He is Favored 8

The People of Elohim

The Greek word "λαός" (laos, Strong's number 2992) and its Hebrew counterpart "עַם" ('am, Strong's number 5971) convey not only a collective sense of peoplehood but also carry a profound prophetic aspect of unity and cohesion. Both terms, extensively utilized throughout their respective scriptures, depict a people bound together by shared identity, heritage, and destiny.

In the prophetic context, "λαός" and "עַם" ('am) signify not merely a disparate group but a unified entity, chosen and called by a higher purpose. This unity is not only historical but also anticipates a future culmination in which the (thoroughly) scattered and diverse will be brought together in divine unity. Such prophetic connotations are particularly evident in passages foretelling the gathering and restoration of God's people, reflecting a vision of harmony and solidarity under the divine word. 

Thus, the correspondence between "λαός" and "עַם" ('am) underscores the prophetic continuity between the Hebrew texts and New Testament, portraying "the People" as more than a mere aggregation but as a divinely ordained brotherhood, family—the Elohim—mighty, lofty ones intricately bound together in purpose and destiny. 

The word "ἐπαυτοφώρῳ" (epautophōrō) occurs only once here in the NT. Generally when a special word shows up in the NT there is a really good reason for it. 

1. "ἐπί" (epi): A preposition meaning "upon" or "in."

2. "αὐτόφωρος" (autopōros): An adjective derived from "αὐτό" (auto), meaning "self," and "φωρός" (phōros), meaning "watching" or "observation." "ἐπαυτοφώρῳ" (epautophōrō) functions as an adverbial form of "αὐτόφωρος" (autopōros).

So, "ἐπαυτοφώρῳ" (epautophōrō) means "upon being self caught" or "self revealed."

(cf. LSJ αὐτοφώρατος)

The literal translations of "ἐπαυτοφώρῳ" (epautophōrō) are:

1. Upon self-observation.
2. Caught by oneself.
3. Self-caught.
4. Caught in the act by oneself.
5. Caught red-handed by oneself.

To Cast a Foundation Stone

Strongs NT 361 "ἀναμάρτητος" (anamartétos) is composed of "ἀ" (alpha) as a negative prefix and "ἁμαρτάνω" (hamartanó), meaning "to miss the mark" or "to sin." The literal translation of "ἁμαρτάνω" (hamartanó) is understood literally as "to miss" or "to err," and thus "ἀναμάρτητος" (anamartétos) is rendered as "un-missing" or "not missing the mark." This highlights the concept of what it means to be "faultless" or "unerring", emphasizing the idea of hitting the target "eye" to achieve completion.

Missing the bullseye therefore, means the Whole is in error, and "in the transgression".

Found a stone upon her. There is quite the mix up of grammar among the variety of manuscripts with this verse. The early, authoritative copies (cf. Nestle 1904, also evidenced in the Textus Receptus) has:

Ὁ ἀναμάρτητος ὑμῶν πρῶτος τὸν λίθον ἐπ’ αὐτῇ βαλέτω

Literal Translation:

• • Ὁ ἀναμάρτητος ὑμῶν πρῶτος: "The sinless one of you first/the first sinless one of you"
  • τὸν λίθον (ton lithon): "The Stone" (accusative singular, definite article + noun, specifying "the stone").
  • ἐπ’ αὐτῇ (ep’ autē): "Upon her" (ἐπί + dative feminine pronoun αὐτή, indicating target or location, "on her").
  • βαλέτω: "Let him cast."

Literal: "The sinless one of you first the stone upon her let him cast."

The reading changes dramatically from the accusative sense used in other manuscripts (cast a stone at her) to the dative (cast/place a stone on her), depending on which one you choose.

The accusative must be present for the sense of "throw at":

"with acc. of person or thing aimed at, throw so as to hit, hit with a missile,"

(cf. LSJ A.I βάλλω)

With the dative, it takes a different sense of throwing or shooting with:

"c. dat., of the weapon, throw or shoot with a thing"

(cf. LSJ A.II)

A Dative Meaning, Upon Herself

The middle form of βάλλω, beyond its core sense of “to throw,” acquires a range of metaphorical/idiomatic meanings. When βάλλομαι is used in the middle voice with the metaphorical meaning “to lay upon oneself” or “to internalize” (e.g., thoughts, plans, emotions), it is often followed by dative constructions—especially datives of location or instrument—and also by prepositional phrases expressing mental or internal domains. The middle voice is inferred from context.

