I want to continue hearing with faith¹ the truth of the Gospel in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, but first I need to record the new covenant sermon that is still coming to fruition within me.

The 4^th chapter of 1 John followed the 3^rd: “The interlinear English/Greek New Testament keyed to the Greek text of the KJV, NA²⁸ and the Koine Greek Lexicon were all open on my phone.” I had made it through, checking verbs mostly, and a few other parts of speech if a particular question came to mind. We had reached the end of the sermon and the last verse of the chapter (1 John 4:21 ESV).

And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

I’m not entirely sure why I bothered to look it up: commandment, must…love. Obviously the verb was in the imperative mood.

The imperative mood is a command or instruction given to the hearer, charging the hearer to carry out or perform a certain action.²

I recalled “This multiplexing of truth,” particularly “the Greek verbs in Galatians 5 (στήκετε,²⁴ δουλεύετε,²⁵ βλέπετε,²⁶ περιπατεῖτε²⁷) which might be understood in either the indicative or imperative moods.”³ But even as I searched the Greek Lexicon I was unsure what to make of it if I discovered that ἀγαπᾷ (ESV: must…love) was another one of those multiplexed verbs that might also be understood in the indicative mood.

The indicative mood is a statement of fact or an actual occurrence from the writer’s or speaker’s perspective…It may be action occurring in past, present, or future time.⁴

When I found ἀγαπᾷ in the lexicon, I thought I had the wrong word. I had selected ἀγαπᾷ from the interlinear English/Greek New Testament (INT: should love), the received text. Perhaps, the critical text had a different “better” word. But, no, NA²⁸ had ἀγαπᾷ, too. I recalled that the Textus Receptus Bibles online had no accent marks. Perhaps the original Greek was αγαπα rather than ἀγαπᾷ.

And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God you (singular) must also love his brother.

That didn’t make much sense. It had to be a 3^rd person singular verb. But a verb in the present tense and indicative mood seemed so problematic that I began to suspect that the editor of the Koine Greek Lexicon had made a mistake, listing a multiplexed verb (both imperative and indicative) as if it were in the indicative mood only. I mean, commandment (τὴν ἐντολὴν) is clearly right there in the text! Then the lightning flashed.

John’s and the Holy Spirit’s meaning was clear as day: the new covenant. In the new covenant a commandment is a fact, a promise to, and a truth of the new human (τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον) created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness:⁵ it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God:⁶ for it is God who works in [the new human], both to will and to work for [God’s] good pleasure.⁷

All my religious training, however, is designed to discount, doubt or dispute those flashes of insight from the Holy Spirit. And there is that other matter of the English translation of the New Testament. As I scanned the list of translations on Bible Hub, one from Aramaic rather than from Greek stood out (1 John 4:21 Lamsa Bible).

And this commandment we have from him, That he who loves God loves his brother also.

There were two other translations near the bottom of the list translated from Greek (1 John 4:21 Godbey New Testament and Worrell New Testament):

And we have this precept from him, that the one loving God with divine love also loves his brother with divine love.

And this commandment we have from Him, that he who loves God loves his brother also.

Since none of these translations is likely to carry much weight in the religious circles in which I travel, I’ll take the long way round. But first, a confession: As I sit at home with my laptop (and easy access to my notes), I realize I have looked up ἀγαπᾷ before, and did not recall it.

I didn’t know yet that the Greek word translated should love was ἀγαπᾷ, a form of ἀγαπάω in the indicative mood, another statement of fact. The commandment (τὴν ἐντολὴν) we have from him is apparently of the—And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light¹¹—variety.⁸

Though my failing memory is a continual source of embarrassment, that seemingly forgotten insight probably paved the way for the flash of understanding that came six months later, when I was so absolutely convinced that ἀγαπᾷ must be in the imperative mood. There are twelve occurrences of ἀγαπᾷ in the New Testament (see table below). Only one was translated must love in the ESV. The other eleven were translated loves, the ordinary expectation of a 3^rd person singular form of the verb to love in the indicative mood and present tense in contemporary English. But the “long way round” was not as long as I had anticipated (1 John 5:1 ESV):

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves (ἀγαπᾷ) whoever⁹ has been born of him.

