Literal Idiomatic Translation
    Home   Translation Page  


Page 1  2  3


About How The LIT Was Produced



By Hal Dekker




Last page update: 2024.02.03



Guide to Labels Showing Context Sources and Ellipses Abbreviations


The Abundance Of Ellipses In The Biblical Texts

- Absolute Ellipsis (AE)

- Mat. 16:21-23

- Mat. 24:7

- Acts 10:1-9

- Rom. 1:13

- Rom. 8:22

- Rom. 11:25


- Relative Ellipsis (RE)

- Mat. 6:2-4

- Mat. 5:30

- Mat. 12:22

- Mat. 22:12b

- Heb. 11:1-4


- Ellipsis of Repetition (ER)

- 1 Cor. 2:1-9

- John 15:1-8



Guide to Labels Showing Context Sources and Ellipsis Abbreviations


When quoting a source, especially quoting the writers of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible, since what they wrote is believed to be the Word of the God to his creation, to be Truth, there must be an accounting for every word to insure that the translation quote says no more and no less than the source Hebrew or Greek texts.  Since the language in which the apostles wrote is Koiné Greek, the language itself has several peculiarities to it which must be considered when accounting for every word.  Since we already have the Greek language in the world, I'm not sure why the totally inferior ambiguity-laden English language still exists.  I don't see why the "building block" quality of the Greek language to connect prepositions with verbs and nouns couldn't be expanded indefinitely to create words which could describe virtually anything.


Among all of the writings of the apostles they very often used a grammatical method of writing to draw the attention of the reader into thinking more deeply about the points they were making.  In the texts, very often they would conspicuously leave a word out of a sentence, thusly leaving a blank in the sentence, for which now the reader must go back and look more closely at the immediate and local contexts to discover the word or words previously used in those contexts, which word or words can be used to fill in an apparent suspicious blank in a subsequent sentence in the context.  A biblical writer's deliberate creation of a blank, or more, in a sentence, is the use of the figure of speech Ellipsis.  As I said, they all used this figure very often.  I call these sentences in which the writers used ellipses, word puzzles. 


You've probably never heard of these word puzzles before, since virtually all published Bibles are paraphrases of what the writers wrote, instead of quotes of what they wrote.  If I'm going to make a good effort to get back to the Truth of God's Word which the prophets and apostles wrote, I must remove any and all possibilities to be misled away from exactly what did the writers write.  First of all, this requires me to ignore all theologically opinionated paraphrases in all other Bible translations, and go back to the Greek texts themselves and translate each word one at a time, word for word, into sentences which simply quote the writers.  And that necessarily means having to face and deal with their heavy use of the figure of speech ellipsis.  In the LIT I've identified, and have labeled every biblical writer's use of what I believe are ellipses, throughout all of the new testament biblical writings. 


Arguably one of the most important Biblical scholars of the nineteenth century was the late Dr. E. W. Bullinger (died June 6, 1913).  In his work titled "Figures of Speech Used In The Bible", the very first figure he explains is Ellipsis.  This may be because it is the figure of speech most often used by the apostles/writers of the new covenant books of the Bible. 


What I see in the biblical Greek texts very much disagrees with what Dr. Bullinger wrote in his book of his opinion of the writer's purpose for their use of ellipses.


"The omission arises not from want of thought, or lack of care, or from accident, but from design, in order that we may not stop to think of, or lay stress on, the word omitted, but may dwell on the other words which are thus emphasized by the omission." - Bullinger, Dr. E.W.. Figures of Speech Used In The Bible - Explained And Illustrated. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968.


Dr. Bullinger states that it is the remaining words, which were not omitted, which carry the most importance in meaning.  Whereas I say, and demonstrate in these pages, and as you'll see in the LIT, that it is the omitted word or words which are of most importance in meaning, which word or words are the keys to understanding and staying on the path of the writer's flow of thought throughout the context of the immediate passage.  It's the word or words the writer omitted which not only determine the meanings of the non-omitted words, but the meaning of the sentence and immediate context, and which meanings subsequently maintain the meaning of the writer's contextual flow of thought throughout the whole passage.  I believe the apostles deliberately used this method of writing so that the Truth of God's Word would not be revealed to those readers who have not received the God's gift of his Spirit into them, i.e., to those working for the devil. 


I believe this is the same reason why Jesus always spoke to the crowds in parables (Mat. 13:34-35).  Only those who Jesus' heavenly Father was sending to him were to know God's Word, the Truth (John 6:42-45; Mat. 13:10-18; Mark 4:10-12; Luke 8:9-10).  It's God's Spirit working in a reader which helps the reader to "see" and "hear" and "to put it together" what the apostles' omitted words should be.  Only God's Spirit working in a believer gives that believer the key to unlock the door into the Truth of God's Word (Rev. 3:7).  I've filled in the ellipses using the key which I've been given, because I've been called to do this now.


I believe it's a great loss to readers, and it's truly a shame, that this important grammatical tool has been hidden from the eyes of readers for about a couple thousand years now, and opinionated paraphrases have been fudged-in into Bible translations instead.  Hiding the writer's uses of ellipses greatly cripples and disengages the reader from "cutting sharply straight" (orthotomounta, 2 Tim. 2:15) God's Word for himself or herself; through not allowing the reader to see and follow, first-hand, what the apostles actually wrote, and how they wrote it, and from seeing what was the exact wording of the contexts in which those ellipses were used.  Virtually all Bible translations hide Truth behind endless veils of other's opinionated theological paraphrases of their private interpretations, and then require the reader to just take their word for it.  Taking "their" word for it is the biggest mistake anyone can make.  Why not read exactly what the apostles and disciples (Mark and Luke were disciples) wrote, and take their Word for it?  The reader is supposed to be interpreting God's Word for himself or herself (2 Tim. 2:15).  Allowing anyone else to do it for you puts your own salvation at very great risk (Mat. 7:13-20).


As I've mentioned already, an ellipsis is an apparent missing word in a sentence.  All the various biblical writers of the new covenant books of the Bible used, more or less, the grammatical mechanism of ellipsis to not only make their important points, but to draw-in a reader to pay closer attention to what they wrote, through how the they wrote it.  Figures of speech are used by the biblical writers to impress upon their reader's minds what are the most important points about a discrete topic or unique event which they are trying to convey.  A writer's intentional usage of a blank in a sentence, in place of a critically important word, draws the reader's attention into pondering upon what the writer has already written in the immediate and/or local contexts, among which words one or more can be used to fill in the apparent blank.  The missing word or phrase is usually a previously used noun or a verb, or a phrase.


When in translating the LIT I found an apparent ellipsis used by a writer, I marked the apparent blank in the text using brackets, [ ].  The brackets can contain two or three entries separated by commas.    


Here's an example from Matthew:


Mat. 1:21 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) she shall cause herself to bear (texetai) [a] son (huion).


And (kai) you shall call aloud (kaleseis) the (to) name (onoma) of him (autou) Jesus (Iēsoun), because (gar) he (autos) shall make whole (sōsei) the (ton) people (laon) of him (autou) from (apo) the (tōn) sins (hamartiōn) of them (autōn)."


Mat. 1:22 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) this (touto) whole (holon) [prophecy, AE] has come to pass (gegonen) in order that (hina) the (to) [origin, v18, RE] having been caused to be stated (rhēthen) under (hupo) [authority, AE] of [the] Lord (kuriou), through (dia) the (tou) prophet (prophētou), may be fulfilled (plērōthē), saying (legontes),


Mat. 1:23 (LIT/UBS4) "Behold (idou), the (hē) one in virginity (parthenos) shall hold (hexei) in (en) belly (gastri), and (kai) she shall cause herself to bear (texetai) [a] son (huion)!


And (kai) they shall call aloud (kalesousin) the (to) name (onoma) of him (autou) 'Emmanuel (Emmanouēl)', which (ho) is (estin) being with interpretation (methermēneuomenon), 'The (ho) God (theos) of us (hēmōn) [is] with (meth’) [us, RE]'."


In v22 please notice the brackets and what I've included within them [origin, v18, RE].  I'll explain relative ellipses in a coming section.


Here's how Matthew actually wrote the sentence:


Mat. 1:22 (LIT/UBS4) But this whole _________ has come to pass in order that the ________ having been caused to be stated under _________ of [the] Lord, through the prophet, may be fulfilled, saying, ...


As you can see, I identified three ellipses in Matthew's sentence, which sentence ends in v23


1.  The first ellipsis in Mat. 1:22 which seemed apparent to me was signaled by the adjective "whole", which ellipsis suggests the question, "whole what?", which adjective appears to require a noun to complete the ellipsis in the sentence.  Any reader can find for himself a word or words needed to supply an ellipsis from the immediate and/or local contexts.  Since the context is obviously written about a prophecy of Isaiah, the noun "prophecy" used as an absolute ellipsis seemed to me to be the correct noun suggested from the context. 


IMO, when a reader is challenged by an apparent ellipsis in the biblical texts it is incumbent upon the reader to supply the ellipses for himself, which ellipses are usually supplied by the biblical writer of the text, in the immediate and/or local contexts.  On account of the verse refers to the writings of the prophet Isaiah, I conclude for myself that an elliptical passage quoting Isaiah could even be supplied by a word or words used by that prophet from that remote context, which remote context in this example is the prophecy of Isaiah in Isa. 7:13-15


2.  The second ellipsis which seemed apparent to me was signaled by the nominative case definite article the (to), which ellipsis again suggests a question, "the what?", which definite article appears to require a nominative case noun to complete the nominative case ellipsis in the sentence.  In addition, the nominative case verb rhēthen, meaning "having been caused to be stated", appears to me to be looking for its missing antecedent, the apparent missing nominative case subject noun, to which the passive voice action of the verb was caused to occur. 


3.  The third ellipsis which seemed apparent to me was signaled by the preposition "under", which ellipsis suggests the question, "under what?", which preposition appears to require another noun to complete it.  Throughout the biblical Greek texts the preposition under (hupo) is often used by the biblical writers to indicate a hierarchy order of authority within several contexts; among people within the genus of a family, and within governmental, military and religious structures as well.  For an example see 1 Cor. 11:3-13.


