins, theme of verse 12. Hence the clever "(give) the wealthy, by His Deaths" translation here. So you have again, split-screen: the wicked seem to win, by 'getting' Him crucified; they 'get' the 'gift' they wanted. But He wins them, in His Own Body on the Cross. He wins them, by being 'given' them IN His Body on the Cross. Thus He wins wealth, verse 10 third clause, and verse 12, first clause. They who thus believe in Him will be in Him forever, and thus are wealthy. So by His Physical Death, He wins, because then He will be resurrected (the "Raised" part of the Decree in 52:13). So two deaths, two givings, two victories, two plunderings. He is Plundered for us, so we are booty for Him. He is Booty for us (main theme of Paul's in the NT, especially in Ephesians) and we are booty for Him (ibid). Note in Hebrew of Isa53:9 it's plural, DEATHS. More about these distinctions, follows below.
2. It's not "rich man", but "wealthy", a collective plural of people, to go with "wicked", which is also plural (but not collective). English NT often uses "riches" -- plural -- from the LXX here (plousios), referencing back to both this verse and its counterpart, Isa53:12, idea of the "riches of Christ" we inherit. LXX uses the plural of plousios in this verse, so it's not a single rich person in the Hebrew.

3. In this verse, Hebrew 'et is not the usually-translated "together with" or "with"; the LXX proves "with" is wrong, by using "anti" instead of "meta". Greek preposition "anti" connotes EXCHANGE, an instead-of (i.e., an "anti-christ" is a faker, someone who pretends to either be Christ or of Him, in order to fight against Christ -- knowingly or not). Hence 'et is used pointedly in Isaiah 53 as a separate direct-object marker of SUBSTITUTION to denote there is no natural relationship BETWEEN the two parties/items in the exchange. See the Hebrew of 53:6 for the clearest example of Isaiah's meaning in this chapter ('et is there on its own, contrary to normal Hebrew hyphenated, appending usage). So here in verse 9, it's a direct object marker, denoting what is severally received by both groups. Isaiah thus parallells the plural wicked (those who don't believe) as getting a mere grave for all their trouble, versus the believers (here called "wealthy") who inherit via Him, upcoming in v.12. For verse 12 makes the "et" sound a climactic, rhythmic device in that verse. For v.12 stresses 'et in both form and sound, which LXX again renders anti.
   So yeah, Joseph of Arimathea happened to be a prominent member of the Sanhedrin, but nowhere does NT say that Isa53:9 is fulfilled by the sepulchre being his; on the other hand, you have a bizillion references to our riches in Christ; every other clause in Isaiah is referenced in Gospels to show the event fulfilled something Isaiah said: but nothing re Joseph is tied to Isaiah that I can find, even allusively. Sure, it's evocative of 53:9, that He was buried in a rich man's tomb. But that's not the main point of the second clause in Isa53:9, which uses broad-brush terms for unbelievers ("wicked", look up the meaning of rasha in TWOT, how the THINKING is stressed) and believers ("wealthy", see 53:12 and then look up all the plousios references in NT, especially Ephesians 1). So think: Bible even tells you that His Bones weren't broken to fulfill prophecy (in Psalms), so why wouldn't it also comment back to 53:9, when talking about Joseph? Yeah, because 53:9 isn't about Joseph, it's God's Decree for believers inheriting Christ! Much bigger prophecy, don't you think? So we belittle the prophecy here, to solely interpret it as a future reference to Joseph. How sad.

4. Finally, the worst mistranslation in this verse, which none should have missed; if you miss it, you misunderstand the very nature of Adam's Fall and how God cured it. Which, most believers sadly do miss, not noticing that Adam died spiritually immediately, and only later physically, just as warned by Gen2:17. Hence physical death is a consequence, never a cause. Hence payment for spiritual death must be made spiritually, with the soul, since that is the cause (only a soul can sin, lol). So many false doctrines are taught about the nature of Adam, the nature of His Fall, the nature of the payment for sins on the Cross -- all because, we don't properly translate this verse! And the mistake here, is utterly inexcusable: it's "deaths" plural, not "death" singular, in the Hebrew. Yikes! LXX notes that distinction by using thanaton, stressing the spiritual payment from His Soul.
   For it's easy to know singular from plural, that's first-year Hebrew in seminary. Isaiah says "deaths" here in the PLURAL (bemotayw), to parallell Gen 2:17's plural. So plural "wealthy" result, see the parallel? My pastor stresses the plural of "deaths" every time he covers Isaiah 53:9, because every Bible mistranslates it. (LXX by contrast only refers to His Spiritual Death, since in Greek you can't say "deaths" of the same person and would confuse the reader. But Hebrew uses "deaths" plural happening to one person, often -- search on muth-tamoth structure in Gen2:17, throughout the OT.) Deaths Plural is important. Dying spiritually, Adam died physically, Gen2:17. Christ's Substitutionary Spiritual Death is the main theme in Isaiah, so the Physical Death is the Success Sign Consequence that the Substitutionary Spiritual Death, was completed. Kinda important, don't you think, to make "deaths" plural like Isaiah does -- in translation? There's a ton of Doctrinal Treasure to be had, not some dippy narrow 'fulfillment' of some rich man's tomb. Joseph of Arimethea must be screaming from heaven for us to fix our screwball notion about the meaning here!

   Ideally, the phrase would be translated, "to the wealthy, DUE TO His Deaths", but that's too many syllables. So I had to settle for "by". Hebrew preposition beh often means because of, and we know the causal instrumentality of His Deaths makes us rich, from the context. So "by" is the proper way to translate "beh" here, but "because of" or "due to" would be closer. Drat.

In Hebrew, usually, 'al has a suffix, but here it stands alone, with none. So a deliberate up-to-God soundplay is made, and anyone hearing the Hebrew would catch on to it, especially since the following text can only be a Divine Pronouncement of Innocence. So it's up-to-God, His Sacrifice, and up-to-God, how to rule on it. I need to reference all the 'al soundplay in Isaiah 53, but at least here, it's easy to do. (Will have to fix the Chapter's translation for the dozen+ other times 'al is used, someday!) So He didn't DO anything wrong, nor did He THINK anything wrong. LXX translates mirmah with dolos, which means "fish bait". Idea that people use their words to 'catch' other people, as if they were mere fish. So comes also to mean deceit, treachery, guile, cunning, games, preying on people. Just like the Hebrew (root is rama). He never thought that way, not even once.

Again, this stresses how it's Thinking Which Is The Life Before God Who Has No Body. For, Thinking Pays God, and all doing comes from it. The distinction matters, for when you get to the next verse, you'll find the Agreed-On Price for our sins, is His Soul -- not, His Body. And that matters, for His Soul lives forever. So does hell. So a Living Soul Made Propitiation is Forever Thinking before Father. Thus all that sin-in-hell thinking, keeps on being continually COUNTERED. Now you know why a Royal Priesthood has to exist forever. There will always be sin in hell, and we in heaven will be perfect then, but.. still not as big as He is, the shortfall remains forever. So yeah, He paid for ALL sin on the Cross, past present and future, but that's a present-value calculation. In reality, sin still occurs forever in hell, all those beings shaking their self-righteous fists, priding themselves on their martyrdom like the guy in Luke 16:20ff; and, past present future is all 'one' in Omniscience, anyway. So His Human Soul MUST live forever as the High Priest for Father, and we all rank under Him. Living Propitiation, as the NT constantly stresses (i.e., Paul's long discourse in Romans 6 and 8, 1Jn2, etc).

God is Infinite, Omnipotent, Perfect. So for Him, it's only a question of How He Sovereignly Wants To Use His Power, never whether He can do something. And what He wants, is to make Sons. That's what this chapter is about. Here, we see How He Actually Makes Those Sons: from His Son. The essence of a person, is his soul; the essence of a soul, is thinking. The essence of His Son's Humanity, is His Soul. So to replicate His Son's Soul, means to replicate His Thinking, and thus God makes 'sons'. Mechanism of doing it, is disclosed in the five infinitives I always harp on in my webpages. These are here underlined, so you can see their fit in the verses. These five infinitives, which happened to Him, are the contract actions which are to happen to us, to make the "Long-lived seed" of the contract. Just as what happened to Him was always an offer to which He'd have to consent per thought; so also, we have this Book of His Thinking to which we must consent, each time, to learn via the Spirit in God's System. Same mechanism, as for Him. That's how the contract is fulfilled.

Obviously you'll want to talk to God about this claim, since you can't find but a few pastors, who even teach that Thinking His Thoughts is the spiritual life -- though the idea should make sense to anyone who reads this sentence. What could be more "Christlike", than to THINK the way He does? No one I can yet find, teaches that Isa53:10-12 is a contract to make that thinking, though "me amal.. bedato yasdiq" (v.11, Hebrew) says precisely that. These infinitives, once understood, complete the theology about our post-salvation life, showing it's a thinking thing, DDNA being manufactured by the Spirit in you; it's Paul's main theme in all he writes (especially via his witty megalunw theme in Philippians, and his crafting Ephesians as an 'answer' to Euripedes' "Ion", showing how the Real God Really Begets Spiritual Sons via THE Son's Thinking). That, plus the fact that Love is God's Head Attribute (the ultimate Expression of Sovereignty), completes all theology, and solves all the conundra Christians have been debating amongst and against each other for centuries. Will take a century to prove this paragraph true, because people arrogantly accredit themselves with finding stuff in Bible (why, I can't fathom) -- so will take sides for and against interpretations, not based on the Word, but based on whomever they like or dislike among men. Sheesh. Who has time to go promoting this, and besides, God can save you time by just showing you the proof, just as he did for me and anyone else who ASKS HIM. So save yourself time -- ask God, the meanwhile. He knows if this paragraph came from Him, or is bogus. He won't be shy to answer.