The Greek is: Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων, Everyone who believes, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς, that Jesus is the Christ, ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται, of God has been born (or “out of God has been born and continues to be such”¹⁰). Here is the creation of that new human (τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον) created (κτισθέντα, a participle of κτίζω) after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.¹¹ John continued: καὶ πᾶς, and everyone, ὁ ἀγαπῶν, who loves, τὸν γεννήσαντα, the Father, ἀγαπᾷ, loves, καὶ τὸν, whoever (KJV: him also), γεγεννημένον¹² ἐξ αὐτοῦ, has been born of him (KJV: that is begotten of him).

Now I can piece together what happened to me at the end of that sermon: God the Father, God the Son through God the indwelling Holy Spirit, knowing I had all but forgotten what He taught me in February, knowing that the sermon would end one verse before 1 John 5:1, prompted me to look up the Greek verb ἀγαπᾷ contrary to my own inclination since I already knew (erroneously) it must be in the imperative mood. As I puzzled over why it was not in the imperative mood, his insight flashed vividly in my heart, mind, soul. Though my religion inclines me to distrust his vivid flashes of insight, the next verse, which I was otherwise inclined to avoid, agrees with the content of his vivid flash of insight.

According to the Koine Greek Lexicon online, ἀγαπάτω is the 3^rd person singular form of ἀγαπάω in the active voice, present tense and imperative mood.¹³ In a footnote (55) the NET translators explained why they understood the one who loves God should love his fellow Christian too as a commandment to be obeyed by the one who loves God:

The ἵνα (hina) clause in 4:21 could be giving (1) the purpose or (2) the result of the commandment mentioned in the first half of the verse, but if it does, the author nowhere specifies what the commandment consists of [see Matthew 22:34-40]. It makes better sense to understand this ἵνα clause as (3) epexegetical to the pronoun ταύτην (tautēn) at the beginning of 4:21 and thus explaining what the commandment consists of: “that the one who loves God should love his brother also.”

Microsoft copilot answered my request for “the two greatest commandments” correctly:

The two greatest commandments are:
1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
These commandments summarize the essence of the Law and the Prophets, as taught by Jesus in the New Testament (Matthew 22:37-40).

Be that as it may, a promise in Greek (ἀγαπᾷ in the indicative mood rather than ἀγαπάτω in the imperative mood) was transformed into a rule in the English translation because ἀγαπᾷ was joined by the conjunction ἵνα (translated as a colon in the ESV) to ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν (ESV: this commandment). 1 John isn’t taught in Greek philosophy courses but in churches. English translations of 1 John are shaped by this usage. Does any Pastor want to stand in front of his congregation and say, “If you do not love the one born of God, you are not born of God, because one born of God loves God and the one born of God”? A Pastor prefers to say, “You are born of God; act like it: love the one born of God.” And I can be very double-minded about this, or perhaps I should say multiplexed.

My gut instinct or the philosophical bent of my mind¹⁴ says, “Tell us the truth.” But my own experience was completely different. I wore myself out being perfected by the flesh¹⁵ as I attempted to love like God by transforming Paul’s description of love into rules I obeyed (or disobeyed) in the flesh. But it worked in the sense that after that incrementally better colossal failure, I was more than ready to hear an alternative from Paul and Jesus and John and God the Father through the indwelling Holy Spirit and the written word of God.

Ephesians isn’t taught in Greek philosophy courses either. When I discovered that ὄντας is a plural participle of εἰμί in the present tense—“you are dead”—rather than the past tense—you were dead¹⁶—I could begin to unravel two multiplexed truths. At issue was how to understand the dative case in the first verse of Ephesians 2: And you are dead in the trespasses and sins or “by means of your trespasses and sins” or “to your trespasses and sins.” These three options ultimately resolved to two: “by means of (in) your trespasses and sins” and “to your trespasses and sins.”

As I wrote regarding Colossians 1:21-23, “It’s not too difficult to see why one might prefer to understand this as a contrast between one’s past and present,” likewise it is not too difficult to grasp why pastors and Bible translators would prefer to translate ὄντας were. Hopefully, its not too difficult to understand why the philosophical bent of my mind prefers to grapple with the multiplexed truths of ὄντας translated literally.