The preposition hupo is often used to describe a place or position below, beneath, or under something else.  But it's often used in the texts to show the subordination of something to something else.  Think of a hierarchy chart in which the greatest level of authority is at the top position, and lower levels of authority flow from the top down, with lower levels of authority being under higher levels of authority.


One of the very common ways God's Word speaks of those in subordination to a higher authority is to designate a person as being sent.  In many of the immediate contexts in which someone or something is referred to as being sent, the person or thing having sent them is identified also, and that person or thing is always someone or something of greater authority than the one which was sent. 


These kinds of passages describe agency relationships, and the one being sent as being a subordinate agent of the one sending him.  Dozens of times Jesus Christ told people that he was sent, he was sent, he was sent, from his heavenly Father.  Jesus sent out his disciples and apostles.  They were sent ones also, being subordinate agents of the one in higher authority having sent them, Jesus Christ.


Likewise all of the old testament prophets were sent as well, by who?  By the God.  Was the God the higher authority over them?  Yes.  And so then weren't they subordinate agents of the God, they working for him?  Yes.  This is the scriptural concept of agency, and it is commonly portrayed through describing those having been sent as subordinate agents of the one in higher authority having sent them. 


For example:


About the God speaking to the prophet Jeremiah:


Jer. 14:14 (AV) Then the LORD said unto me, "The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.


Jer 14:15 (AV) Therefore," thus saith the LORD, "concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed."


In many of the new testament contexts in which someone or something is portrayed as being subordinate to something else, the preposition hupo is used to show the comparative subordination.


About the centurion responding back to Jesus:


Luke 7:8 (LIT/UBS4) Because (gar) I (egō) also (kai) am (eimi) [a] mortal (anthrōpos), being one arranged (tassomenos) under (hupo) authority (exousian), having (echōn) soldiers (stratiōtas) under (hup’) [authority, ER] of myself (emauton).


And (kai) I say (legō) to this (touto) [soldier, RE], ‘Be caused to go (poreuthēti)’, and (kai) he causes himself to go (poreuetai);


and (kai) to another (allō), ‘Cause yourself to come (erchou)’, and (kai) he causes himself to come (erchetai);


and (kai) to the (tō) slave (doulō) of me (mou), ‘Do (poiēson) this (touto)’, and (kai) he does (poiei) [this, RE].”


In Rom. 13:1-4 apostle Paul uses ellipsis eight times to make this very point about we causing ourselves to be subordinate to the God and his chief ones, who are under authority of the God, but who are in authority over us.


Rom. 13:1 (LIT/UBS4) [Let] every (pasa) soul (psuchē) be put in submission5293 (hupotassesthō) to authorities (exousiais) being superior (huperechousais);


because (gar) there is (estin) absolutely not (ou) [an] authority (exousia) if (ei) not (mē) [an authority, ER] under (hupo) [the authority, ER] of God (theou)


But (de) the (hai) ones being (ousai) under (hupo) [authority, ER] of God (theou), they are (eisin) ones having been arranged (tetagmenai).


Rom. 13:2 (LIT/UBS4) And so (hōste) the one (ho) causing himself to be arranged in opposition (antitassomenos) to the (tē) authority (exousia) [of God, v1, RE] has stood opposed (anthestēken) to the (tē) thorough arrangement (diatagē) of the (autou) God (theou).  


But (de) the ones (hoi) having stood opposed (anthestēkotes) shall cause themselves to receive (lēmpsontai) [a] judicial decision (krima) for themselves (heautois).


Rom. 13:3 (LIT/UBS4) Because (gar) the (hoi) chief ones758 (archontes) [under authority of God, v1, RE] are absolutely not (ouk eisin) [a] fear (phobos) to the (tō) good (agathō) work (ergō), BUT (alla), to the (tō) malicious (kakō) [work, ER]! 


But (de) do you desire (theleis) not (mē) to fear (phobeisthai) the (tēn) authority (exousian) [of the chief ones, ER]? 


Do (poiei) the (to) good (agathon) [work, ER], and (kai) you shall have (hexeis) praise (epainon) out (ex) of her (autēs).


Rom. 13:4 (LIT/UBS4) Because (gar) he is (estin) [a] minister (diakonos) of God (theou) for you (soi), into (eis) the (to) good (agathon) [work, v3, RE]. 


But (de) if perhaps (ean) you may do (poiēs) the (to) malicious (kakon) [work, v3], fear (phobou), because (gar) he absolutely does not bear (ou phorei) the (tēn) knife (machairan) in vain (eikē).


Apostle Paul's heavy use of the figure of speech ellipsis in the first four verses of Rom. 13, to dramatically call the readers attention to the discrete topic of God's Authority in God's Word, should cause us to re-read this passage over a few times to ponder the meaning of all of the ellipted words so his flow of thought can sink well into our own thoughts.  


So then, in translating the LIT, wherever I saw an apparent ellipsis following the preposition hupo, and the immediate context suggested a comparison in levels of authority of one person or thing over another, and especially of the God over his creation, then I selected the word authority to fill in the blank, to make explicit both the comparison and the point of the writer.  Remember, the proper ellipted words needed to fill-in the blanks created by a writer's use of ellipsis are the meanings which we should ponder, because they point to the heart of the writer's flow of thought.


Now let's look closely at the second half of verse 23:


Mat. 1:23 (LIT/UBS4) "Behold (idou), the (hē) one in virginity (parthenos) shall hold (hexei) in (en) belly (gastri), and (kai) she shall cause herself to bear (texetai) [a] son (huion)!


And (kai) they shall call aloud (kalesousin) the (to) name (onoma) of him (autou) 'Emmanuel (Emmanouēl)', which (ho) is (estin) being with interpretation (methermēneuomenon), 'The (ho) God (theos) of us (hēmōn) [is] with (meth’) [us, RE]'."


As you can see I identified an ellipsis at the very end of verse 23 on account of "of us (hēmōn)" being in the genitive case, which subsequent sentence structure causes the antecedent preposition "with (meth’)" to be looking for a relative pronoun.  You'll notice that the [us, ER] label has no verse reference in it, but only the word "us" to fill-in the blank, and ER to indicate to the reader that the kind of ellipsis used is an Ellipsis of Repetition.  I omit the verse reference in a label when the proper word or words needed to fill-in the ellipsis come from the same sentence or verse.  The [is] in the interpretive sentence is not an ellipsis per se; the omission of to be verbs for brevity is a common practice in many languages, especially biblical Greek.  See my section on Implied To Be Verbs - Zero Copula, coming up after the next section on Ellipses.


These three examples of ellipses in Mat. 1:22-23 are typical of most all ellipses throughout all of the new testament books.  The methods I've explained which I used to solve them are typical also of how I solve all of the ellipses throughout the new testament books.  The whole Truth of about a biblical discrete topic or unique event are usually not found in one or two passages, but in passages throughout the entire 66 books of the Bible, and oftentimes in extra-biblical records as well.


The third part of an ellipsis label, which shows a two-letter abbreviation to describe which basic kind of an ellipsis the writer may have used, is explained more thoroughly in the next section about ellipses.


----- : -----



 The Abundance Of Ellipses In The Biblical Texts


Arguably one of the most important Biblical scholars of the nineteenth century was the late Dr. E. W. Bullinger (died June 6, 1913).  In his work titled Figures Of Speech Used In The Bible, the very first figure he explains is Ellipsis.  This may be because it is the figure of speech used most often by the apostles/writers of the twenty seven new covenant books of the Bible. 


In essence, an ellipsis is an apparent missing word in a sentence.  All the various biblical writers of the new covenant books of the Bible used, more or less, the grammatical mechanism of ellipsis to not only make their important points, but to draw-in a reader to pay closer attention to what they wrote, through how the they wrote it.  Figures of speech are used by the biblical writers to impress upon their readers what are the most important points about the subject matter which they are trying to convey.  A writers intentional usage of a blank in a sentence, in place of a critically important word, draws the reader's attention into pondering upon what the writer has already written in the immediate and/or local contexts which among which words one or more can be used to fill in the blank.  The missing word is usually a noun or a verb, or a phrase, which is a key to understanding the passage.


The Greek texts of the new covenant books of the Bible abound with ellipses of at least three basic kinds which Dr. Bullinger has identified.  Rather than get into the laborious task of explaining here all of the various sub-forms of those three different kinds of ellipses, if you get a chance to obtain a copy of Dr. Bullinger's book you will add to your library an indispensible foundation stone of reference material. 


Dr. Bullinger spoke of three basic kinds of ellipses:


"- an absolute ellipsis, in which the omitted word or words are to be supplied from the nature of the subject alone,


- a relative ellipsis, in which the omitted word or words are to be supplied from, and are suggested by, the context, 


- an ellipsis of repetition, in which the omitted word or words are to be supplied by repeating them from a clause which precedes or follows." - Dr. Bullinger, E. W. Figures Of Speech Used In The Bible - Explained And Illustrated. Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1968.


Relative ellipses (RE) and ellipses of repetition (ER) seem to me, after translating the new testament from the UBS4 texts into the LIT, to be the most common kinds of ellipsis, with RE being the most common form.  The identification of absolute ellipsis (AE) is more challenging to determine, and therefore calls for a somewhat more subjective solution to fill in the blank.  Therefore I call upon the reader to determine for himself or herself ad valorem, in all places where I identify an ellipsis and supply the necessary word or phrase, if he or she concurs that there is an apparent textual omission which may justify my inclusion of a word or phrase to satisfy the ellipsis.  In most occurrences of ellipses throughout the new covenant writings it's very obvious that its writer is using an ellipses.  


All three basic kinds of ellipses are based upon the use of omitting words in phrases and clauses, and so I have adopted the term word puzzles to describe ellipses; because the deliberate omission of a word calls for the reader to hunt through the preceding immediate, local, and sometimes remote contexts of the discrete topic to find the correct word or words, or missing "piece", to fill in the blank of the word puzzle.