It's possible that all of Verses 10-12 should be ONE block quote, antiphonal, but the LXX switches from third to first person. Hebrew often has God speaking of Himself in the third person masculine singular, as He just did, in verse 9. (Occasionally the Spirit is referenced in the third feminine singular, play on His Mother Hen Role of Gen1:2, see tsalah verses.) Both LXX and Hebrew will suddenly switch to 1st or 2nd Person, denoting another Member of the Godhead speaking with the Other(s). So I'll have to rethink the use of quote marks used in translation, here. I'm not quite satisfied their placement is wholly correct. Meaning is still clear, but it matters to distinguish when God is speaking directly, versus through his herald Isaiah.

The Decree began in 52:13-15; the "report" showing its conveyance, ended at v.8; beginning at verse 9 Father explains why, providing the rest of the Decree information, the Salvation Contract. For the Decree, is about Christ: no one else. Seed, not seeds, as Paul explains in Galatians 3; we MUST be IN Him to be saved at all. So everyone MUST be paid for BY Him, to even be allowed physical birth. Notice the emphasis on Foreknowledge (see last two verses in Rom8). Payment would be inaccurate, else. As in any contract even on earth, a thing promised in advance has terms of agreement, compliance, delivery, and execution. We see them in gist, here. NT spends most of its time explaining this same contract's delivery terms, for CHURCH -- which of course didn't exist until Pentecost, 50 days after that first Easter. (PassPlot.htm's Division #1 explains the proper dating of Pentecost, which even the Jewish calendar's "counting the Omer", still gets wrong.)

So general comments about these three verses are needed. This is an amalgamated translation of both BHS and LXX text. The LXX text is translated in purple font; but I ape Hebrew meter, in English. That all might have to be changed. For as you'll see from page 4ff of ISA53.RTF, a Word.doc, the BHS misses some original text -- and we know it was missing for centuries prior to the Massoreh, as the Isaiah scroll has it missing too -- but so does the Greek miss some of the Hebrew. Still, you can put both texts together, and get the whole passage in translation which fits perfectly. In all events, it's Real Bible text. The (purple) Greek of Isaiah 53:10-11 is heavily requoted throughout the NT by the Lord and every NT writer, via incorporation by reference as keywords: thus, pointing the reader back here. So we know the Greek text is genuine Bible, belonging 'somewhere' within the Hebrew here. I can't find a more-frequently-referenced set of verses than Isa53:10-12. Just take the Greek in Isa53:10-12 and search each verb and noun in it, within the NT. Then, think like a thesaurus and search conceptually. The NT verses you run into tie to many other verses which alike 'look back' using synonyms or synonymal concepts in these three Isaiah verses. Takes months to vet the claim, probably. Takes much longer, if you don't have good original-language Bible searching software. Either way, it's worth the time spent.

Isaiah's meter for verse 10's Hebrew is 9-8-9-9; in verse 11, it's 6-9-8-8 (first clause of verse 11 is off-meter because text is missing, should be nine syllables). So in English I follow that pattern, but halve it like Isaiah does in 53:2, for verse 10. Hence verse 10's first clause of nine syllables is rendered in English as five, four, and five syllables, in both the Hebrew (10a) and Greek (10b): so you still get 9 when you one of the five's, to a four. (I could make it instead two fours and one five, by removing "is", but chose not to, as in English to say "Lord is Pleased" has special, ringing meaning.) The usual Bible translations miss the objective of these verses. NASB for example mistakes the long-lived seed as being HIM. In Haggai 2:10-23, the Lord's Birthdate is foretold, and He will be born via Zerubabbel's bloodline (Haggai2:23, signet ring verse). So "seed" here back two centuries prior in Isaiah 53:10, is important to know, or you miss the later Haggai wordplay on foundation, seed, progenitor, telling you the Lord Will Be Born on the 24th of Chislev, the anniversary of the 2nd Temple's foundation-laying. Of course, that very night becomes the 25th Chislev in Bible's dating system, nights-first accounting: Chanukah, some three centuries after Zerubabbel became the "signet ring".

The back-translated Greek into Hebrew (page 8ff of ISA53.RTF) is in three clauses of 9-syllables, 2nd Alternative of its page 9; it more likely should be two, since verse 12 has a total of six clauses, which would balance to verse 10. (1st alternative in the rtf doc is 9-9-8-9-9, which just inserts the missing Greek verbs using Isaiah's appending "wa" style, same page.) However, I won't use the back-translated material here. Instead, I will only translate the LXX text, which means adopting the LXX as a 53:10b, and only inserting the portion of the dexzai..plasai clause in verse 11 (which the Hebrew we have might and might not, already 'cover' in meaning). For the back-translation was a mere test of plausibility that text is missing from both Hebrew and Greek: that plausibility test passed, because you CAN back-translate yet meet Isaiah's style and meter. However, only the words we have in Bible, are actually translated here.

Quote marks in the text are direct quotes by God, and often these quotes mark off a section of prophecy, attesting to its authenticity. Signature phrase is always something like "thus says the Lord" or "Ani, Adonai" (lit., "I, the Lord" a formal signature phrase both Koran and Book of Mormon often mock, to prove they are NOT from God). Also, God occasionally interrupts a prophet to both authenticate him, and to just plain interrupt (my pastor reminds us of the Holy Spirit's interruption in Heb10:15, and you see the Lord do it to John, often in Revelation). Here in Isaiah 53:10-54:1, there are several quotes and quote-backs: first Father (verse 10a), then Spirit (10b), with "His Hand" referencing the Son's Dual-Nature but stressing His Godness, since "His Hand" is a routine OT phrase of God's OWN Hand. (How any Jew can mistake this blatant Trinity and Hypostatic Union Decree, I'll NEVER understand.) The next quote, all of verse 12, is by Father. Isaiah54:1 is also a direct quote, but it's a kind of chorus. For the recipient of the Ruling to engage in the cultural trilling whooping cries comes also from the Son, the Primary Recipient of the Ruling -- voiced also by Him, to those who believed in Him, and thus themselves were accounted 'barren' or 'shamed' in the eyes of the world, i.e., Israel in the immediate context. See also Hebrews 11, whole chapter.

Hence the translation you see here in purple font is LXX text, called here Isaiah "53:10b". It's patterned as 9-9-8-9 (reverse of 10a) in translation, with the first clause divided up to match the translation from the Hebrew (10a). It's antiphonal: we can tell from Isa53:7 compared to 9, that an antiphonal verse would likely be REversed in meter. Again, Isaiah patterns by the Doctrinal Content Of Each Clause: 9 for Unilateral Divine Action, 8 for Divine Action in concert with His Son; 7 for His Son's Perfect Nature (if alone in focus, as in 53:7).

By contrast, in ISA53.RTF putatively back-translates all of the LXX text into Hebrew of 9-9-9 meter; its middle clause could be ellided into 8 syllables instead of 9, just as is 53:10's known Hebrew, in the same-content second clause. Alternative meters could be used, though. If the LXX text is missing in its entirety -- and in ISA53.RTF pages 4ff you'll see why that's probably true -- then this LXX verse is coming from the Holy Spirit, and is addressed to God the Son, officially. Hence must be nine syllables, not 8. We know it would be from the Holy Spirit because Father has already spoken, we have that in Hebrew. The functions denoted in the LXX, however, are functions throughout the OT and NT, as being attributed to the Holy Spirit (i.e., beginning in Genesis 1, same Greek terms for Hebrew or and yetser, Light and Sculpting, the literal restoration of earth alike depicting how we too get remade by Him upon salvation).

I suppose you could make it eight syllables, but it wouldn't fit in English, "substitute" MUST be in there to translate Greek preposition "peri". Search on that preposition in the NT (i.e., 1Pet3:18 and throughout Book of Hebrews). Peri and huper are substitutionary prepositions, they are always mistranslated in English Bibles, and especially peri is used as substitutionary here in the LXX (see also v.12). My pastor has screamed about the mistranslation of these two prepositions for over 50 years, and you can confirm that it's a rule in seminary to mistranslate them, by cutting OUT "Substitute" (see Mounce's Appendix on huper). Shameful, huh. Salvation is not a discount, something you get merely "for" something you do. It's 100% Substitution, which the OT Levitical sacrifices, all depicted by an entire animal being slain for even one sin you named. Oh well, we don't care how we got saved, huh. Ooops, now I'm screaming like my pastor did. See why?