Of particular note is its use in the sense “to lay as a foundation” or “to begin to construct.” This occurs, for example, in Pindar, Pyth. 7.3 (κρηπῖδα βαλέσθαι, “to lay the base/foundation”) and Plato, Laws 779b (οἰκοδομίας βάλλεσθαι, “to lay the foundation of a building”). The verb here carries the extended metaphor of initiating or establishing something substantial, whether physical or institutional. Similar usage appears in Lucian, Hippias 4, and in Polybius (χαράκα βάλλεσθαι, “to lay out a trench”), as well as in Philostratus (ἱερὸν βάλλεσθαι, “to found a temple”). Thus, βάλλεσθαι can denote not just physical casting but the act of founding, building, or inaugurating.

(cf. LSJ B.4)

The First Sinless One. Grammatically, the phrase ὁ ἀναμάρτητος πρῶτος (nominative masculine singular) is composed of two adjectives functioning together in an attributive construction: ὁ (definite article) + ἀναμάρτητος (“sinless”) + πρῶτος (“first”). Both adjectives agree in case, gender, and number and together modify an implied noun (e.g., “man” or “one”), yielding the literal meaning “the first sinless one.” This structure follows standard Greek syntax in which multiple adjectives governed by a single article may serve jointly to substantivize the phrase. Compare constructions such as ὁ σοφὸς πλούσιος (“the wise rich man”) or ὁ καλὸς νέος (“the handsome young man”).

In the NT, the nominative πρῶτος (prōtos) is very frequently used to express "the first person," and in particular, "the first foundation stone" of Revelation 21:19.

Among other narratives, this correlates to Jacob [Heel] and Esau [Prepared], twin brothers born one against one. Manifesting the dual nature of the heavenly ones. The heavenly one goes out from the greater, older, and sojourns back around to the smaller, younger one, until "face to face" with himself.

The Woman

According to the older, more reliable manuscripts, there is a definite article attached to the word "woman" meaning "the Woman". The bad habit of downplaying the woman by those men in charge of handling the transmission of the letters, thinking that the definite article shouldn't be a part of a vocative statement when speaking to a "sinful harlot woman," likely led to later copies removing the definite article altogether, giving the words a more condescending effect, when they should be uplifting.

"ἀνακύψας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ μηδένα θεασάμενος πλὴν τὴς γυναικὸς, εἶπεν αὐτῇ, Ἡ γυνὴ, ποῦ εἰσιν ἐκεῖνοι οἱ κατήγοροί σου; οὐδείς σε κατέκρινεν;"

John 8:10 Greek NT: Nestle 1904

This "calling out" to "the Woman" or shall we say, "THE woman", is done elsewhere such as in Matthew 15:28.

The Eternal Now

John 8:11 

Greek NT: Westcott and Hort 1881 ἡ δὲ εἶπεν Οὐδείς, κύριε. εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω· πορεύου, ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε.

Some manuscripts omit this clause likely because of the confusing nature of it: "away from the Now". What sense does it make to put a definite article "the" with the word "now" or the use of the preposition "away from"?

Seen in the light of the target of the eternal, it makes perfect sense. The center bullseye is "now". The center of cyclical time would be a definitive, specific "Now" and not merely one of many indefinite "moments". 

Greek πατήρ, a father. There is no definite article present here, thus it is not rendered "the Father."

Greek τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅ τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν. 

"Τὴν ἀρχὴν" (Tēn archēn): "The beginning" or "The Origin." There is no "from" preposition here and it is in the accusative, hence "The beginning/origin." It escaped notice, being a hidden mystery, that the Genesis 1 beginning "In the Head" was a "someone".

The difference between ὅ τι (two words, meaning "what" or "whatever") and ὅτι (one word, meaning "that") shifts the sense slightly. With ὅτι, the phrase suggests a statement or explanation, like "The beginning is that I also speak to you" or "That I speak to you is the beginning." It has therefore caused no small amount of confusion among scholars.

That he should say something like "What I also speak to you" or "what I have been speaking" in answer to a simple question is quite the pointless answer, and even makes him sound incapable of explaining.