In the LIT wherever I've identified an ellipsis of some kind I mark it with the appropriate abbreviation of its kind, so the reader can be alerted as to the possible existence of an ellipsis, and from where I found the "piece" to fill-in the blank of a writer's word puzzle.


Citing definitions of how ellipsis is used today in the English language is not much help in explaining how radically, in comparison, ellipsis was used in the Koiné Greek language about two thousand years ago.  However, The Oxford English Grammar makes a good statement about the fundamental similarities of how ellipses were done in the biblical Koiné Greek and in English now.


"Ellipsis - the omission of material that can be recovered by the hearer or reader - plays a significant role in grammatical cohesion when the part to be recovered is indicated in the previous text." - Greenbaum, Sidney. The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford, 1996


From my experience that statement is absolutely true.  But here's a definition from the New Oxford American Dictionary:


"the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues." - New Oxford American Dictionary


The definition of ellipsis from the New Oxford American Dictionary may be true for modern English, but it is absolutely wrong about how many of the ellipses were done in biblical Koiné Greek.  What's wrong with that statement concerning the biblical writer's use of ellipsis is the part about the omitted words be superfluous, meaning unnecessary.  Just the opposite is true of how the biblical writers used Koiné Greek most of the time.  In their uses of ellipsis the omitted words were very often absolutely critical to the proper understanding of the meaning of a sentence.  In many ellipses it is impossible to understand the meaning of a sentence until the correct word or words are discovered to fill in the blank, the word or words themselves being the crucial keys to keeping up with the writer's flows of thought.


Now let's examine examples of the biblical writer's common uses of ellipsis.


- Absolute Ellipses (AE)


Again, an absolute ellipsis " the omission of words or terms which must be supplied only from the nature of the subject.  The omitted word may be a noun, adjective, pronoun, verb, participle, adverb, preposition." - Dr. Bullinger, E. W. Figures Of Speech Used In The Bible - Explained And Illustrated. Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1968.


Dr. Bullinger doesn't use the phrase implied absolute ellipsis, but only absolute ellipsis.  In my own thinking, from my experience with the Greek texts and how the biblical writers wrote, I add the word implied to his phrase because the missing word or words in an absolute ellipsis is/are implied from the nature of the subject.  Dr. Bullinger uses the word "subject" in his definition.  But for the sake of eliminating possible ambiguities when speaking about something grammatically, I like the terms discrete topic or unique event much better, because they're a bit more specific in meaning.  Dr. Bullinger uses the word "nature" also in his definition of an absolute ellipsis.  In place of "nature", I like the term situational context much better because it's a bit more descriptive and specific in meaning. 


And so when Dr. Bullinger states and absolute ellipsis " the omission of words or terms which must be supplied only from the nature of the subject", what that means to me is an absolute ellipsis is the omission of words or terms which must be supplied from, and are implied from, only the situational contexts of a discrete topic or a unique event.  This is the definition, and its wording and terms, which I'll use about absolute ellipsis. 


For example in Mat. 16:22:


Mat. 16:21 (LIT/UBS4) From (apo) then (tote) the (ho) Jesus (Iēsous) caused himself to start (ērxato) to thoroughly show (deiknuein) to the (tois) disciples (mathētais) of him (autou) that (hoti) it is required (dei) of him (auton) to go away (apelthein) into (eis) Jerusalem (Hierosoluma) and (kai) to suffer (pathein) many things (polla) from (apo) the (tōn) elders (presbuterōn), and (kai) chief sacrificial priests (archiereōn), and (kai) writers (grammateōn), and (kai) to be killed (apoktanthēnai), and (kai) to be awakened (egerthēnai) the (tē) third (tritē) day (hēmera).


Mat. 16:22 (LIT/UBS4) And (kai) <one having caused himself to take> him (auton) to himself (proslabomenos), the (ho) Peter (Petros) caused himself to start (ērxato) to epitomize (epitiman) him (autō), saying (legōn), “[The Father, v17, RE] [is] [an] auspicious one (hileōs) to you (soi), lord (kurie)


No (mē), absolutely not (ou), <shall> this (touto) cause itself to be done (estai) to you (soi)!"


Mat. 16:23 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) the (ho) [Jesus, v21, RE] having been turned (strapheis), he enunciated (eipen) to the (tō) Peter (Petrō), “Get underway (hupage) behind (opisō) me (mou), Satan (Satana)


You are (ei) [a] scandal (skandalon) to me (emou), because (hoti) you absolutely do not think (ou phroneis) the things (ta) of the (tou) God (theou), BUT (alla), [you think, RE] the things (ta) of the (tōn) mortals (anthrōpōn)!”


 What Matthew quoted Peter as saying in verse 22 was actually "__________ [an] auspicious one (hileōs) to you (soi), lord (kurie)


No (mē), absolutely not (ou), shall this (touto) cause itself to be done (estai) to you (soi)!"


What Matthew wrote in verse 22 was an relative ellipsis of the nominative, since the subject (nominative case) is missing along with an implied to be verb, "is".  Matthew's elliptical word puzzle here required not only a subject/nominative, The God, but a to be verb as well, is.  A to be verb can be omitted by a writer, and its omission is not always an ellipsis, because in their expressions to be verbs are very often assumed or implied in the Greek.  Although the lack of to be verbs in the texts may not always be a deliberate omission by a writer, I treat their omissions the same as ellipses by enclosing them in brackets to show the reader that its' Greek counterpart is missing in the text. 


For apparent occurrences of absolute ellipses a reader must read the immediate context very closely for what may be implied by a writer.  Typically there are no local and remote contexts through which a reader can go searching for the missing "piece" to fill in a blank.


To verify a writer's use of absolute ellipses, typically I'll do word searches using a topical word, and/or a word closely related, from the immediate context, to find other occurrences of that word or words in the biblical texts, which other uses could be in related contexts from which I may get a clue of how to fill in the blank of an apparent absolute ellipsis.  Two things generally occur from a word search:  I find no related contexts from which to acquire a word candidate to fill in the apparent absolute ellipsis blank, or I do find other topic-related or event-related contexts, in which case then the apparent absolute ellipsis is generally not an AE, but a relative ellipsis, RE.


 I did a word search based upon a word's Strong's numbers, hileōs, Strong's # 2436, meaning auspicious (Mat. 16:22), and I found one other use of that root in the text in Heb. 8:12.  In Heb. 8:8-12 the writer is quoting Jer. 31:31-34.  The prophet Jeremiah quotes the God speaking, and saying that he shall be auspicious to the unrighteousness of his people.  But if Jesus did not sin (John 8:46; 1 Pet. 2:22; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 7:26; 1 John 1:35), then the God wasn't being auspicious toward Jesus Christ on account of Jesus' unrighteousness, which he didn't do.  If the God was being auspicious toward Jesus Christ then it must have been for the opposite reason, because Jesus Christ was doing righteousness, which doing righteousness is the will of his and our heavenly Father, for which works we are rewarded. 


Why did Jesus Christ scold disciple Peter in Mat. 16:23?  Peter could have known about the Jer. 31:31-34 prophecy at the time Peter spoke in Mat. 16:22.  Peter could have known about the Isa. 53 prophecy also, if Jesus taught them to his disciples.  If Jesus had already taught his disciples these prophecies, then in this Mat. 16:21-23 context Jesus may be scolding Peter for having forgotten what he was taught, and for allowing his mind to be driven by fear of other men rather than by the Word of God.


My point is that if Peter's statement in Mat. 16:22 was based upon his knowledge of the Jer. 31:31-34 prophecy then both the Jeremiah prophecy  and the passage in Heb. 8:8-12 are remote contexts to the discrete topic of God's auspiciousness toward his people.  Then that would make what disciple Peter said in Mat. 16:22 a Relative Ellipsis rather than an Absolute Ellipsis.  Yes, this is how apparent ellipses in the texts are worked out, one ellipsis at a time.  And this is how our heavenly Father, and Christ Jesus, and his apostles intended for us to not just read God's Word, Truth, but to study it hard (2 Tim. 2:15), to eat it (Jer. 15:16), to gnaw on it (John 6:53-58).


As I said before, what makes absolute ellipses (AE) more challenging than relative ellipses (RE) and ellipses of repetition (ER), is that AEs require more subjective thinking and research work on the part of the reader/translator than the other two.  AEs are the most difficult to determine, then REs come next, they being a little less difficult to determine, then come ERs, the easiest kind of ellipses to determine and fill in the blanks.  Both AEs and REs require multiple searches through the biblical texts to determine them, and then to determine for REs what are all of the other related, or closely related, local and remote contexts.


Generally speaking, AEs have no local and/or remote contexts directly related to the discrete topic or unique event.  However, indirectly related contexts can be valuable is resolving an AE, as I've shown searching on hileōs, meaning auspicious, which landed me in the Heb. 8:8-12 passage.


Here's another example of AE in Mat. 24:27, where the biblical Koiné Greek conciseness, or economy of language, doesn't translate well into English.  Additional, but necessary, words are needed in translation in order for the meaning to be explicit enough to be understandable in English.  Unlike unnecessary paraphrasing, brackets are used in the LIT to indicate to the reader that words have been supplied by the translator to solve various apparent ellipses. 


Mat. 24:27 (LIT/UBS4) Because (gar) as (hōsper) the (hē) starlight (astrapē) is caused to come out (exerchetai) from (apo) risings395 (anatolōn) [of the sun, AE] and (kai) causes itself to shine (phainetai) until (heōs) sinkings1424 (dusmōn) [of the sun, AE], thusly (houtōs) the (hē) presence (parousia) of the (tou) Son (huion) of the (tou) Mortal (anthrōpou) shall cause itself to be (estai).