Greek verb aphairew really means to carry off as plunder. It's often used in the NT in that sense, but just like "huper" or "peri", aphairew is always truncated in translation to something like "take" or "take away", thus denuding the translation of an extremely important doctrine: we Church are here to plunder Christ, as we are plunder OF Him -- which of course, points back here to Isa53:10-12. Greek root in aphairew comes from phero, to carry, but this is a particular KIND of carrying: carrying off booty. Taking something someone ELSE owns, for your own. Appropriating it as your own. More often, someone taking away something YOU own, for their own. The verb is therefore used in the OT for sins being REMOVED from you (Hebrew sur is often the verb translated with aphairew.) Hence the verbs "to remove, Plunder" are used in the translation here.

That text is missing here, is long known; you'll even find the NIV telling you that "Light" somewhere follows "see" or "soul", as that's what the Isaiah scroll partly does (still leaving a gap, tho). There are many contemporary quotes of this verse in Greek from the first century, even in 1 Clement. Moreover, there is a gap in the Isaiah scroll found at Qumran and other copies of Isaiah; so you can learn about this Isa53:10-11 gap on the internet. The scribe would leave a gap in the scroll when text was known to be missing, in order to later fill in the missing words, once they were found. The missing Hebrew in this verse is almost certainly "or wa yetser" after the first "naphesho". We know for sure "or" is there, from the Isaiah scroll. So "wa yetser" is almost a no-brainer to add, since the Greek is "plassw", which is almost universally used for yatser in the OT. Hebrew would not place these words in the same order as the Greek.

Hebrew yireh yisba really doesn't directly fit with the text it follows, bedato yasdiq. So something between yisba and bedato is probably missing. Conceptually all four words fit together, but they don't make a single clause, but rather two: either clause alone is off-meter, just as me amal naphesho (an incomplete clause) is off-meter. If you paired me amal naphesho with yireh yisba as Bibles do, it's too many syllables (10, not 9). You could ellide it make it 9 syllables, though. But again, yireh yisba stands alone as a clause, and it's really important, because the clause deliberately looks back to Genesis (purpose of creation), when God the Holy Spirit (re)made Light and said it was good (denoting satisfaction). So something is missing between naphesho and yireh probably, as well. On the other hand, yireh yisbah might be translated in the LXX with dexzai autoi; Hebrew hiphil (causative stem) of tsadeq, used in v.11, might be reflected by the added LXX infinitive of "plasai". So it might turn out that only "phos" is missing in v.11; in which case, the Hebrew word is "or", and it elides nicely in wordplay on naphesho (becomes naphesho'or, and of course His Soul IS Light). That would change the first Hebrew clause in v.11 to seven syllables, which of course is one of the metric patterns, and certainly fits His Nature, even in His Humanity. And we even have "light" in the Isaiah scroll. Trouble is, the 7 stands alone, and Isaiah only trebles 7's in this chapter. So the me amal clause is probably 9 syllables, not 7, denoting what God did TO His Soul. Hence the most probable Hebrew lacuna would be "Or wa yetser" (Light and Body, or Light and To Sculpt), which would fit the meter at 9 syllables; which of course corresponds to the LXX words we actually have. Verse 11's first Hebrew clause is a noun-heavy. LXX would translate such nouns as infinitives, especially since "or wa yetser" would function as purposed results. So to have dexzai and plasai in translation, makes a great deal of sense. But, there are other alternatives. For example, maybe the me amal clause is 7, corrected by adding 'or; maybe the yireh yisba clause is seven (three syllables missing at the end, wayatsar being a good candidate), and the bedato yasdiq clause is really seven (two syllables missing, somehow). So then you'd have trebled sevens, if you knew for sure where the missing text belonged. Were that true, you'd have 7-7-7-8-8 as the meter. Point is, alternatives exist.

LXX translates da'ath here in verse 11 with sunesei, and like the Hebrew, the LXX verse literally means God's purpose is to sculpt (plasai) FROM His Thinking, and THAT's what justifies us. Same suneisis is used in the initial hinneh decree of 52:13. So to show that parallel, since here it's Christ's Thinking Finished being sculpted in us, I translated the clause"Caused through His Thinking". "Caused through" is simultaneously correct due to the hiphil of tsadeq (hiphil stem is causative) and "beh" preposition is means, instrumentality, and hence "through". You could say "by" or "from" or even "in", along with "Caused", but "through" seemed to convey all those meanings. Conduit, Messiah, Mediator, Priest, The One Through Whom all is done for us. I don't know how much more bald God can make it, than to bookend the 52:13-15 Decree like this, in a pregnancy verse (amal is pregnancy labor, poetic term in Job and Psalms). This is how the sons get made, why Paul is addicted to begetting-His-Thinking metaphors (some of them quite crude, like the use of sumbibazw in Eph4:16). Hebrew "yadah" means to intimately know, and is a euphemism for a husband 'knowing' his wife. So it's really apt, here, to have used sakal in 52:13, but 53:11 (context of pregnancy labor, get it) uses yadah's cognate noun, da'ath. So to reflect the LXX using the same term "sunesis" here and in 52:13, I translated da'ath, "Thinking". Technically sakal in 52:13 means MASTERY of thinking, the idea of fluent SKILL in using what you know. Here in 53:12, da'ath stresses the CONTENT of what you know well, intimately. Greek word sunesis is often used in the NT in both ways, and whenever my pastor comes to it, he always stresses the expertness, and that the term references His Thinking in your head, fluently circulating. So that's why the term "Thinking" is used as the translation.

Again, the parallel is drawn here back to Genesis 1:2-3, Numbers 6 benediction (end that chapter). Paul plays with the same parallel in 2Cor3 and 4, quoting his own 1Cor13 on the Love-Word Head of Christ enlightening us, in those 2Cor chapters. We are tohu wa bohu, due to the Fall; Holy Spirit remakes us, just as He remade the earth after Satan&Co. trashed it up. Isaiah 53:10-11 shows the contract for the remaking, a LOVE CONTRACT within the Godhead, God doing it for Each Other Member. We are the result. So Paul plays on his own previous writing on this topic which God gave Him, plays on the Genesis 1:2-3 remaking explicitly, and of course stresses the contract here in Isa53:10-11 as the basis, both explicitly and implicitly. Very deft wit. 1Jn plays on these 1 and 2 Cor clauses, beginning in 1Jn1:5 (threaded theme in 1Jn). Scripture is nothing if not tiqwa, thread so thickly and densely intertwined, you can't break it (used as a metaphor of Word creating God's Integrity in you, Job 4:6).

Next, "to Justify" really means BOTH to "make Righteous" and "to justify", but the meter wouldn't allow me to fit both verbs in there. In both the Hebrew and the Greek, the terms mean both simultaneously. Since in the Hebrew it's in the hiphil, the CAUSING of making Righteous (translated with dikaiow in the same way, in LXX) tipped the scales in favor of "to Justify".

Finally, the two uses of "for" in translation are meant as double-entendre. Isaiah uses preposition le which can have both meanings (beneficial interest and caustion), so it doubles for both clauses.

From verse 12 you see why Israel was hated so much, even had she been faithful. Isaiah 53:12 is probably the most insulting verse in all the OT: Hi, I'm the God of these people, and I'll conquer you all, make you booty for them, because they are MY People. So believe and be part of THEM, or don't believe and get crushed. My SlaveSon will head it all, and parcel you out. And by the way, if you are part of My People and you also don't believe, you'll be cast off as booty too, just as if you were Not My People.. just as Hosea had warned Samaria; just as Moses warned Israel before she entered the Land in Deuteronomy; just as Isaiah is warning here; just as Paul warned the uppity Romans, in Rom11. So believe in My SlaveSon Who is God Himself, Who will pay for ALL of you, and then own you forever. Or Else. Now you know why the Lord made those stern remarks, like "bring them here and slay them before me." He was invoking this verse. It's real, it's not an allegory. It's the future, and the NT is all about how the Church is the replacing Royal Family, over the many goyim for the 1000 years, to fulfill the New Covenant; after that, as a Body Ruling on His Behalf, for eternity. Like it or lump it: and we all lump it, really. It's shocking, and we all wince, for face it: we're ALL guilty, saved and unsaved alike. But you know, our extreme hatred of God warrants no other outcome. He's barely worth a nod on Sunday among believers -- look back at Isa53:2 and :4! So.. shouldn't He administer justice at some point?

Not surprisingly, every Bible I can read in any language gets this verse blasphemously wrong in translation, except the Tanakh (1985 version, JPS). The blasphemy is pretty easy to see: in translation, it looks like the Lord only gets part of the Plunder, lol, instead of being the INHERITOR of it all. (Galatians looks back to 53:12 in its chapter 3, so how could such a blasphemy BE in Isa53:12?) It's a silly error, really. Hebrew halaq takes the preposition beh, which attaches to what is shared. But halaq means to ASSIGN A SHARE to someone, and the WHOLE share is in view. So the Lord gets assigned the whole, not just part, and the LXX recognizes this. Why therefore the translations belittle His share, is obviously an oversight: but over so many centuries, it's not been corrected? That's inexcusable. My pastor translated Isa53:12 many times for us, due to the common, belittling-of-Christ mistranslation.