Paul continued (Ephesians 2:11-13 ESV):

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at¹⁷ that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

The Greek is: Διὸ μνημονεύετε, Therefore remember. This might be a command—Therefore you must remember—or it might be a statement of fact—Therefore (this is why) you remember—relative to all that has been written previously, specifically all that had transpired in his readers’ lives. And though I would have understood the ESV translation remember as a command previously, a deliberate choice of the imperative mood, now I wonder if it is a placeholder pointing to these dual possibilities: the Greek μνημονεύετε might be understood in the imperative mood as a command to the lawless and disobedient (the old human), or in the indicative mood as a fact of, and a promise to, the just (the new human).

The clause continued: ὅτι ποτὲ, that at one time, ὑμεῖς τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί, you Gentiles in the flesh (or, “you, the Gentiles by means of the flesh”). Here in as ESV-speak for “by means of” seems reinforced. Paul’s readers are Gentiles by means of the flesh, their descent from non-Jews, rather than their membership in a “Gentile club.” But there is some multiplexing apparent as well: by means of the flesh these Gentiles’ bodies are host (1 Corinthians 15:45-49; John 3:6-8) to the old human (τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον) which belongs to [their] former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires,¹⁸ as evidenced by the trespasses and sins [Table] in which [they] once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience (or “by means of the sons of disbelief”).¹⁹

Paul continued in the second half of verse 11 of Ephesians 2: οἱ λεγόμενοι, called (or “those called”), ἀκροβυστία, “the uncircumcision” (literally, “foreskin”), ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης by what is called (or “by those called”), περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου, the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands (or, the circumcision “by means of flesh made by hand”). Circumcision is regarded here as the living symbol of the foolishness of being perfected by the flesh.²⁰ The translators do a fairly good job of conveying what is not quite disdain for his own people and heritage (Philippians 3:2-11 ESV) though it could be taken that way spoken by someone other than Paul (Romans 9:1-8 ESV): Rather, they convey Paul’s recognition of the greater value of the power of the indwelling Spirit of Christ: It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life,²¹ as Jesus said.

Paul continued: ὅτι, remember that (literally, “that” or “since”), ἦτε, you were, τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ, at that time (or “by means of that time”). The received texts (Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text) had εν preceding the phrase τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ (KJV: at that time). The critical texts (NET Parallel Greek text and NA²⁸) did not. I use the NET Parallel Greek text as a proxy for NA²⁷. Here, the critical texts agree.

In 1 John 5:1 (footnote 9), however, they do not: NA²⁸ agrees with the received texts that καὶ (KJV: also) is original and belongs in the text. The NET Parallel Greek text (my proxy for NA²⁷) disagrees. In other words, this is documentary evidence that at one point in time the latest and greatest research of the critical text of the New Testament indicated that καὶ was an unwarranted addition to the original text and it was removed from the Greek text of 1 John 5:1 that translators use to translate the New Testament into English (or any other language).Then at another later time the latest and greatest research of the critical text of the New Testament indicated that καὶ is original and it was placed back into the Greek text again, in agreement with the received texts. But wait for it: NA²⁹ is coming soon.

Textus Receptus Bibles online²² has several different older Greek texts to compare and contrast to the critical text of the moment. And as you begin to look into it, you’ll find that they mostly compare. Maurice Robinson, one of the editors of the Byzantine Majority Text, appeared as a panelist in at least two videos produced by the Textural Confidence Collective or Mark Ward. In a video titled Do Westcott & Hort Rule New Testament Textural Criticism?, responding to a request to summarize the Byzantine Priority, Mr. Robinson acknowledged:

What is the Byzantine Priority? It’s a name that Pierpont and I made up…because the name that was being used before was Majority Text. But as Gordon Fee had complained, “Majority Text means that all you’re doing is counting noses.” And, well, we weren’t doing that. The truth is that most variant units, where there is textual variation, the majority of manuscripts tends to be one way or the other. That’s why it was called the Majority Text. But in certain places the majority splits. In some places we even, actually in our edition, favor…a reading that has less than the actual numerical majority…So Byzantine Priority means the Byzantine, in our view, was the one that was considered the text from which the other text types or clusters derived over time.