In Mat. 24:27 I supply "[of the sun, AE]" in the verse to indicate to the reader that the phrase "from risings... until sinkings" was a common way of speaking, which to the writers obviously implied that it was the sun which did the risings and sinkings each day.  To the writer, Matthew, according to his knowledge and use of the common Koiné Greek language, actually writing in the words "of the sun" into the verse would have been redundant to the common use of that language in his time.  To our modern Western English it's not redundant at all, because we say "sunrises" and "sunsets". 


Here's another example of absolute ellipsis in Acts 10:1-9:


Acts 10:1 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) [a] certain (tis) male (anēr) in (en) Caesarea (Kaisareia), Cornelius (Kornēlios) by name (onomati), [a] centurion (hekatontarchēs) out (ek) of the (tēs) cohort (speirēs) being called (kaloumenēs) 'Italian’ (Italikēs),


Acts 10:2 (LIT/UBS4) [a] pious one (eusebēs), and (kai) one causing himself to fear (phoboumenos) the (ton) God (theon) together with (sun) all (panti) the (tō) house (oikō) of him (auton), he doing (poiōn) both (te) many (pollas) acts of mercy (eleēmosunas) for the (tō) people (laō) and (kai) causing himself to beg (deomenos) of the (tou) God (theou) through (dia) everything (pantas),


Acts 10:3 (LIT/UBS4) he saw (eiden) manifestly (phanerōs) in (en) [a] vision (horamati), as if (hōsei) around (peri) [the] ninth (enatēn) hour (hōran) of the (tēs) day (hēmeras), [a] messenger (angelon) of the (tou) God (theou) having entered in (eiselthonta) to (pros) him (auton), and (kai) having enunciated (eiponta) to him (autō), "Cornelius” (Kornēlie)!  


Acts 10:4 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) the (ho) [Cornelius, v3, RE], having gazed intently at (atenisas) him (autō), and (kai) having caused himself to become (genomenos) one in fear (emphobos), he enunciated (eipen), "What (ti) is (estin) [it], lord (kurie)!?" 


Here in verse 4 we can see definite article the (ho), an antecedent, looking for its missing subject (nominative) noun, which is obviously Cornelius from verse 3.  As I've mentioned briefly before, this is a typical and common relative ellipsis.  We'll get into more examples of relative ellipses in the next section.  The writer of Acts, Luke, puts the emphasis, or spotlight, through the use of the ellipsis, not upon the messenger, but upon Cornelius, which causes the reader to now stare or fix one's attention upon Cornelius, and what about him.


But (de) he enunciated (eipen) to him (autō), "The (hai) prayers of you of well-thankfulness to4335 (proseuchai sou) [God, AE], and (kai) the (hai) acts of mercy (eleēmosunai) of you (sou) have went up (anebēsan) into (eis) [a] remembrance (mnēmosunon) in front (emprosthen) of the (tou) God (theou)!


Luke's ellipsis directs the reader to pay attention to what Cornelius has done, to his prayers of well-thankfulness toward God, and to the merciful things he has done for others.  Luke is implying through the ellipsis, "Look at the righteousness of Cornelius, and now how the God is responding to him on account of it.  The God will respond to you also, as he is responding to the righteous works of Cornelius, if you also do them."


The ellipsis here is in the missing direct object (accusative), God.  The verb proseuchai (pros-euchomai), especially with the preposition pros prefixed to it, meaning to or toward, causes the reader to look to or toward whom is receiving the action of the verb euchomai?  Whom is receiving Cornelius' prayers of well-thankfulness?  From the nature of the flow of thought of the passage, and from the meaning of the prefixed verb, it's obvious that the God is the one to whom Cornelius is praying, and for whom he is doing righteous works for others.  In this sentence, Luke uses absolute ellipsis to put the spotlight on God, to clue the reader into watching what's going to happen next about what God does. 


Through Luke first putting the spotlight on Cornelius (10:4a), and then putting the spotlight on God (10:4b), with back-to-back ellipses, he's pointing out the fellowship between them, and especially the wealthy aspect of reciprocity under God's new covenant.


Acts 10:5 (LIT/UBS4) And (kai) now (nun) send (pempson) males (andras) into (eis) Joppa (Ioppēn) and (kai) cause yourselves to send (metapempsai) for Simon (Simōna), who (hos) is called upon aloud (epikaleitai), ‘Peter’ (Petros). 


Acts 10:6 (LIT/UBS4) This (houtos) [Peter, RE] is lodged (xenizetai) alongside (para) to [a] certain (tini) Simon (Simōni), [a] tanner (bursei), to whom (hō) is (estin) [a] house (oikia) alongside (para) [the] sea (thalassan)." 


Here in verse 6 there's an apparent missing definite article, which absolute ellipsis puts the spotlight on the sea, which ellipsis Luke is using to steer the reader to watch closely for what happens next in Joppa alongside the sea.  We look at more examples of apparent missing definite articles later in the section about the use of articles in biblical Koiné Greek.


Acts 10:7 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) as (hōs) the (ho) messenger (angelos) went away (apēlthen), the one (ho) speaking (lalōn) to him (autō), [Cornelius, v3, RE] having sounded (phōnēsas) for two (duo) of the (tōn) householders (oiketōn), and (kai) [a] pious (eusebē) soldier (stratiōtēn) of the (tōn) ones persevering toward (proskarterountōn) him (autō),


Here in verse 7 we have the verb phōnēsas, meaning having sounded, in the nominative case, singular in number.  Where's its missing antecedent, the subject (nominative) noun, the person or thing producing the action of the verb?  Luke left a blank there in front of the verb which produces a relative ellipsis, because from the immediate context and flow of thought it's obvious that Cornelius is the one who's getting ready to send men to Joppa.  Thereby Luke throws the spotlight back onto Cornelius for a moment.  


Acts 10:8 (LIT/UBS4) and (kai) he having caused himself to lead out1834 (exēgēsamenos) to them (autois) absolutely all things (hapanta), he sent (apesteilen) them (autous) into (eis) the (tēn) Joppa (Ioppēn).


Acts 10:9 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) upon the morrow (tē epaurion), they going the ways (hodoiporountōn) of those (ekeinōn) [into the Joppa, v8, RE], and (kai) they coming near1448 (engizontōn) to the (tē) city (polei), Peter (Petros) stepped up (anebē) upon (epi) the (to) roof (dōma) to cause himself to be well-thankful to4336 (proseuxasthai) [God, AE], around (peri) [the] sixth (hektēn) hour (hōran).


Here in Acts 10:9 we can see three apparent ellipses, one relative and two absolute.  So now in this verse Luke is throwing the spotlight on three things, Joppa, God, and the sixth hour.  Luke is implying to the reader to now watch closely what happens to peter in Joppa, by God, about the sixth hour.   This passage in Acts 10:1-9 is a great example of how figures of speech, but especially ellipses, can help a reader keep on track with the writer's flow of thought.


I'll not go further, here at this time, to explain to you what happens next in Luke's narrative, but you can read it for yourself in the LIT, where I've identified, using brackets [ ], all of the ellipses I have found while quoting the apostles into English.  Next we'll look at more examples of relative ellipses.


Here are some other passages containing absolute ellipses where the "...omission of words or terms which must be supplied only from the nature of the subject." - Dr. E. W. Bullinger


Rom. 1:13 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) I desire (thelō) you (humas) absolutely not (ou) to be ignorant (agnoein), brothers (adelphoi), that (hoti) many times (pollakis) I caused myself to plan before (proethemēn) to come (elthein) to (pros) you (humas), (and (kai) I was cut off (ekōluthēn) until (achri) the (tou) next (deuro) [time, AE]);


in order that (hina) I may have (schō) some (tina) produce (karpon) among (en) you (humin) also (kai), as down (kathos) among (en) the (tois) remaining (loipois) ethnic groups (ethnesin) also (kai)!


[time, AE] - The adjective deuro, meaning next, appears to be an antecedent adjective looking for a noun to modify.  From this sentence, and from the immediate context around it, the flow of thought of the writer implies that he, apostle Paul, keeps planning a time to return again to see the believers in the area of Rome, but every plan he makes gets blocked some how.  I think we know how, and why.  And so he keeps on waiting for a time in the future, the sooner the better.


Rom. 8:22 (LIT/UBS4) Because (gar) we have seen (oidamen) that (hoti) all (pasa) the (hē) creation (ktisis) groans altogether (sustenazei), and (kai) spasms altogether (sunōdinei), until (achri) the (tou) [time, AE] now (nun).


[time, AE] - The definite article tou, meaning the, appears to be an antecedent looking for a noun.  From this sentence, and from the immediate context around it, the flow of thought of the writer implies that the groans and spasms of all of the creation has been going on for at least as long as human history.


Rom. 11:25 (LIT/UBS4) Because (gar) I absolutely do not desire (ou thelō) you (humas) to be ignorant (agnoein), brothers (adelphoi), to the (to) Mystery (mustērion) to this (touto);


in order that (hina) you may not be (mē ēte) thoughtful ones (phronimoi) [compared, AE] alongside (par’) to yourselves (heautois)!


[compared, AE] - There are other passages similar to this which suggest and/or imply that mortals tend to compare their levels of thoughtfulnesss and compassion for others to worldly standards rather than the standards given in God's Word for how we are to love and care for one another.


Because (hoti) hardness (pōrōsis) from (apo) part (merous) has come to pass (gegonen) to the (tō) Israel (Israēl), until (achris) of which (hou) [time, AE] the (to) fullness (plērōma) of the (tōn) ethnic groups (ethnōn) may enter in (eiselthē).


[time, AE] - The pronominal adjective hou, meaning of which, appears to be an antecedent looking for a noun to modify.  From this sentence, and from the immediate context around it, the flow of thought of the writer implies the coming of a unique event at some time in the future.


- Relative Ellipses (RE)


Again, a relative ellipsis is an ellipsis "Where the omitted word must be supplied from the words actually related to it and employed in the context itself." - Dr. Bullinger, E. W. Figures Of Speech Used In The Bible - Explained And Illustrated. Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1968.


The following example is a relatively easy ellipsis to figure out. 