Next item: Isaiah might have suddenly intended a bunch of six-syllable clauses from "tahat" forward; that would change the rhythm to 9-9-6-6-6-6-6, which maybe parallels 53:2,4,7; except that it's oddly in sixes, the only group of clauses so metered. Then again, doubled-threes, Hypostatic Union is stressed! In five clauses (53:2 uses five clauses for our reaction to Him). Five is the Numerical Doctrine of Profit, in Bible. This can't be an accident. For look at the strident "et" sounding rhythm, below; to use 'et as the rhythmic sound stresses SUBSTITUTION, and the number of man is six, Biblically: so maybe that's why the sudden change. It really looks more right than the normal syllabification Isaiah's been using, a sudden switch due to the climactic nature of the conclusion. So I might need to reparse that section of verse 12: in what's below, I added accents so you can see where the rhythm strikes. (Sidenote: if you ellide the waw in the fourth clause below, "hét" is accented metrically; if you don't ellide the waw, "hú" is accented metrically, and "nasá" is the natural accent which follows.) Notice that any TWO clauses add up to the 12 tribes (Joseph had two half-tribes via his sons). Maybe Isaiah wants to thus remind the reader?

Frankly, it sounds more correct to use this six-syllable structure. The meter is just too strong, especially considering how Isaiah uses 'et in this chapter. So an alternative (and I think more true-to-text) translation would go something like this:

Problem with both this translation and the one in the table, is how to translate "tahat". Its usage as a displacing, a substitution, an EXCHANGE, is paramount, but it also connotes "going low". Paul thus ties back to tahat here, in Phili2:5-10, Eph4:7-9; Peter ties to it in 1Pet3:18, and of course the OT ties to it often, viz., Psalm 40-type references (which Book of Hebrews makes as its main theme, tying back to tahat here, in Hebrews Chaps 2, 4, 5-10, 12). So it's not solely restitution, substitution, exchange: you've also got the "going low" meanings of the Incarnation AND His descent into hell to tell the unbelievers and demons there incarcarated, that He won and the Gospel is forever validated. My pastor calls this latter, the "Victorious Proclamation" doctrine; basic idea is that God always witnesses to everyone, even everyone in hell. 2Pet3:9 is thus illustrated, though I'm not sure if my pastor ties the Victorious Proclamation to 2Pet3:9. So it's important to search on tahat in the OT, so you'll see the LXX words used to translate it. Thus you can, by searching all those verses, see the doctrines for yourself.

I can't explicitly state the going-low meaning for tahat in the syllable "budget" Isaiah uses; so I'm using 'he'era', the pouring-out meaning, to include tahat's going-low significance in translation. That's how LXX handles it. You can tell by the other six-syllable clauses, that Isaiah stresses the going-lowness as the mechanism of substitution and restitution, even as he has since 52:14. LXX shows that stress, but translates tahat with Greek substitution/restitition/displacement preposition, anti. So I basicallly followed the LXX 'philosophy' in translation, in order to keep to the Hebrew meter and cadence. The table does not yet reflect this six-syllable 'beat', and should. It will.

In both Hebrew and Greek, the SOUL 'dies' by means of the last thought (likened to breath, in Greek word psuche and pneuma) while still in a body. So there are always two types of death, soul and body. These are distinct. The latter dies when the former LEAVES. So in both Hebrew and Greek you find different words sometimes used to distinguish between the two types. Greek word nekros is primarily for the death of the body; thanatos, for the departure of the soul. Trace both Greek words throughout Bible to see the distinction, for there's a lot of silly debate going on about this topic. Two deaths are depicted in Gen2:17 and in Isa53:9. First, His Soul -- paying for sins until His Very last thought, "Tetelestai" and the quote of Psalm 31:5 -- and only then, His Body. Physical death did not pay for sins, but His Substitutionary Spiritual Death did: you see that here in Isaiah 53, but also in the NT, if you go pan-Bible searching on each occurrence (including all the morphological forms) of both thanatos versus nekros. Thus in the NT you'll see how the distinction is made.

My pastor translated Hebrew atsumim as "great ones", which isn't that different from the normal published translation of "the strong" ("ones" being correctly implied, even in translation). I opted for "heroes", here. That's the point being made. David's mighty men were all heroes, and anyone who spends much time in the NT sees the same concept constantly stressed. There is a goal post-salvation, Eph4:13. NT keywords for those who reach it are many, and all point back to Isa53:12. Paul and the writer of Hebrews (not the same person, Paul was already dead when Hebrews was written) -- they like "pleroma" and its conceptual synonyms. There's lots of talk about carrying off the promise (literally, the prize award, booty you carry off if you win in competition), about inheriting the kingdom (yeah, because if you reach the "destination" of Eph4:13, you INHERIT one forever AS A KING, yourself). My pastor spent about seven years exegeting Ephesians three times (always disatisfied with his previous teaching), and has a section within it called "Invisible Heroes". That title is patterned after the heroes roster of Hebrews 11, and Hebrews 11:1 in the Greek (never the English) tells you how you get there: "It's about Confidence in Word! Christ's Thinking, On Trial! Evidence Unseen!" So, after that climactic opening, you see a roster of past (OT) heroes who did just that.

Each of us can be a hero. Just live in God's System, day in and day out, keep plugging. It's not a denominational question. It's not about how 'right' you are in your doctrines versus someone else; nor is it about whether you are a Hebrew or Greek geek. It's how you Think Toward Father 24/7 using whatever Bible you know, Heb11:1 and 11:6. So: anything you got wrong about Bible which needs correction; any Hebrew or Greek-geek stuff you need to learn, well.. only God can make all that happen, anyway. So it's not about what you got wrong, it's about what God can make right. It's not about your weakness, it's about His Strength, Rom 5:8, 2Cor12:9ff. So just keep on using 1Jn1:9 so you get God's Brains and thus learn and live on His Book: GodSystem.htm has the details; none of them involve money, religion, or being 'public' (i.e., doing good works). Even the unbeliever can do good deeds, so this is about what God Works In You, not what you work on yourself, Eph2:10. Try living in God's System for a month or two, ask HIM about it, see privately.. for yourself. End commercial message of recruiting for invisible heroes no one but God can ever see.

This is a stark legal-pronouncement verse, so is translated in blunt English. Hebrew is unusual. Just as in 53:7's last clause, in the first clause Isaiah is caused to set off Christ as the Recipient with a hyphenated le preposition suffixed third person. So the actual translation would go, "Thus I Decree as Plunder FOR HIM, the many", but that's too many syllables. So I settled for underlining "His" in translation. There's a kind of double-entendre in the word order, due to the substitution, and SUBSTITUTION is stressed in the last half of this verse by means of heavy "et" sound repetition, as noted above. So here in the first half, the unusual use of le preposition has the connotation of Him being Plundered to pay for us and thus (verses 10-11) make us worthy plunder for Him; so, He is plunder FOR us, even as we are made worthy plunder for Him.

Sorry, but only Love thinks like this. Only Love, loves enemies. God is never constrained by His Attributes. He just WANTS to Love Righteousness, Truth, .. and oddly enough, us (Ps89:14-15 spring to mind, many other passages like those verses, in Bible). And, this is how Love thinks. God can always wipe everyone and everything out. He answers to no one. But notice: He LOVES, is not forced to love, and certainly we don't deserve His Love. So He never wants -- Sovereign Desire, never forced, constrained, 'motivated' -- He never wants to do anything else but love us, even plundering His Own Son for us. And so thinks that Son, in both His Deity and His Humanity. And thus thinks the Spirit. Freely. God is never bound, and neither are you. God first does this to express Love to other Members of the Godhead, since how ELSE could the foregoing nature of Love -- Sovereignly Desired, never forced due to Love being an Attribute -- how ELSE could Omnipotent God SACRIFICE? The Decree to create is first of all a SACRIFICE Decree, God-to-God. That's what the Contract says, in Isa53:10-11. No justification to create, if that creation isn't paid for. Because, Love is Free, so Freedom is Decreed, so free to sin, so sin must be Freely Paid for. Ahhh, so now the Impossible Expression, can be Full! Pregnant! Bearing Kids! (Maybe one day theologians will catch onto this. Not holding my breath, waiting for them to publish it for the masses, sorry.)

And look: those who didn't mature spiritually are booty for other believers, who did mature?! People being owned forever by other people?! This isn't a democracy, folks. So it's pretty dramatic and upsetting. Won't be upsetting at the Bema, we'll all be too aware of how much we all despised God, down here -- and will be grateful to be owned. But it's pretty upsetting to look at while still down here. So "allot" is not the best translation for the second Hebrew use of halaq; it should be "among" rather than "to", but that's too many syllables. Further, Hebrew shalal should be rendered as "them for plunder", or "them as booty", instead of just "them"; I'm relying on the previous "as plunder" clause, for reader understanding, in translation. Alas, again, not enough syllables (Isaiah only uses 9 syllables). But the meaning is preserved. Oh: you have to drawl out the syllables in the last two clauses, to make them 8 syllables each. That can be justified, considering the dramatic meaning. However, again it looks more like Isaiah intended to syncopate into six-syllable clauses from tahat forward to better show off the 'et (substitution) sound, which means ellision.