• "ὅτι" (oti):  "that".
• "καὶ" (kai): The conjunction "also/and/even"
• "λαλῶ" (lalō): "to utter, chatter"
• "ὑμῖν" (hymin): The second person plural pronoun "you all/yourselves" in the dative case.

speaking the father. "the father" is in the accusative case meaning it is the direct object of the verb "he was saying".

The construction τὸν Πατέρα ἔλεγεν is not a periphrasis for “he was speaking about the Father” (which would require a preposition like περὶ or ἕνεκα with the genitive or dative). Instead, it reflects the double accusative construction typical of verbs of naming, calling, or designating.

The words spoken, from the standpoint of cyclical time, mean the son and the father both speak each other into reality—words realized. They bear witness to each other. Two. And where within time they are realized, matters not to chronological understanding, because they are realized from within the center to the outer "broadway" or "circuit" of time, wherever they purpose to.

"He will turn the heart of the fathers toward the [same] heart of the sons" (Malachi 4:6)

Greek πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ, those who trusted to self. This is one rare time the preposition "into" or "within" is absent. Instead, we have a dative "to self"

The Irony

The phrase τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου (John 8:44) is traditionally rendered “[your] father, the devil”, taking both nouns as referring to a single person in apposition. However, grammatically, the construction permits an alternative reading: “the father of the accuser.” In this interpretation, τοῦ διαβόλου functions not appositively but as a possessive genitive dependent on τοῦ πατρός, yielding a syntactic structure akin to “the father belonging to the devil” or more idiomatically “the devil’s father.”

While such a reading is non-traditional, it is grammatically legitimate. In Classical and Koine Greek, possessive genitives of this type are common, and article repetition (τοῦ... τοῦ...) does not preclude a genitive relationship; it may simply mark specificity or emphasis. Thus, though the interpretive tradition overwhelmingly steers the text to the appositional reading, the phrase is structurally ambiguous and, under a strictly grammatical lens, can be taken as “the father of the accuser.”

So, what does the context support?

ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ. The word "αὐτοῦ" (autoû) is a masculine form in ancient Greek. It is the genitive singular form of the pronoun "αὐτός" (autós), which means "he," "himself," or "it." This form indicates possession or association with a masculine noun or pronoun. It is modified in this case by ψεύστης "liar" which is a masculine noun, and not neuter.

"A liar" is not an "it". Himself being the liar, he is not the father of "it" but of "himself", the liar. The great irony here is that this text has apparently always been represented deceptively to the world as "father of lies." 

A few translations tried to be honest, but they didn't want to be too honest:

• "because he is a liar—also his father." (LSV)
• "for he is a liar, and its father." (New Heart English)
• "he is a liar, and the father of it." (Websters)
• "he speaketh, because he is a liar -- also his father." (Young's Literal Translation)
• "or he is a liar and its father" (Darby)
• "for he is a liar, and the father thereof" (RSV)
• "For he is a lyer, and the father of the same thyng" (Bishops Bible of 1568)

The only woman to have translated the Bible into English, Julia E. Smith, as it happens, gave the world the most accurate, honest translation there was:

"for he is a liar, and the father of him." (Smith's Literal Translation, 1876)

Smith's translation was perhaps the most honest of all translations ever done. But the multitudes never read or studied her translation or other literal translations. Julia's translation was not read or studied by many due to it being written by a woman in the 1850s, and not published until 21 years after she finished it. Although her "strictly literal rendering" still missed "the Mark", to her credit, she attempted to give the most honest renderings, notably with the distinguishing of the Hebrew incomplete and complete:

"And the heavens and the earth shall be completed, and all their army. And God will complete in the seventh day his work which he made, and he will rest in the seventh day from all his works which God formed to make." (Genesis 11:1-2 Smith's Literal)

So not having much opportunity to see the literal, accurate words, what did the multitudes study, memorize, and put their trust in?

In the last few centuries it was the King James "Authorized" Version:

• "for he is a liar, and the father of it" (KJV)

In the last couple of generations:

• "he is a liar, and the father of lies."  (NASB)
• "for he is a liar and the father of lies." (NIV)
• "for he is a liar and the father of lies." (New Living Translation)
• "for he is a liar and the father of lies." (ESV)

Greek πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

γενέσθαι, "to become" is in the infinitive, not past tense. Thus a rendering "before Abraham becoming" rather than "became". But together with "I AM" it lends to the three-part saying "who was, who is, and is coming"