In Mat. 6:3, I see at least two ellipses, the two adjectives "left" and "right" calling for a missing noun, "hand" v5:30, RE:


Mat. 6:3 (LIT/USB4) But (de) of you (sou) doing (poiountos) [an] act of mercy (eleēmosunēn), <do not let> the (hē) left (aristera) ______ of you (sou) know (mē gnōtō) what (ti) the (hē) right (dexia) ______ of you (sou) does (poiei);


The adjectives left (aristera) and right (dexia) each call for a noun to modify, which nouns appear to be missing.  The partial sentence alone without the apparent ellipses being supplied wouldn't make much sense, without knowing what Jesus meant those nouns to be. 


But a solution to Jesus' elliptical word puzzle in Mat. 6:3 can be discovered in the immediate context of Jesus' presentation, back in Mat. 5:30, where Jesus previously spoke of one having a right (dexia) hand (cheir)


The reason why Dr. Bullinger refers to this kind of ellipsis in Mat. 6:3 as a relative ellipsis, is because the word needed to fill in the blank in the ellipsis/word puzzle, may be found back in Mat. 5:30, in the immediate related context. 


Mat. 5:30 (LIT/UBS4) And (kai) if (ei) the (hē) right (dexia) hand (cheir) of you (sou) scandalizes (skandalizei) you (se), cut her out (ekkopson autēn) and (kai) throw (bale) [the right hand, RE] from (apo) you (sou)!  


Because (gar), is it mutually beneficial (sumpherei) for you (soi) that (hina) one (hen) of the (tōn) members (melōn) of you (sou) may lose itself (apolētai), and (kai) not (mē) the (to) whole (holon) body (sōma) of you (sou) may go away (apelthē) into (eis) Gehenna (Geennan)?


In the biblical texts, the right hand is the hand of authority and power (Luke 20:42-43, 22:69; Eph 1:20-21) and the hand of blessing (Gen 48:14; Psa. 73:23; Isa. 41:13; Acts 3:7; Gal. 2:9).  Being on the left hand is sometimes being on the side being cursed (Mat. 25:31-46; Ecc. 10:2), but according to the texts the left hand is not always a hand of cursing. 


If a person's right hand, the hand which God is using to bless both the person as well as others, is not doing its job, not blessing but instead cursing, then it has become not only useless to the person, but to others, and to God also. 


On the face of the text Jesus seems to be saying that if anyone's right hand scandalizes him or her, that he or she should literally cut it off and throw it away.  But it is left up to everyone, for each one, to interpret Jesus' meaning for himself or herself, as it should be, as to whether Jesus spoke literally or figuratively about a hand.  But if I think about it for another minute or two, I realize that any person's hands are not self autonomous, but what they do is predetermined by the owner of those hands.  To what Jesus may be speaking about metaphorically could be about certain thinking processes and thoughts of a hand's owner,  which first predetermine what his hands may do.  And if a person's hands do a bad thing, a thing of evil, then those preceding thoughts should be "cut off", or "cut out" of a person's mind, because thoughts can be evil, and evil thoughts precede evil deeds, which are subsequently done by a person's hands.


At a glance Mat. 6:3 appears to be a wayside saying, a proverb.  On the face of this passage of Jesus' wayside saying or proverb, he appears to be speaking figuratively. 


If the word hand in Mat. 5:30 is the correct "piece" to fill in the blank of Jesus' elliptical word puzzle in Mat. 6:3, then it is upon literal of figurative meaning of the word hand in Mat. 6:3 to which Jesus, through his ellipsis, is throwing the spotlight.  The fact that Jesus stated this proverb in an ellipsis tells us that Jesus places a high level of importance on his disciples understanding the spiritual meaning and significance of this proverb.


 In Mat. 25:31-46 Jesus gives us the answer about the meaning of the left hand and the right hand.  The young goats on Jesus' left hand were unrighteousness ones, and the sheep on Jesus' right hand were righteous ones.  The righteous ones are not to tell the unrighteous ones about the merciful deeds which the righteous ones do, else the righteous ones can loose the wage or reward coming to them from the God, their heavenly Father, for doing those righteous deeds (Mat. 5:10 - 11, 44 - 48, 6:1- 21, 10:40 - 42, ).  Those wages and rewards must be fairly great, on account of Jesus chose to use an elliptical word puzzle with which to grab and focus our attention upon them (Luke 6:22 - 23).


So now with the "pieces" of Jesus' elliptical word puzzle filled in, we can see the meaning of what Jesus said in Mat. 6:1-4.


Mat. 6:2 (LIT/USB4) Therefore (oun), when perhaps (hotan) you may do (poiēs) [an] act of mercy (eleēmosunēn) do not trumpet (mē salpisēs) [it, AE] in front (emprosthen) of you (sou), as (hōsper) the (hoi) actors (hupokritai) do (poiousin) in (en) the (tais) synagogues (sunagōgais) and (kai) in (en) the (tais) lanes (rhumais);


it so being that (hopōs) they may be glorified (doxasthōsin) under (hupo) [authority, AE] of the (tōn) mortals (anthrōpōn).


Truly (amēn), I say (legō) to you (humin), they hold away from (apechousin) the (ton) wage (misthon) of them (autōn)!


Mat. 6:3 (LIT/USB4) But (de) of you (sou) doing (poiountos) [an] act of mercy (eleēmosunēn), <do not let> the (hē) left (aristera) [hand, v5:30, RE] of you (sou) know (mē gnōtō) what (ti) the (hē) right (dexia) [hand, v5:30, RE] of you (sou) does (poiei);


Jesus' teaching implies that the sheep, the righteousness ones, should not let the young goats, the unrighteousness ones, know what they are doing, because this would cause the righteous ones to lose their reward or wage, both now on earth (Mat. 6:1-5, 10:41; Luke 6:35-38; Rom. 4:8; Heb. 11:6; 1 Tim. 5:18) and in heaven at Christ Jesus' return (Mat. 5:12, 10:41-42; Luke 6:23; John 4:36; 2 John 1:8; Rev. 11:18, 22:12).


Mat. 6:4 (LIT/UBS4) it so being that (hopōs) the (hē) act of mercy (eleēmosunē) of you (sou) may be (ē) [done, v3, RE] in (en) the (tō) hidden place (kruptō).  


And (kai) the (ho) Father (patēr) of you (sou), the one (ho) looking (blepōn) in (en) to the (tō) hidden place (kruptō), he shall give away (apodōsei) [the wage, v2, RE] to you (soi).


Do you see the RE here in verse 4?  So why does Jesus want to direct the attention of his disciples to the discrete topic of God paying rewards/wages to those who do righteous works?  Please see verses Luke 6:38; John 10:9-10.


One rule I've discovered about all of the biblical writer's various usages of ellipses, is that for relative ellipses the reader must always look back through what a writer has already written, never forward, to find the word or words to fill in the blank of a subsequent ellipsis.  Yes, I understand that this statement contradicts other's beliefs about the biblical writer's cataphoric use of pronouns.  From a close examination of the texts, the reader will notice that as a rule the biblical writers most often name the person, the discrete topic, or unique event, up front in the beginning of the context of their narrative.  And then throughout the remainder of the narrative constantly refer back to that noun with the appropriate pronouns and desired ellipses. 


Seldom, if ever, have I translated passages where a writer has used a pronoun cataphorically, before stating the noun or proper noun to which it refers.  Because of this, a huge danger of looking forward in a narrative to find a pronoun's relative can easily lead a reader out of the context of a narrative and into the context of another unrelated narrative, which co-mingling of unrelated narratives and their contexts can create misunderstanding and subsequently misinterpretation.


In another example of relative ellipsis, Matthew records Jesus giving us another elliptical word puzzle in Mat. 22:12b.  The Greek text shows us:


Mat. 22:12b (LIT/UBS4) But (de) the (ho) ______ was muzzled (ephimōthē).


Again, here we have a definite article looking for a noun, which would be the subject (nominative), to present it to us, but the noun is missing.  Matthew quotes Christ Jesus deliberately leaving the subject out of his statement.  He gave us a blank instead, a part of an incomplete sentence onto which he throws a spotlight, into which we must determine what is the correct word based upon what Jesus has previously stated in the context, to fill in that blank.  This is a deliberate omission of a word in the sentence to draw our attention to the missing word itself, and since it would be the subject, then to the subject itself.  And then thereby, to draw our attention to the important truth in the context to which that particular word relates.  Here's the contextual setup which this grammatical mechanism, a relative ellipsis, presents to us:


In this next example, in Mat. 22:12b, in the parable the marriage is between the bridegroom and the bride, Christ Jesus and his one body, at his return for his one body.  If I, the reader, who may believe myself to be a born from above part of the one body of Christ, and when he comes he doesn't choose me to be taken with him, what would I say to Christ Jesus to try to persuade him to take me with him?  If he chose to leave me behind, I would be stunned, to the point of being muzzled!  What could I say?  What could you say?  That's what I believe that blank represents in Christ Jesus' parable, and his use of ellipsis!  If you're regularly receiving dreams in the night on account of your discipleship to Christ Jesus, and he is disciplining you with doctrine, reproof and correction, isn't this just like in your dreams he's giving you at night?


We can arguably determine that looking back through the immediate related context that the word mortal is very highly likely to be the correct word to fill in Jesus' elliptical word puzzle in verse 12b.


Mat. 22:12b (LIT/UBS4) But (de) the (ho) [mortal, v11, RE] was muzzled (ephimōthē)


So if Jesus is putting a high importance upon the word mortal through focusing our attention upon it through the use of an ellipsis, then who or what is that mortal to us?  Why is Jesus causing his disciples to look hard at and focus in on that word mortal, in the meaning of the context? Could that mortal be a type for us in the future, at Christ's return?  Could it be about some of Jesus' disciples, maybe us, who think we've received a new birth above in the God's gift of his holy Spirit, but we actually haven't yet?  Maybe some of us actually haven't really repented to the God about our sin, and subsequently we really haven't been clothed in righteousness yet.  Could it be that some of us are like the children in the marketplace, we're only playing at mortal-made religion rather than actually following and doing the true orthodoxy of the God, the orthodoxy which he taught Jesus Christ to teach us? 