Honestly, this verse keeps me up at night, and gets me up in the morning. If there was any burden I never wanted, it's to have charge over people. Why folks think it's some kind of honor or status to be in charge, I'll never understand. It's the worst thing that can happen to you, to rule! To be someone's boss, is my idea of pure hell. Yeah, but My Lord is THE Boss, so guess what? You're only as close to Him, as you yourself become a ruler IN Him. So, stark choice: if I don't grow up in HIM, I won't be CLOSE to Him, which I cannot bear, either. I don't want to spend my life forever on the equivalent of Pluto, hoping to get a glimpse of Him in parade, every few millenia! So I have to mature to Kingship ("pleroma" and "teleios" NT keywords, also "crown", "king", "inherit the kingdom"), else I'm too far away from Him. Forever. This is not a joke or an allegory. It's a real future. Yours. Mine. Our choice, which way it goes. DDNA is a real thing, the reason why you can be sinless forever yet retain free will. That's what happened to Him, and baby, you'll be distant from Him if you don't get His Thinking DDNA'd in you by the Holy Spirit, by learning and living on Bible, in God's System. My pastor taught this for over 50 years, though without the stress on Isaiah and the DDNA concept I'm stating here (though I suspect he knew this, given what he was beginning to say about megalunw in the year 2000). And what could make more sense? We all know we need to be "Christlike." We even make keychains based on the popular aphorism, "What would Jesus Do", WWJD -- and I have one of those keychains, shaped like a mezuza. But it's really, WWJT, What Word Jesus Thought on the Cross, which paid for all sins for all time, Heb10:1-17, invoking Isa52:13-54:1, and Jer31:31-34! Ok, sorry: now YOU get the point, so YOU won't sleep at night, either...

There's a characteristic cry of victory which sounds like a trilling which you sometimes hear from Arab women in movies or documentaries. That's today's version of one of the cry-out-victory commands in this verse. It's a very specific whooping and crying which goes on and on for days following a successful raid or battle. Isaiah seems to break meter in the second clause to 11 syllables, to convey the trilling sound of the whooping command. It MIGHT be truncated to 8 or 9 syllables via ellision. I don't know yet how to translate that sound in English, to convey its flavor. "Ba'al" is here rendered as a transliteration rather than a translation, because Isaiah is making wordplay. "Baal" we all even know from English, is a false god people worshipped. And still people worship false gods. A woman's husband is her lord, her god, and so "ba'al" means "husband" -- the LORD being the First Husband. Again, no way to mistake Trinity in this verse. "Father" is not the "Husband" of Israel. Neither is "Spirit". Those are separate Persons, separately identified as such throughout the OT. So only the Son is the Husband.. the One who Pays the Bride Price.. at the Cross. All those who selected other husbands are thus illegitimate, so those DEEMED illegitimate for choosing the Lord.. get more kids. In the ancient world, a woman was considered blessed if she had lots of kids, and cursed if she were barren. So He Who had No Descendants (verse 8), bears ALL the Children. For Father. That's what this verse is about, as the rest of chapter 54, explains. But for our purposes, we end here, showing via 54:1, that the contract of 53:10-12, gets completed. For Father.

Reading tip: if you can already read Bible's Greek and Hebrew text, you'll prefer the amalgamation of page 4ff in the shorter ISA53.RTF, a Word.doc. That rtf file's amalgamated-text demonstration is much more succinct (and not translated), versus what follows below.

If you just want a quick, amalgamated translation, hit the End key and then scroll up till you see it in a box. There are other ways to combine and thus translate the texts. Still, the meaning would be the same, and it MATTERS to see the combining. What follows below, will explain why it matters, and will provide some (windy) exgetical details not in the rtf doc.

In the "Thinking" and DDNA webseries (links at pagetop), this type of pink background is used to denote the Bridal Contract between God and Church; the Contract is a subset and corollary of an eternity-past contract between Father and Son for all creation; the heart of this contract is most succinctly summarized in Isa53:10-12. Unfortunately, half of the text is not in the Hebrew, and the 'respectable' translations you find won't use the LXX which the Lord Himself and the apostles all used ("LXX" means "70", a moniker designating how many folks (really 72) made this Greek Old Testament from the Hebrew circa 273BC; its source Hebrew text is older than what we have.) Hence this webpage amalgamates both texts so you can see why the two texts ought to be combined. Biggest reason: All Bible writers use the LXX to 'tap' (incorporate by reference) Isaiah 53. The chapter as a whole and especially the LXX portions of verses 10-12 are used as a sort of Grand Central Station (hub) for all the NT; the Lord was constantly referring to it in the Gospels (i.e., in the wedding parable, the shameful treatment of the prophets and messengers, Bread of Heaven, etc). Every time I open up the NT in BibleWorks I find yet another 'access', no matter what I'm looking for. That Isaiah wrote circa 700BC is beside the point; everyone always knew the essential contract clauses of Isa53:10-12. But it was given to Isaiah, to display the entire contract succinctly in the proper Marital metaphor. Which you cannot see, in translation. For anything dealing with sex, makes everyone nervous (excites the genetic desire to sew figleaves, like Adam did after his fall). Oh well.

So of course no translation gets Isa53 right enough: passage is rife with rape-and-pillage-cause-of-pregnancy metaphor, which continues through at least the end of Isa55. The most famous of the Greek plays is "Ion", by Euripedes, which is a myth of the origin of the Greek Sea Peoples, and has a lot in common with Genesis 3-6. So this format chosen in Isa53, which of course was originally written in Hebrew (and elegantly, wittily, sometimes crass, as here in Chap53) -- well, it tweaks that myth. Maybe that's why Paul makes both the play and Isa53 his founding framework in crafting Ephesians, which is about God's Superior Begetting Plan. Paul has no qualms about being crass if it makes the Word clear to the hearer.

But translators don't like Paul's crassness, and they don't like the graphic language here in Isaiah, either. Overall, Bible translation truncates: if the Real Bible said, "the Maserati convertible sped down the Autobahn", the translating committe would be shocked, and would render the verse, "the vehicle moved down the path", which to them sounds more 'holy'. Never mind, that strips out all meaning from the Original Divine Writ, and even REVERSES the meaning of Divine Writ. But the mistranslations don't stop there. Special excising care is used against any Divine Effort or Divine Source words, in effect chopping God's Head off and replacing the headless corpse with man's head. It's done in almost every Bible verse (I've yet to see one where it isn't done somewhere in the verse). Quick example: "agape" in Greek only ever means Divine Love; different Greek words are used for other kinds of love. But every translation chops off the "Divine" and just says "love", so you think it's HUMAN. Big bleeping LIE. So you spend your time trying to love the brethren which you CANNOT do, since the command is to HAVE Divine Love: which Only God Can Deposit Into You, Romans 5:5 -- which of course is mistranslated, the "Divine Love" being truncated to "love"! I sincerely doubt this blasphemous cutting-off of God's Head almost everywhere is deliberate, but it really messes up your understanding of the Word. All anarthrous constructions signify a Divine Actor (most verses with "works" in them, for example), and they all omit the "Divine", as usual. It's pathetic. Hence the need for this webpage. For Isaiah is very mistranslated, too.

And why is that? BECAUSE THE ENTIRE ISA53-55 IS A PREGNANCY METAPHOR as a result of which you get the WORD in you. That's it, because that's how our Sins Were Paid On the Cross: by His Thinking. He was 'made pregnant' with our sins, so we can be Born From Above, John 3:3, 7. "Born Again" isn't really the right translation, but "from above" -- which you need to know, to see the up-up-up-sweet-savor-of-His-Thinking-to-God-sacrifice rhetoric which Isaiah uses.. and John 3 references. Idea that His Thinking went 'above', so now you down here can be 'born from above' to go up above to Heaven when you die. Beautiful wordplay like that is typical in every Bible verse. Translations bland it all out, putting the reader to sleep and confusion. Oh well.

So: if it's His Own 'Pregnancy' Which Birthed You, then you can't be UNborn afterwards -- it's not your pregnancy on the Cross, but HIS. Language in Isaiah leaves no room whatsoever for doubt. Christ bore your sins, so you get born IN Him, is the theme here. Being BORN in Him, you get to bear His Word in you, since He is the Seed of Our Salvation. Thickly woven like a temple veil, this twinned theme. But try to get that in translation? Well, how can you, if most of the Key Words are sexual innuendo, so are truncated in translation? Only Isa54:1 in translation says anything ABOUT bearing kids. But each verse has all kinds of allusions -- because He had no descendants (Abram was the prototype, see) -- now ALL PEOPLE are born (raphah, sewn up in his wounds, but it's a BELLY wound) in Him. Paul plays on this analogy constantly. So it's not exactly arcane....

Which mistranslation is even more obvious, when you run across the many NT verses which show how His Getting All the Spoil gets distributed to us, like in Eph4:5-16, Rom12:3, Heb1 (well, it's a subtheme running throughout Hebrews). Paul also depends on it in 1Cor, since that whole epistle is about the HEAD getting into our heads, the promise of Jer31:31-34. Well, Hebrews and Ephesians have that as their main theme also, though Hebrews stresses the 'priesthood' metaphor of it. In short, there's no excuse for this. Too many Bible verses would be elucidated if the translation were fixed. Hint hint. Look: it's fine if mistakes are made. It's not fine if they are repeated for centuries....!