Given my current kick of understanding the dative case instrumentally, “by means of” (if that seems even remotely possible), whether εν precedes τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ or not is irrelevant to me. Understanding these two phrases instrumentally—“you, the Gentiles by means of the flesh” and “by means of that time” (before Christ was revealed to them, before they received Him and were born from above)—I hear Paul echoing the truth Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him,²³ You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires,²⁴ even as he lays the groundwork for the concepts he will coin later in this letter: the old human (τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον) and the new human (τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον).

Therefore remember that at one time you, the Gentiles by means of the flesh, those called foreskin by those called the circumcision (by means of flesh made by hand) since you were by means of that time χωρὶς Χριστοῦ, separated from Christ (or “apart from Christ”), ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι, alienated (or “had become an outsider”), τῆς πολιτείας τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ, from the commonwealth of Israel (or “of citizenship of Israel”), καὶ ξένοι, and strangers, τῶν διαθηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, to the covenants of promise, ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες, having no hope, καὶ ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, and without God in the world (or “and godless by means of the world”).

It is worth pointing out that the words τῶν διαθηκῶν (the covenants) are plural. These Gentiles were strangers to both covenants of promise, old and new. Though Israel…pursued a law that would lead to righteousness,²⁵ the covenant in which that law was given is a covenant of promise. But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises [Table]. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.²⁶

Also, Paul did not say that the Gentiles had believed the wrong stories about God or worshiped the wrong god or gods. He said, by means of the world they were godless, without any god at all. What do I imply then? Paul wrote elsewhere. That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer²⁷ to demons and not to God [Table].²⁸

Paul continued: νυνὶ δὲ, But now, ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, in Christ Jesus (or “by means of Christ Jesus”), ὑμεῖς οἵ ποτε ὄντες μακρὰν, you who once were far off (or “you, who at any time—by means of the flesh, by means of that time—are²⁹ far off,”), ἐγενήθητε ἐγγὺς, have been brought near (or “have come into existence near at hand”), ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, by the blood of Christ (or “by means of the bloodshed of Christ” or “by means of Christ’s bloodshed”).

The old human (τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον) which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires³⁰ remains as far off as it ever was, despite being hosted in the same body (John 3:5; Romans 7:21-25) as the new human (τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον) created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.³¹ This new human (τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον) has “come into existence near at hand by means of Christ’s bloodshed,” rather than the blood of Christ. The emphasis is on Jesus’ obedience not a magical object: And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.³²

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ³³ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is,³⁴ he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin³⁵ by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so³⁶ Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.³⁷

The truth to be hearing with faith³⁸ is: Therefore remember that at one time you, the Gentiles by means of the flesh, those called foreskin by those called the circumcision (by means of flesh made by hand) since you were by means of that time apart from Christ, had become an outsider of citizenship of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope, and godless by means of the world. But now by means of Christ Jesus you, who at any time [by means of the flesh, by means of that time] are far off, have come into existence near at hand by means of Christ’s bloodshed.

I’ll pick this up in another essay.

The Lexicon³⁹ my Pastor uses listed ἀγαπᾷ as a verb in the subjunctive mood. I was curious if the Literal Standard Version and Young’s Literal Translation consistently translated ἀγαπᾷ in the subjunctive mood. These versions are related apparently.

I can begin to hear the subjunctive mood here as a technicality of Greek grammar: If anyone may love Me (John 14:23) is the antecedent of a conditional statement rather than a standalone fact. But the translators exercise quite a bit of discretion since even the conditional statements of Scripture are factual in their entirety: and if anyone loves God, this one has been known by Him (1 Corinthians 8:3). Now that I’m hearing the subjunctive mood if anyone may love God, this one has been known by Him is an even clearer statement that loving God is the effect or result of being known by Him (Romans 7:1-6) through his indwelling Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-24). Anyone who is not known (Matthew 7:21-23) by God, does not love Him, modus tollens.

I’m not sure why Mr. Young added an archaic 3^rd person singular form of to do in the present tense to ἀγαπᾷ. I thought, perhaps it was to distinguish the verb from the identical English noun, but doth chasten (Hebrews 12:6) seems to deny that possibility. Still, doth love functions like loves in the indicative mood as a statement of fact.

Tables comparing 1 John 5:1; Ephesians 2:12; Hebrews 9:24; 9:26 and 9:28 in the KJV and NET follow.