See Mat. 7:13-15 and Jesus' parable about most of his followers being on a wide way going toward and through a wide gate leading to their own destruction, i.e., following false Christianity.


 Now that I've shown and explained to you several examples of both absolute ellipses and relative ellipses, let's examine closely a very important passage in Hebrews about what apostle Paul refers to as the new covenant Law of Belief (Rom. 3:27-28), and how the writer used a mixed batch of both AE, RE, and ER to lead a reader along with his flow of thought.  Hebrews is most likely the most difficult book to translate of the twenty-seven new testament books of the bible.  The writer, apparently for the sake of brevity, uses ellipses sometimes so often that a translator can barely follow the writers flow of thought.  However, most of the discrete topics, and the wordage used to describe them, sound very much like Paul's letters.  The style is very similar if not almost identical to Paul's style.  I believe the writer of Hebrews is Paul, writing in his later years.


Now let's examine  Heb. 1:1-4 closely, to discover how the writer chose to lead a reader along through his flow of thought.


Heb. 11:1 (LIT/UBS4)  But (de) belief (pistis) is (esti) an understanding (hupostasis) of practical issues (pragmatōn) being hoped for (elpizomenōn);


an evidential proof (elegchos) [of practical issues, ER] absolutely not (ou) being seen (blepomenōn)!


When an ellipsis appears in the same verse or sentence I don't provide a verse reference, since it's obvious.  Most of the usages of ellipsis throughout the new covenant writings are presented this way by their writers.


Here in verse 1 the RE is a little more difficult to determine, and so we must watch carefully the grammatical number of the nouns and verbs to notice the ellipsis.  If "an evidential proof (elegchos)", in the singular, is the noun which the writer was saying is "absolutely not (ou) being seen (blepomenōn)", then the genitive, neuter, plural verb blepomenōn would have been in the singular and not in the plural.  So we can see that the plural verb blepomenōn is expecting a plural antecedent.  So then, what noun in the sentence is in the plural?  It is the genitive, neuter, plural noun pragmatōn, meaning of practical issues.  "of practical issues" in the second clause is the writer's use of an Ellipsis of Repetition, which I'll explain in the next section.


The writers flow of thought, starting in Heb. 10:35, leads the reader from being encouraged to have more boldness (a discrete topic) toward God (Heb. 10:35), to needing to have more endurance (a discrete topic) (Heb. 10:36), which can be solved through having more belief (a discrete topic) toward God (Heb. 10:38), and that we are ones of belief (Heb. 10:39), which belief can resolve our needs for practical things (a discrete topic) in our lives (Heb. 11:1), into beginning to state in Heb. 11:4 how this formula worked so well for the elders of the children of Israel.


So how does the writer suggest the God shall be invited into intervening in our lives about our practical issues needs?


Heb. 11:2 (LIT/UBS4)  Because (gar) the (hoi) elders (presbuteroi) were witnessed to (emarturēthēsan) [being] in (en) this (tautē):


Heb. 11:3 (LIT/UBS4)  belief (pistei)!


The elders of the children of Israel were being in belief toward God in their hearts!  Under God's new Covenant/Law of Belief (Rom. 3:27-28) belief in a person's heart is required to receive anything form God, just like under the old Mosaic Law of Works.  But, under the old covenant salvation/wholeness was not available to be received through belief.  The promised coming redeemer, Jesus Christ, had not come yet to shed his sinless blood and die for our wholeness, but only monthly atonement for sin through the shed blood of animals was available.


You probably noticed the word "[being]" in brackets in verse 2.  It could be a to be verb ellipsis, but I believe it's more of a grammatically implied to be verb, which implied uses have been given a name, a zero copula, about which I'll explain in the section titled Implied To Be verbs - Zero Copula.


Heb. 1:3 continued...


We perceive (nooumen) the (tous) ages (aiōnas) to have been made fit (katērtisthai) [through, AE] [a] statement (rhēmati) of God (theou);


into (eis) the (to) [belief, v3, RE] of the (to) [age, RE] being seen (blepomena) not (mē) to have come to pass (gegonenai) out (ek) of shining things (phainomenōn).


From a quick brief survey of Heb. 11 a reader can see that the writer of Hebrews is about to give us a list of elders who believed God's Word.  These are ones who, through their belief in their hearts, invited the God into their lives, to work in their lives to help them with their necessary needs.  This list with explanations is intended by the writer to not only encourage us to believe, but to show us practical examples of how the elders fellowshipped with the God themselves, which examples of patterns of belief and fellowship we also can follow.


Heb. 11:4 (LIT/UBS4)  Abel (Habel) brought to (prosēnenken) the (to) God (theō) [a] greater (pleiona) sacrifice (thusian), belief (pistei), beside (para) [[a] sacrifice, ER] of Cain (Kain);


In the first part of verse 4 the writer used another ellipsis of repetition to put a spotlight on Cain's unacceptable sacrifice, a sacrifice made not out of belief.  Sacrifices, or perfunctory genuflections, not done out of belief receive nothing back from God, especially under his new covenant, the Law of Belief (Rom. 3:27-28), which covenant is based upon a believer's belief which triggers our heavenly Father's reciprocity.  Abel brought his own belief in his heart to God as a sacrifice, which was a greater sacrifice than Cain's. 


So what was wrong with Cain's sacrifice?  Was it a sacrifice done out of fear, an appeasement sacrifice?  What are we doing in our lives?  Are we doing things habitually to appease our heavenly Father, or are we doing things spontaneously out of belief and love, to please and fellowship with our heavenly Father?


You'll notice verse 3 the writer used the demonstrative "this" to point out to us exactly what the elders did to love, please and fellowship with God to receive anything from him, which was they had "belief!"  A person can walk on their knees the last mile to church, eat this but not eat that, wash their hands a thousand times, light a thousand candles, and all of that means nothing to God.  He's going about looking for "belief!" in people's hearts (John 1:23; Heb. 11:6).


through (di’) which (hēs) [belief, ER] he was witnessed (emarturēthē) to be (einai) a righteous one (dikaios), upon (epi) a witnessing (marturountos) of the (tou) God (theou) to the (tois) offerings (dōrois) of him (autou).


Here in the second half of the first sentence in verse 4, the writer again used an ellipsis of repetition to put the spotlight on, and keep the reader's minds focused upon "belief!"


And (kai) through (di’) [the sake, AE] of her (autēs), [Abel, ER] having died away (apothanōn), [the God, ER] yet speaks (eti lalei).


God yet speaks, because the record of Abel's belief is recorded for evermore by the writer Moses, in his first book of Genesis, chapter 4.


God yet speaks of Abel's acceptable sacrifice to him, which sacrifice was the belief in Abel's own heart about the God, through the writers of God's Word writing about Abel. 


- Ellipsis of Repetition (ER)


- an ellipsis of repetition, in which the omitted word or words are to be supplied by repeating them from a clause which precedes or follows." - Dr. Bullinger, E. W. Figures Of Speech Used In The Bible - Explained And Illustrated. Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1968.


Ellipsis of repetition is the most often used ellipses among the writings of the apostles and other new testament writers (Mark and Luke were disciples).  Although this section is about ER it's nearly impossible to find contexts containing multiple verses in which only one kind of ellipsis is used by its writer.  So as we go down through 1 Cor. 2:1-9 I'll explain the other kinds of ellipses as well to demonstrate apostle Paul's flow of thought.


As I've demonstrated in the two previous sections on AE  and RE, I'll point out the discrete topics and unique events which constitute the path which we are to follow in our minds as we read Paul's letter and try to follow his flow of thought.


From a survey of 1 Cor. 1 we can see that the first three verses are Paul's salutation to the believers in the area of Corinth.  I've identified for myself in 1 Cor. 1 what I believe are the logical parts of apostle Paul's flow of thought, which should flow us into chapter 2.


1 Cor. 1:1-3 - Apostle Paul's salutation to the believers in the area of Corinth.  The discrete topic is the believers in Corinth.


1 Cor. 1:4-8 - The discrete topic is the grace of the God having been given to them.


1 Cor. 1:9 - The purpose for them being called and given the grace of the God is so they can have fellowship with Christ Jesus.  Fellowship is the discrete topic.


1 Cor. 1:10 - The discrete topic now changes to schisms among them. 


1 Cor. 1:11-16 - The discrete topic of schisms broadens to include rivalries also.


1 Cor. 1:17-25 - The purpose for apostle Paul being sent to the Corinthian believers was to evangelize the wisdom of the God.  The wisdom of the God is the next discrete topic.


1 Cor. 1:26-29 - Apostle Paul next brings up the calling of God for the believers in Corinth.  The next discrete topic is the calling of the God.


1 Cor. 1:30-31 - Now that Paul has accosted their erroneous thinking which was causing schisms and rivalries, causing them to boast about following other mortals, now they should boast in the God who called them, and in his son Christ Jesus who became the wisdom of the God for them.  The discrete topic now switches back to the wisdom of the God.


So as we can see, we flow into chapter 2 with apostle Paul's spotlight shining upon the discrete topic of the wisdom of the God.  Now that apostle Paul has chastised some of the believers in the area of Corinth for their erroneous thinking, now what does he write to them to encourage them to keep on believing and fellowshipping with Christ Jesus?


1 Cor. 2:1 (LIT/UBS4) And I (kagō) having come (elthōn) to (pros) you (humas), brothers (adelphoi), I came (ēlthon) absolutely not (ou) down according to (kath’) superiority (huperochēn) of word (logou), or (ē) of wisdom (sophias), reporting down (katangellōn) to you (humin) the (to) mystery (mustērion) of the (tou) God (theou)!