For example, the first two Hebrew words in Isa53:11, me amal, are the preposition "min" (OUT FROM, BORN FROM) + "labor". This is a deliberate parallel to be-motayw (=in His DEATHS, plural, reversing the plural deaths (moth tamuth) in Gen2:17 curse!) in v.9. The deaths (substitutionary spiritual, and physical) correspond to war and pregnancy. Isaiah bluntly says that He BIRTHS RICHES/SPOIL/PLUNDER by means of His Thinking on the Cross, in Isa53:10-12. Regarding me amal in v.11, amal=pregnant labor in the Bible, with stress on the grief: Job and Psalms make frequent analogies using amal as painful pregnancy (in labor) -- but will you find any lexicon admit that usage of the term? Guess again. (Search "amal" in the Masoretic text and see for yourself; then compare to the lexicons.)

So, it's not surprising that no translation of the verse even references out-from or pregnant labor (though Louis Seconde comes close). So you miss the BELLY-FULL DELIVERY wordplay Isaiah makes, which is a play on the sexual act, and SIMULTANEOUSLY on the Mercy Seat of Propitiation! [Hebrew "sabea" in Isa53:11 often has the root meaning of satisfaction due to EATING FOOD. Compare that meaning to the "sweet savor" metaphor used of God's satisfaction of the sacrifices, and you'll get a fabulous thrill out of Heb10, Isa55 and Matt4:4.] Therefore, you don't get the entire chapter's import, and Isa54:1 seems to come from nowhere. See also Isa9:6, where "Father" is Christ as the BIRTHER of our salvation.

Another quick tipoff: the deliberate SUBSTITUTING for the wife-who-makes-guilt (im tasim asham) in v.10's Hebrew. Hebrew changes the SEX of the verb "sim" to FEMALE SUBJECT, but no translation picks that up. Superficially, "soul" in that verse is a FEMININE noun in Hebrew, so it's EASY to miss the double-entendre: not only is He caused to be sick (heheli) because His Soul made sin (im tasim asham naphesho) -- see also 2Cor5:21 -- but ALSO, He is sick with love to DELIVER her who MADE the sin (im tasim asham). Therefore His Soul shall see long-lived offspring despite v.8 (having no physical descendants), etc. Therefore, v.12, Father GIVES Him the many offspring, with whom He distributes His Inheritance, etc. Parallel passages are (for example) in Heb 2 and Eph5, referencing CHURCH; many OT passages use the same substitutionary-spiritual-death explanation with Israel as the 'wife'. All of Ephesians is on this topic, primarily: Paul tweaks Euripedes' play "Ion" (famous how-Greeks-were-birthed-from-Apollo myth) as his format-of-exposition, to show God's superior begetting.

Another reason translations are necessarily goofy: the LXX and Masoretic text differ! Bauer Danker lexicon seems troubled by LXX's v.11. Unfortunately, it considers the troublesome passage to mean in English, "shew Him the Light" -- um, but He Is The Light Already. So that can't be a proper translation. More than one use of the dative, and clearly that usage doesn't apply, here. Dative case is used as a CONDUIT, too. Like in, "via Him". Like in, all things to and through and for and by Him and apart from was not anything made that was made. And "Light" is quintessential Hebrew term, for the Light of the Word (referencing Moses' shining face). Moreover, "phos" is the SAME CASE in nominative and accusative, but putting it last next to autoi stresses Who is the Light, and stresses the Fact of Light (in Greek you usually put the stress at the end of the sentence). The Light becomes the Light of Humanity, get it? Circle of Light? So... um, maybe this 'problem verse' is really gold, unmined?

If I didn't see Paul so often refer to the LXX MEANING in v.11 (viz., as underpinning for Paul's frequent refrain about how He we get MADE from His Thinking); if I didn't see so many other Scripture writers use the LXX keywords in direct reference to these infinitives (etc), I'd not be so bold to argue, in this page: after all, I'm just a no-account student in the Word, not a respectable scholar. But Eph4:5-16 have v.11 and 12 in the LXX as their entire base; so does Rom12:3 (blows me away!), all of 1Cor2, Eph1. See, it's All About Plunder Of His Thinking. Hebrew text says that too, but the LXX is more detailed about how it works, and is STILL written in Hebraic couplet style (pairing verbs, at least). It's this added detail which Paul and the other writers of Scripture, keep on talking about. Voluminously. Quick proof: Isa53:10 has katharizw as an infinitive. John picks it up in the famous 1Jn1:9. Verb is used in the LXX for purifying the TEMPLE, and in the BODY passage of Isa53, the BODY is purified. That was NEVER true for the OT believers. They were never totally purified; the purification would come THROUGH Christ: see Heb 10.

Preview of coming attractions: so (LXX) Isa53:10-11's critical five infinitives are all missing from the Masoretic text, but should not be. We know they are missing because the NT writers all spend a lot of time tying what they say to the LXX of vv10-12. So maybe back then, their extant Hebrew inspired text, used, also reflected the import of these four infinitives. More on how NT writers TIE to these verses, is covered below. So we need to see what's so special about these infinitives.

For now, note that these five infinitives, are in vv.10-11: purify, plunder, exhibit, sculpt, justify. The ABSENCE of prepositions, how the phrases auton tes plages, autoi phos, and apo tou ponou..autou, act adverbially -- leaves the infinitives without stated object, so the infinitives ARE the objectives; so are sweeping in scope. All-comprehensive Decree Purpose, fully fulfilled, theme of Eph1. Clever use of prepositions underscores how we were Disconnected Until Connected In Him. No prepositions underscores how He didn't deserve to be punished, how He IS the Light, so obviously isn't the one in need of either -- but Substitutes For Those Who Are In Need, us. Awesome genius of language expression!

Note also how aphelein, to carry off/plunder, mistakenly classified as part of v.10 (verses markers were invented in the 11th or 12th century to make Bible easier to track), is paralleled with anaphero, the verb ending v.11 -- to carry off/ lift up. Paul seems to be bluntly referencing this parallel as well as Ps68:18 when he pens Eph4:8-9, since the latter passage is about PLUNDER. You could say David is referencing what we know as the LXX of 53:11 as well, in his Ps68:18. For PLUNDER is in v.11, so REPEATED in v.12. Not only in v.12's BHS. Which, absent the LXX's 53:11, you don't have a parallel. Hebrew loves to couple verses, but this v.12 isn't coupled, in the BHS. It's not normal. Every other concept is paralleled. So we know the Masoretic for verses 10 and 11, is incomplete.

Moreover, infinitives denote OBJECTIVE, purpose, result (yet seem to stress REALITY/ SUCCESS of the outcome). Then you have really cool multiple-entendre datives to explain HOW's, with clear intent that the reader understand all this booty is manufactured OUT OF CHRIST HIMSELF, and FOR Christ Himself; but the translations are always weird, because they restrict the meaning of the dative to that of the indirect object. As we'll see later on, Paul uses these datives in his epistles in different ways, exploiting all the uses of the dative; which 'just happen' to tie back to 53:11 in the LXX.

Oh: "Light" in v.11 is in some of the old Hebrew texts, but not the Massoreh. Isaiah scroll has it. So that's one more clue that the LXX text needs to be amalgamated with the Hebrew.

Here's the color scheme for the text below: Italic text denotes text in Massoreh but not LXX; CAPPED words are corrections of the translation versus what's published 'out there' (i.e., Brenton's English is a translation of the LXX, and isn't good here). Red denotes text already in the Masoretic or Isaiah scroll which is essentially the same in meaning, as in the LXX; blue signifies the LXX words which the Hebrew needs but lacks; Purple designates keywords to interpretation in BOTH texts which are generally mistranslated and therefore not properly recognized; secondly, the purple text which is in the LXX, employs sophisticated usage of the dative case, but is not recognized as such, despite the fact that the NT frequently makes sophisticated use of case endings, especially in wordplay or when a circular (Divine-to-human) function is illustrated (i.e., subjective and objective genitive 'circle' in all "Love of God" verses, which has the same wry usage in Latin).

Seems to me the 'working' translation of vv10-12 should go something like this (sacrificing elegance for clarity):

[Verse 10] "So the LORD delights [Father, here] to PURIFY by wounding/crushing Him: [lit., blows of our sins on Cross -- I combined LXX's plage and Heb dakah, there; what follows looks like an interpretative quote from the MASORETIC text of v.10] 'if You will give as a substitute for sin Your Soul [Christ, plural of Hypostatic Union! Deity Consent, Humanity Consent, wordplay!] will see long-lived seed.' Therefore the Great Delight of the LORD [Father] will prosper [as per 52:13] in His [Son's] Hand [Humanity]." [The actual Greek text has no punctuation nor capitals; these were added by scribes in later years. So there is NO COMMA in the sentence. So wordplay between he psuche pointing 'backwards' at dote..hamartias and 'forwards' to opsete is clear. See, He's Giving His Soul in order to Bear Spiritual Kids, so His Soul as the OBJECT of dote is swallowed up, hidden, like a womb. Very clever. See also Isa53:5-9, for more clever wordplay like this in the original.]