Apostle Paul appears to be characterizing the wisdom from God, which Christ Jesus was caused to become for them (1 Cor. 1:30), as the mystery  of the God.  This makes the mystery of the God to be a discrete sub-topic of the wisdom of the God.  Apostle Paul appears to be starting to explain what are the component parts of the discrete topic of the wisdom of the God, the first characterizing component being that it is the mystery of the God.


So far we have:


The Wisdom of the God is:

- the mystery of the God


1 Cor. 2:2 (LIT/UBS4) Because (gar) I determined (ekrina) to have known (eidenai) absolutely not (ou) anything (ti) among (en) you (humin) if (ei) not (mē) Jesus (Iēsoun) Christ (Christon), and (kai) this (touton) [Jesus, RE] having been staked (estaurōmenon)!


1 Cor. 2:3 (LIT/UBS4) And I (kagō), in (en) [a] disability (astheneia), and (kai) in (en) fear (phobō), and (kai) in (en) much (pollō) trembling (tromō), caused myself to become (egenomēn) toward (pros) you (humas).


1 Cor. 2:4 (LIT/UBS4) And (kai) the (ho) Word (logos) of me (mou), and (kai) the (to) preaching (kērugma) of me (mou), [was] absolutely not (ouk) in (en) persuasive (piethoi) words (logois) of wisdom (sophias), BUT (all’), in (en) [an] appointment (apodeixei) of Spirit (pneumatos), and (kai) [in, ER] [a] work of inherent power (dunameōs);


Apostle Paul now gives an example of proper boasting, boasting of there being nothing great about him as a man, he even having a disability of some kind (partial blindness? 2 Cor. 12:5-10), and being full of fear and trembling on his itineraries, and that he doesn't use mortal-made wisdom and persuasive wording to make known the wisdom of the God.  But he boasts about God's Spirit in him inherently powering him through it all.


The first ellipsis I see in 1 Cor. 2 is an ER of the preposition en, meaning in.  Paul's use of an ER for the preposition in puts the spotlight on the inherent power of God's Spirit working in him, which makes the words of the Word apostle Paul evangelizes, the wisdom of the God, an appointment of Spirit, and a work of inherent power, two more discrete sub-topics and components of the wisdom of the God.


Now we have:


The Wisdom of the God is:

- the mystery of the God

- an appointment of Spirit

- a work of inherent power


So far I read apostle Paul's flow of thought as describing/characterizing the discrete topic of the wisdom of the God as being the mystery of the God, and as being a work of inherent power of the God, being energized by God's Spirit working in Paul so God's wisdom can be preached and evangelized.


1 Cor. 2:5 (LIT/UBS4) in order that (hina) the (hē) belief (pistis) of you (humōn) may not be (mē ē) in (en) wisdom (sophia) of mortals (anthrōpōn), BUT (all’), in (en) [the] inherent power (dunamei) of God (theou)!


Now apostle Paul makes a purpose statement, that the wisdom of the God which he evangelizes is an appointment of the God, and a work of inherent power of the God which they see working in and through him, which should convince the Corinthian believers to believe in the wisdom of the God instead of the wisdom of mortals.


1 Cor. 2:6 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) we speak (laloumen) wisdom (sophian) among (en) the ones (tois) complete (teleiois)


But (de) [we speak, ER] wisdom (sophian) absolutely not (ou) of the (tou) age (aiōnos) of this (toutou), but absolutely neither (oude) of the (tou) chief ones758 (archontōn) of the (tou) age (aiōnos) of this (toutou), the ones (tōn) being idled down2673 (katargoumenōn)!


In verse 6 I see an ellipsis based upon a missing verb.  Wisdom (sophian) is in the accusative, but with an apparent missing antecedent verb, "[we speak, ER]".  This ER from the previous sentence again puts the spotlight on the discrete topic of the wisdom of the God.


Dr. Bullinger states that in an ellipsis of repetition the omitted word or words are to be supplied by repeating them from a clause which precedes or follows.  But we can clearly see from the texts that the word or words which are to be supplied can, in the immediate context, come from a preceding sentence or sentences also. 


1 Cor. 2:7 (LIT/UBS4) BUT (alla), we speak (laloumen) of God’s (theou) wisdom (sophian), in (en) a mystery (mustēriō), the (tēn) [wisdom in a mystery, ER] having been hidden away (apokekrummenēn);


which (hēn) [wisdom in a mystery, ER] the (ho) God (theos) predetermined (proōrisen) before (pro) the (tōn) ages (aiōnōn) [to be] into (eis) [the] glory (doxan) of us (hēmōn);


Here in verse 7 there are two missing accusative nouns.  The second ER is necessary to remove the possible ambiguity over what the God predetermined before the ages, for the "[wisdom in a mystery, ER]" to be hidden away, or for it to be for the glorification of all believers?  Hiding something for the sake of hiding it, seems meaningless. So I believe the text supports the later purpose.  Apostle Paul shines the spotlight back onto the discrete sub-topical component of the wisdom of the God, onto it being the mystery of the God; a mystery having been hidden away for some reason, which Paul states as being for the glory of us (all believers).  The next verse states the purpose for the God hiding his wisdom in a mystery.


1 Cor. 2:8 (LIT/UBS4) which (hēn) [wisdom in a mystery ER] absolutely not one (oudeis) of the (tōn) chief ones758 (archontōn) of the (tou) age (aiōnos) of this (toutou) has known (egnōken)


Because (gar) if (ei) they knew (egnōsan) [[the] wisdom in a mystery, ER] perhaps (an) they absolutely would not have staked (ouk estaurōsan) the (ton) lord (kurion) of glory (doxēs)!


Apostle Paul uses another ER for the apparently missing noun and its antecedent article.  Paul's use of an ER here shines a powerful spotlight upon the situational context, the spiritual situation in Israel at the time of Jesus Christ's earthly ministry.  There are scattered prophecies in the old testament biblical texts about God's hidden wisdom in a mystery, but not enough collective information in those texts for anyone to connect the dots with all of them to determine their meaning with absolute certainty (Exod. 15:17; 2 Sam. 7:5-16; Psalm 118:22-23; Isa. 59:20-21, 62:8-12, 66:1-2; Ezek. 11:16-20, 36:25-27, 37:5-10, 39:17-20; Joel 2:28-29; Amos 9:11-12; Zech. 6:12-15, 8:3; John 2:18-22; Acts 7:47-50, 15:14-17; 1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; Rev. 21:3, 22). 


Paul states that if the God would not have hidden his wisdom in a mystery about the promised redeemer's whole purpose for coming into the cosmos, they would not have killed him.  I believe this deserves a little explanation before we continue.


The chief ones of the age in Israel during Jesus' earthly ministry were the religious leaders, as well as the leaders of the Roman occupation.  But it was the religious leaders, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the scribes, and most all of the top echelon of leadership in Israel who wanted Jesus Christ either destroyed or dead.


In John 8 we can see, probably more vividly than in any other gospel record, the verbal assaults, the contentions, and friction the leadership of Israel brought against Jesus, whom they believed was not the promised coming messiah, but a bastard child, and a fraud, in spite of their repeated witnessing of his signs, miracles and wonders.  You may ask yourself, how can anyone witness the greatness of Jesus' life, and all the things he did, and not wonder what's up with this guy?  The contentious relationship was not because of what was up with Jesus so much, he just trying to be the promised coming messiah.  But, what was up with the leadership that they could be so blind not to "see" Jesus?


In John 8:19-47 Jesus sums it all up for us.  Abraham may have been the physical father, according to the flesh, of the children of Israel and its leadership, but the devil, Satan, was the spiritual father of the leadership of Israel; meaning that many of the leadership had received the devil's seed, his spirit, into themselves, and that is why they refused to recognize Jesus as the promised coming messiah for Israel, and why they lied to the people about him, and why they wanted Jesus Christ dead.  Jesus Christ was a powerful threat to them, who could expose them as being false ones, actors, ones really not in God's favor.  And he did expose them many times.  Which is why they hated him even more and more.


If they would have known that Jesus Christ's shed blood and death would cause to come to pass God's promised new covenant, under which anyone among all mortalkind could believe to receive the God's gift of a new birth above in his paternal seed, his gift of holy Spirit, and then no longer be slaves to sin, and slaves to its penalty, death, and then, while still on earth before their deaths, become more than conquerors over the devil and his demon spirits (Please see all of these if you have a minute: Mat. 10:25; Acts 1:4-8; Rom. 8:9-11, 37; 1 Cor. 12:6; 2 Cor. 2:14, 13:3-5; Gal. 1:16; Eph. 1:19-20, 4:13, 6:13-18; Phil. 2:13, 4:13; Col. 1:27-29; 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:7; 1 John 4:4, 5:4-5),  the devil and his leadership puppets would never have allowed for Jesus Christ to have been killed!  The death of Jesus Christ began the countdown for the final eradication of the devil and his demon spirits.


1 Cor. 2:9 (LIT/UBS4) BUT (alla), down according to as (kathōs) it has been written (gegraptai), “Things which (ha) [an] eye (ophthalmos) absolutely did not see (ouk eiden) and (kai) [an] ear (ous) absolutely did not hear (ouk ēkousen), and (kai) [things which, ER] absolutely did not come up (ouk anebē) upon (epi) [a] heart (kardian) of [a]mortal (anthrōpou) , [are] things which (ha) the (ho) God (theos) made ready (hētoimasen) for the ones (tois) loving (agapōsin) him (auton)!”


(See Isa. 64:4)


Christ Jesus called Saul, an enemy of him on the road to Damascus one day, to be the apostle of him, to whom Jesus would begin to reveal the hidden wisdom of the God about his new covenant, God's wisdom in a mystery, which is what Paul here is writing about to the believers in the area of Corinth.


Next, beginning in 1 Cor. 2:10, apostle Paul begins to spotlight the discrete sub-topic of the wisdom of the God as an appointment of Spirit.  But this is as far as we'll go for now in this passage, which shows another good example of apostle Paul's use of ellipses to signal a reader of how to stay on the path of his flow of thought.


In this next passage, John 15:1-8, we'll examine how apostle John quoted Jesus Christ, John using various ellipses to help his readers stay on the path of Jesus' flow of thought. 


John 15:1 (LIT/UBS4) I (egō) am (eimi) the (hē) vine (ampelos), the (hē) true one (alēthinē).


And (kai) the (ho) Father (patēr) of me (mou) is (estin) the (ho) land worker (geōrgos).


John 15:2 (LIT/UBS4) Every (pan) graft (klēma) in (en) to me (emoi) not (mē) bearing (pheron) produce (karpon), he removes (airei) it (auto). 


To me it's obvious that the word "graft" in this parable means a believer who has become one with, and a part of, the one body of Christ.  A "graft" is one who has received a new birth above in the God's gift of his holy Spirit, which new birth places/grafts that believer into the one body of Christ, the true vine.


And (kai) every (pan) [graft, ER] bearing (pheron) the (to) produce (karpon), he cleanses (kathairei) it (auto), in order that (hina) it may bear (pherē) more (pleiona) produce (karpon).


Apostle John, quoting Jesus Christ, uses an ellipsis of repetition to put the spotlight on a "graft", which figuratively could be you or me, or any believer.  The God, the "land worker", will keep on cleansing every one of us from the effects and penalty of our sin if we stay into Jesus Christ.  You know the old 60's saying, "I'm really into it."  That's straight from the Koiné Greek colloquialism of being "into" something.


A "graft" which bears produce is a believer who is manifesting the God's gift of holy Spirit within him or her (1 Cor. 12), who is manifesting one or more of the nine manifestations to do good works for others, to show and deliver God's Word and love to others.  When a believer manifests God's Spirit within him or her, then that believer not only produces the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22) for others, but for that believer as well.  And both the manifestations and the fruits produced glorify God.


John 15:3 (LIT/UBS4) You (humeis) are (este) cleansed ones (katharoi) already (ēdē), through (dia), the (ton) Word (logon) which (hon) I have spoken (lelalēka) to you (humin).


(For believers be cleansed/washed in the Word of the God, see Eph. 5:26; John 13:10; 1 Cor. 6:11; Tit. 2:14; Heb. 9:14; 1 John 1:7-9; Rev. 1:5)


John 15:4 (LIT/UBS4) Stay (meinate) in (en) to me (emoi), and I (kagō) [shall stay, ER] in (en) to you (humin).


In verse 4 apostle John uses an ER to put the spotlight on our own assessment of our spiritual staying power.  How self-disciplined are we to keep on walking spiritually.  The answer to that question may be related to how well and for how long can we keep our minds focused on the things of God, especially his Word.  Jesus' conditional statement implies the wealthy nature of God's grace and reciprocity built into our heavenly Father's new covenant with us, the Law of Belief (Rom. 3:27).


Down according to as (kathōs) the (to) graft (klēma) can absolutely not inherently power itself (ou dunatai) to bear (pherein) produce (karpon) from (aph’) of itself (heautou) if perhaps (ean) it may not stay (mē menē) in (en) to the (tē) vine (ampelō), thusly (houtōs) but absolutely not (oude) [can, AE] you (humeis) [inherently power yourself to bear produce from yourself, ER] if perhaps (ean) you may not stay (mē menēte) in (en) to me (emoi)!


Apostle John puts the spotlight upon the discrete topic of God's Spirit working in believers.  What can we do of ourselves?  The who are believers, the grafts. The what is to inherently power ourselves.  The where is in our daily lives everyday.  The when is now, or at any time.  The how is us staying in Christ Jesus. 


  John 15:5 (LIT/UBS4) I (egō) am (eimi) the (hē) vine (ampelos), you (humeis) [are] the (ta) grafts (klēmata).


The (ho) [graft, RE] staying (menōn) in (en) to me (emoi), and I (kagō) in (en) to him (autō), this (houtos) [graft, RE] bears (pherei) much (polun) produce (karpon).


Because (hoti) without (chōris) me (emou) you can absolutely not inherently power yourselves (ou dunasthe) to do (poiein) absolutely not one (ouden) [work, v14:12, RE]!


In the Greek texts, as opposed to what Christianity teaches nowadays, Jesus Christ stated, several times, that he could do absolutely not one [work, v14, RE] (using the emphatic particle of negation, ou, in ouden) if it was not for the Spirit, the God, in him, working in and through him (John 14:28, 8:28, 14:10-11).  The Greek texts say that the Spirit-based being, the God, was dwelling in the soul-based being, Jesus Christ, one being living inside of another being, and it was the God doing all of the things Jesus said and did.  Please read closely in the LIT the wording of the Greek texts for (Col. 2:8-10, "...the fullness of the godliness [of God, AE] bodily."). 


Jesus Christ said he could do absolutely not one thing without God's Spirit in him, and Jesus says that we can absolutely not (using ou, the emphatic particle of negation also) inherently power ourselves to do absolutely not one work (John 15:5) without God's Spirit working in and through us.  And we must stay in Christ Jesus (i.e., believe and obey) if God's Spirit is to work in and through us also.


John 15:6 (LIT/UBS4) If perhaps1437 (ean) anyone (tis) may not stay (mē menē) in (en) to me (emoi), he is thrown (eblēthē) out (exō) as (hōs) the (to) graft (klēma).  


Grafts are supposed to produce fruit.  That's their purpose.  If a graft stops producing fruit/produce, the implication is that it will be replaced by a graft the will produce fruit/produce.


And (kai) [the graft, ER] was dried out (exēranthē).


Apostle John's ER shifts his spotlight from shining on the broader discrete topic of God's Spirit working in believers, onto a little more specific topic of the believer/graft continuing to allow God's Spirit to work in it.  The graft itself is now upon who Jesus' focuses. 


A graft/disciple of Jesus Christ which stops producing fruit is "dried out", i.e., God's Spirit can no longer work in and through that disciple.  This can be for a number of reasons, but mostly because of a habitual sin of some kind has occurred in the life of a disciple.  Constant demon spirit attacks can sometimes weaken a disciple, more or less experienced, for a moment.  Jesus Christ personally will address it with that disciple, usually through warnings and instructions in dreams at night, but through other means as well, Word of knowledge, Word of wisdom, and discerning of spirits during the days (1 Cor. 12).  And when that disciple has risen back up again in knowledge and belief in his or her heart, to the point of once again being a believable disciple, that disciple will be grafted back in as a graft which is expected to produce fruit once again. 


One of the major types in God's Word for a disciple who has momentarily lost his or her spiritual footing on the path, is that they've allowed their house, i.e., their mind, to become unclean to some extent, and the God can't remain living in that house until it gets itself cleaned up and back in order.  Jesus' cleansing of the temple is that great type and example for us (Mat. 21:12-13), the physical temple being the type for our own house, our own being.  We're expected to keep our own house/temple of God, clean enough for him to live in it.


Its totally unrealistic, and contrary to the scriptural evidence in the texts, to expect that once a disciple becomes a disciple of Christ Jesus, that he or she from that moment on is going to walk a perfect spiritual walk.  We learn to walk spiritually like we learned to walk physically from a baby, through falling down and picking ourselves back up and trying it again, until we get it right.  Scripturally this is referred to as spiritual growth, and we grow until we become "...into (eis) a complete (teleion) male (andra), into (eis) [the] measure (metron) of the (tou) fullness (plērōmatos) of maturity (hēlikias) of the (tou) Christ (Christou); ..." (Eph. 4:13).  It's up to each believer as to how fast he or she desires to grow (Mat. 7:7), or whether he or she desires to grow at all, but remain a perpetual baby disciple, producing no fruit/produce.


And (kai) they bring them together (sunagousin auta), and (kai) they throw (ballousin) [the grafts, ER] into (eis) the (to) fire (pur).  


And (kai) [the graft, ER] is burned (kaietai).


The "fire" is the possible public humiliation among the body of believers, which humiliation for failure, "burns" for awhile.  There should be no condemnation among believers for one another falling at various times, but love and compassion should be extended by all to assist and encourage believers as they try to stand again.  This process is what makes grafts stronger and more mature over time.


John 15:7 (LIT/UBS4) If perhaps1437 (ean) you may stay (meinēte) in (en) to me (emoi), and (kai) the (ta) statements (rhēmata) of me (mou) may stay (meinē) in (en) to you (humin), cause yourselves to request (aitēsasthe) if perhaps (ean) whatever (ho) you may desire (thelēte), and (kai) [whatever, RE] shall cause itself to come to pass (genēsetai) for you (humin),


Now Jesus Christ shifts his spotlight to shine upon the discrete topic of the God paying wages and rewards.  The God is very wealthy in his grace to believers under authority of his new covenant through Jesus' shed blood and death.  Jesus taught this in the context of Mat. 7:7, and the apostle John presents this topic abundantly in several chapters of his letter to the believers.


Apostle John uses his ER to draw our attention to that it can be whatever we may desire!  Of all of you here who literally believe Jesus' statement, let's see a show of hands.  If you see a hand raised rather hesitantly, then you can see that that graft/believer has some growth to do about the level of conviction and belief in their own heart over the Truth and veracity of the God's Word, and trust in Jesus to tell the Truth.  If the God is temporarily not living in his "house", his new temple, you, then those requests are not going to be answered with anything.  But in this case you should be believing, asking, and thanking the Father and Christ Jesus to teach you how to continue to grow and recover from a stumble.  That prayer will be answered very swiftly.


John 15:8 (LIT/UBS4) (in (en) this (toutō) the (ho) Father (patēr) of me (mou) [is] glorified (edoxasthē)),


in order that (hina) you may bear (pherēte) much (polun) produce (karpon), and (kai) you may cause yourselves to become (genēsthe) disciples (mathētai) to me (emoi)! 


When God's children are glorified, then the God is glorified, because the glorification of his children is a witness to the greatness of God's love and grace which he is giving to them, thanks to Christ Jesus putting through the new covenant for his Father and us.


So, how much fruit/produce are we bearing for our heavenly Father and others (Gal. 5:22-25)?