[Verse 11] Then the LORD [again, Father] delights to PLUNDER out from the source of His Soul's PREGNANCY labor, [BIRTHING, and like Adam's rib!] to display/ point out/ make known/ EXHIBIT via Him, the Light. He will see, be satisfied. [Play on 7th day of initial creation, when God rested. Rest metaphor in Heb4. Light goes w/sunesei; 1Tim6:15 and 1Cor12:31 also use deiknumi, "Light" being Hebrew meaning, not gnostic. Commonly this phrase in Isa53:11 is translated "show the light to Him" -- not correct trans, since He Is The Light. See John's epistles. Also, "Light" is famous Jewish OT moniker for Deity, i.e., in the blessing 'make His Face Shine upon You', a blessing to Get The Word In You; dative case is Hebraistic for 'to Him, through Him, by Him, for Him, á la Col1:16-18, idea that apart from Him not anything is made, no other beneficiary or purpose.]

Then, to SCULPT [in His Image, really] via His MASTERY-Of-THINKING, [sculpt is verb plassw, used for Heb yatser, play on the first two words, idea of fetal formation and consequent birth] so to make Righteous/JUSTIFY; The Righteous One Well-Serving [<--Drama accusative? Participle! No verbs in this clause! Double-entendre of how it's Righteous to award Him, so righteous to replicate His thinking..] purposed for/ instead of the many: even their sins, He will carry off/ lift up."

[Verse 12] "For this reason HE WILL INHERIT THE MANY; in fact, He will apportion the plunder among the great ones; for the sake of which [plunder] His Own Soul was given over to Death; then He was accounted among the lawbreakers; then He carried off/ lifted up the sins of the many; in fact, on account of their sins, He was given up." [ Verb paradidomi ( "given..given" is twice used, and double-entendre. Verb ALSO means to give over in the sense of ENTRUST or PROTECT, HAVE CHARGE OF. So by Him being given over to judgement, He comes to be in CHARGE of judgement, i.e., Rev20:11ff and the Bema. Cute.]

Published Translations of v.12 are particularly bad, reversing Subject and object. One translation which didn't, was JPS Tanakh, 1985: "Assuredly, I will give HIM the many as His Portion; He shall receive the multitude as His spoil. For He exposed Himself to death, and was numbered among the sinners, whereas He bore the guilt of the many, and made intercession for sinners." How can the Jews not get this meaning! It's in their own Tanakh, best of the English translations of this verse! Please oh please help them, Father...

Here's how my pastor rendered this v.12's BHS: "I will distribute to Him the spoils/plunder of Victory because of many believers; then He shall distribute the spoils with the great ones [meaning, inter alia, Pleroma believers -- only the GREAT BELIEVERS are here in view]; because He poured out His Soul to death..." Rest of the verse is similar enough. [Translation source: L.25, Gen '75 tapes. In Bibleworks, "Full Brown Driver Briggs" #4, Beth pretii, and #5, causal usage of Heb prep "be", also. I've yet to go through my pastor's taped exegesis of Isaiah verse by verse.]

A lot of "great ones" verses, are in OT. Church wasn't revealed in the OT, but "great ones" is vague enough. Sure, the greats of the OT are referenced; sure the greats of the Trib are referenced, too. Since the Masoretic text likewise lumps the "many" with the "spoil", then apportions with the great ones, I NOW see why my pastor kept stressing how only the "great ones" get it (and he still does); that the REST get it THROUGH those "great ones". NT echoes the same theme: verse keyphrases are "inherit the kingdom", "endure to the end" (teleios, Maturity, see andra teleion in Eph4:13), "that no one take your crown", etc. Very intimidating, but the Cross sure was intimidating. To whom much is given...

The LXX of v.12 doesn't need to be worded quite the same way as the Masoretic. See, LXX is Third Person throughout, except for the Father's offer in v.10, "If You will give". Masoretic, is Third Person except for the Victorious statement in v.12. Masoretic version has Father speaking directly in v.12. Else, the passage says the same thing in either text, except that v.11, elaborates.

Frankly, except for 1st vs. third person in v.10 and v.12, I see no material difference between LXX and BHS; the verses could EASILY BOTH be the text, presuming that what's in ONE of the texts, is missing from the other. In v.12, it fits EASILY if the BHS were the FIRST part (Father's Decree), and LXX, the second (what would happen, typical Hebrew style of repeating but changing a LITTLE bit to add more insight). Verses 10-11 are more patchwork. But do you notice how there is NO CONTRADICTION? Hebrew repeating style always works like this. Doesn't seem right to only publish a translated BHS, which is the norm in Bible publishing of OT.

So it's DECREE Contract between Father and Son, 'told' from the Father's VIEWPOINT. So how can anyone miss EITHER Trinity, or Christ's God-man nature? Verb "give" in v.10 is 2nd person PLURAL; but "Your Soul" -- soul is SINGULAR (duh, human), but "YOUR" is PLURAL! So, as God agreeing, as Man agreeing. Ties to 1Tim2:5's heis.gar Theos, heis mesites. Could God the Holy Spirit make it more BALD? So clearly FATHER is talking to Son in Eternity past, which the 1Tim2:5 passage records the Son's 'I will'. Even if you didn't know that Greek tidbit, WHO IS TALKING TO WHOM? Begs the question...

Moreover, once you see the rhetorical STYLE of this v.10, you know how to spot it ELSEWHERE in Bible -- hundreds of passages, all quotes or comments between Father and Son, and it's an ANTIPHONY, one side speaks and the other replies, like in Psalms, a Jewish music style (suddenly I remember my pastor talking about that years ago); like in music or worship. David sure recognized it in Ps110:1, and plays on the words! Clearly Isaiah is recognizing it here.

What we miss when we don't study Bible! How is it possible to claim Trinity is hard to see in the OT? Even scholars say so? But look: you always leave out what the audience already knows. And you use wordplay, BECAUSE they already know, so they can ENJOY the wordplay. Like David does, in Ps110:1.

Most dramatic is dikaion eu douleuonta pollois. First, as in syntactical structure of Romans 8:28, when the OBJECT of the verb is also the SUBJECT of a RESULTANT ACTION, and especially if a HERO, the Actor is in the ACCUSATIVE, not nominative case: matching the earlier auton tes plages, in v.10, for I don't think the One without Sin needed TO GET purification or Light, do you? Greatest way you can stess the HIGH QUALITY of the ACTOR is to put him in the accusative case. You'll see a lot of Bible clauses thus begin with "Him" or "God" as OBJECT of the prior clause, so to justify use of the accusative case (in particular I remember Peter doing this). And we have to be talking Attic here, because verbs are left out, prepositions are left out, verbal nouns are used instead of verbs.
So auton tes plages, literally "He of the wound" makes no sense if you translated it "to purify him of wound", since it's US, not Him, who are guilty. Of course, it's double-entendre, showing us IN Him being adjudged guilty and in need of purification, too. So to translate that clause "The LORD delights to PURIFY Him-of-the-blow", could be argued AS double-entendre: a Temple doesn't defile itself, but becomes defiled by others; so gets purified of the wrongs done to it. He is the Shekinah Glory as God, and the Temple in which we all are Living Stones. Problem is, you'd have to EXPLAIN all that meaning, to avoid the false impression that He needed any purification -- He is without sin. Moreover, I'm sure the author means to say much more than that, especially given the content and elliptical structures in this passage. Specifically, I'm reasonably certain the author deliberately leaves out a preposition between katharisai and auton, because he does it elsewhere in the passage (i.e., deixzai autoi phos).

The reason he leaves out prepositions, is Hebraic: all prepositions point to Him (viz., Col1:16 uses that Hebraic concept). Prepositions are left out in elliptical writing, since the case endings are there: especially, in Hebrew, but also in Greek. (We do it in English, too.) And, since the accusative case is here used, the reader is expected to INSERT all prepositions which can take the accusative, to see more meaning. For example, with eis you have because of, resulting in, resulting from, to the place of, etc. You can then take accusative uses of epi and dia, etc. You can do the same with tes plages, using genitive prepositions. Lot more meaning shows up in the verse which fits the context, if you do. So to put a preposition in, would be LIMITING an UNLIMITED meaning. Hence the bigger-font translation above of the third clause, was chosen, which is limiting because it doesn't SHOW what the many meanings of the deliberately-missing, prepositions. God's Thought is SO AWESOME!

Look at the whole of Isa53:10-12 in the LXX and note how the prepositions are used, and what they are. John does this same crafting with prepositions in 1Jn, so I bet this is a Hebraic use of Greek in the entire Bible. Key is to restrict what prepositions you use to the contextual stress you wish to convey. 1Jn's stress, is "abiding", so an in-ness, so he uses in-ness prepositions, and avoids them, else. Here in Isa53:10, the author BUILDS UP to a crescendo of prepositions, in v.12. It's only peri, in v.10; only apo, in v.11, but in v.12, it's dia (idiomatically used, the first time), twice at beginning and end; in between (in order) are anti, eis, en. Wow. See the meaning: because of this! Due to This! Through This One! SUBSTITUTING FOR! Instead of! On Behalf of! Resulting in! Resulting from! Destination! In In By agency of by means of! Him! My pastor has stressed a bizillion times that you must TRACK THE PREPOSITIONS, for they are all-important, in the text. Wow. Yeah, it's deliberate, alright. So when he LEAVES OUT prepositions, he means you to put in ALL WHICH COULD apply. Which you'll be alerted to, since constructions like auton tes plages, etc. make MUCH more, perfectly, multiple-layered sense, when you do. Okay, I need to faint now from recognition; sorry, gotta pause, I can't breathe...

Next, dikaion eu douleuonta pollois doesn't even USE a preposition, and uses the DATIVE rather than the genitive (you'd expect a genitive if huper was in ellipsis). Ionic dative is "for the purpose of", which is even STRONGER than mere subsitution, the idea that whoever is dative, is a donative TO the "dikaion", the Hero -- which I bet is meant, else v.12 wouldn't be so climactic. Even more, NO SEPARATION between Hero-subject, and rescued object. HIM FOR THEM. Flat. Wow. See, this use of the infinitives and datives again probably all with Ionic 'purpose' meant, is FAR STRONGER. It's FOR HIM, and we come along for the ride. He's FOR US. No wonder Paul makes that wonderful Love circle analogy in 2Cor5.

What's REALLY interesting about the LXX of v.12 is "for the sake of which", meaning PLUNDER (skula, which is also neuter). Idea that He did it for Plunder. Christ as the MEANS AND MANNER AND AGENT, as well as the One in whose Interest (essential meaning of dative) the action of the infinitive is performed. All those meanings of the dative amalgamate and crescendo, here. What really tipped me off to this meaning of Plunder being His Thinking was the use of metron and meros in the NT. The terms are FREQUENT, and always link back to 53:11's LXX wording.

Check it out yourself. Of course, you can see the same idea in other ways, but the pregnancy analogy in Isaiah 53-55, the thinking BORN of it, and this entire pattern of metron..meros in a Body of Christ.. well, how many hints do we need? Paul is completely BLATANT in his tracking references within Eph4:5-10, 13, 16, Rom12:3, 1Cor (which track based on logos, kephale, metron and meros, among other keywords). People wouldn't misinterpret those temporary spiritual gifts as still extant, if they RECOGNIZED this tracking.

Hence Isa53:11's "to sculpt" is likewise intriguing. Greek verb "plassw" is a keyword, used for Hebrew yatser, to FORM an image or body; it's also famously in passages about Potter and clay. Masoretic text makes it plain that BY MEANS OF da'ath (the Word cycling IN Him) He caused to justify us. With plassw, LXX goes one step farther: 'a BODY' is to be sculpted from His Thinking! Body of justified ones. Paul picks up on that in all his Body of Christ analogies, BODY-of-THINKING.

Moreover, Isaiah 53:11's placing His Title as "The Righteous One Well-Serving" right next to "the many", AND putting "the many" in the DATIVE CASE (especially considering the prior datives in the passage) -- the manufacturing of His Thinking INTO the many is plainly stated as an intent. You sculpt stone, see. You mold THINKING, see. Clearly the term isn't meant for PHYSICALLY making us. Hence all of Romans 8, picks up from Isa53:11. In his Ionic Greek dative of Eph2:10, Paul likewise uses proximity to stress this Thinking-Achievement relationship, with epi (upon Him as Foundation). Of course, reading Isa54-55, you get the same theme in either Masoretic or LXX texts.

Which theme Peter seems to be playing on, 1Pet3:18-20, and 1Pet1:3-4,2:5-6,9,21; of the latter grouping, verses 22-25 go on to deliberately CONNECT Isa53, so the latter grouping APPLIES and INTERPRETS the text in the LXX (Isa53:10-11), assuming my rough translation above is relatively accurate. 1Pet:2:21's 'copybook analogy' (in Greek, not English) to WRITE ON US Christ's Thinking can't be missed.

Of course, Interpretative quoting of Scripture (rather than word-by-word repetition) is a common feature by Scripture writers (i.e., Acts 2, Heb8:8-12 compared with Jer31:31-34 and Heb10:15-17), so this Peter passage is significant. Furthermore, Hebrews links Jer31:31-34 to Isa53 to Ps110:1 as the foundation for the entire epistle: read it with the foregoing verses in mind, see for yourself. (Repeated here are added corroborative cites in NoWombLife.htm: "Paul seems to frequently allude to Isa53 as if it were the 'Grand Central Station' of Scripture, and with good reason. James does the same thing in James 1. The Lord of course does it in John 3, Matt4:4 (linking Isa53 to Deut8:3-4 and Isa55:8,11). Wow: one could write an entire website on this topic alone, showing the many ties in Corinthians (which is LOADED with allusions as a subtheme, tying to 1Cor2:16, which ties to Isa53:11's Hebrew and (later epistle) Phili2:5-10); Colossians; Ephesians; Romans 5-9 (esp. 6, end 7 and 8:11ff); 1Peter1; all of 2Pet (Peter's God-given allotment of Ephesians' content?); Hebrews Chaps 2, last half 9, and Chaps 10-11; also, "riches" and "seed" verses."]

Here, it looks like ADDITIONAL text is missing from the Masoretic. Perhaps in LXX of Isa 53:10, where God speaks in 1st Person in LXX, that should FOLLOW the Masoretic v.10. Seems that whole LXX verse should be APPENDED to the Masoretic. Then, the UNDERLINED parts of LXX v.11, are like puzzle pieces missing from the Masoretic of v.11; the WHOLE of the LXX verse, clues us into where those 'pieces', fit. Next, perhaps also in v.12 where in Masoretic, God is speaking in 1st person, is meant to be followed by the LXX verse speaking in 3rd person: at least, from "dia touto" through "thanatov", as a Hebrew closing parallel of a thing being done, to parallel also v.11's "aphelein" purpose, as compared to Father's WILL to do it (which the first clause in the Masoretic, stresses). Antiphonal, see (like the Psalms). Antiphony is an extremely common feature of OT verses, when depicting Father-Son interaction. GOD PRESERVED BOTH TEXTS. Here, we see something of the reason, WHY.

So let's NEXT COMBINE the Masoretic and LXX texts to see how the AMALGAM might look. I'll use the NASB for the Masoretic, where possible; the NASB color is black, so the LXX will be enough distinguished. Where the NASB translation is TOO FAR off versus the MASORETIC text, I'll just fix it, and denote that via capitalized italics. (Note: some of the words in NASB had to be deleted, because they were TRANSLATOR assumptions -- here, the usually-good assumptions aren't correct. NASB often, but not always, denotes these assumptions with italics.)

See HOW MUCH CLEARER is the passage's meaning? Now the Masoretic text and the LXX, FIT. The common NT feature of interpretative quoting, as noted earlier, is all over the OT as well; so to put LXX's v.10, the INTERPRETATION quote, right after the v.10 MASORETIC it references, makes sense. (If you're not familiar with interpretative quotes, get a study Bible and compare the verses quoted in the NT, with the actual OT verses: the Lord, Satan and every NT writer often interpretatively quote, so you can pick any section of NT you like. Once you see the RHETORICAL STYLE, you can spot it more easily in the OT. NASB has the nice habit of capitalizing quotes, so its text is particularly easy to search.)

Notice how the AMALGAM merely deletes the truly repeated clauses. Even so, not much got deleted: "out from His Soul's labor" was in both texts. ("Out from" is Hebrew preposition min, but it is used STANDING ALONE in wordplay, as an idiom for birth; preposition is always mistranslated when birthing is the intended meaning. Sample is Gen3:22, and a verse in Ps139, many others.) Maybe it was meant in dramatic repetition, so should be left in. The only other clause, the remainder of v.12 in the LXX, was also cut out, which was identical in meaning to its Masoretic counterpart, except for use of paradidomi -- then again, maybe paradidomi makes it necessary to repeat the entire clause. So see? BOTH texts had pieces missing, but when you combine them, it's beautiful and FAR more clear what's said! Heh. God never misses a thing, boy: look how He preserved BOTH texts!

So, then: because Hebrew exposition often repeats verbs and clauses, and then combines them differently IN WORDPLAY to explain (a mnemonic device also used by Paul, e.g., in Romans), it's not at all certain that similar words in LXX vv10-12 are meant to REPLACE their Hebrew counterparts in the same verses. Better guess is that many of the LXX words, are ADDITIONAL, appositive. Especially since the LXX IS OLDER, and was USED BY the Lord and the NT writers, and particularly the 53:11 UNDERLINED parts are TIED TO by NT writers (especially but not only by Paul) -- the LXX should be given more creedence than it gets.

So where there are SEEMING differences between BHS and LXX, those ought to be accounted, harmonized and PUT INTO TRANSLATION, in case some hidden treasure is there. Like everyone else, my pastor also prefers generally to use the Masoretic text, because we all know how the Jews carefully preserve it (thank God!) -- but it makes even more sense that sections of verses got lost over the 600 or so years between the LXX and the later Masoretic copies we have.