ἦν (en) in John 1:40: Verb Third Person Singular Imperfect Active Indicative

Verb: the form names an action or state, and here it expresses the simple existence or identity idea of the lemma. In this verse it functions as the clause's main finite verb.

Imperfect: presents the action from a past viewpoint, often with ongoing or repeated force. It is not merely an English past tense label.

Active: presents the subject as doing or carrying the action.

Indicative: presents the verbal idea as an assertion or statement in the clause.

Third person: the form speaks about someone or something rather than directly as I/we or you.

Not applicable: this verb form is not using noun case to mark its sentence role.

Singular: the form is grammatically singular, matching a single subject in the clause. Here it agrees with the singular subject Andrew in the surrounding sentence.

Not applicable: this verb form does not use grammatical gender to make its point.

Ἀνδρέας ὁ ἀδελφὸς Σίμωνος Πέτρου

The verb is governed by the singular subject phrase that follows it, which identifies Andrew as the one being spoken about. The imperfect form presents that identification as part of the narrative background.

It serves as the main copular or existential verb for the sentence, introducing Andrew and locating him in the flow of the narrative. The wording says who Andrew was, not yet what action he is doing in this moment.

It does not by itself name Andrew's character, rank, or moral status, and it does not change the surrounding nouns into a different meaning. The form also does not require a special theological emphasis beyond the sentence context.

Moderate: The verb introduces Andrew in the narrative and gives identity context without carrying the main theological force of the passage.

Third-person singular imperfect active indicative of the being verb. introduces Andrew by identity and relation before the narrative continues. Attached to Andrew as the subject being identified. Governed by the subject phrase naming Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. The form gives background identity rather than a hidden doctrinal claim.

Who is being introduced in this verse? Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.

Direct: The form directly supports a simple past rendering such as "was" in the identity statement.

The imperfect frames background identity and should not be pressed into a theological argument. The singular form agrees with Andrew as the person being identified. The family relation comes from the noun phrase, not from the verb alone.

Imperfect tense adds hidden significance: Here the imperfect functions in an identity statement and should be read as narrative background. being verb is meaningless filler: The verb links the subject to the identity phrase and gives the sentence its structure.

The witness reads ἦν at the start of John 1:40 in the TR Scrivener 1894 tradition, and the nearby phrase names Andrew as the subject that follows.

The lemma εἰμι normally serves as a being or existence verb, often functioning like English 'to be' or 'was' depending on context. The lexicon note warns that emphatic existence is only one use among several.

The imperfect tense supports a past, narrated setting, so the clause naturally reads as background identification: Andrew was the brother of Simon Peter and one of the two who had heard and followed Jesus through John's testimony.

The grammar helps the reader hear the sentence as an introductory description of Andrew, not as the main event of the verse. It frames his identity before the narrative continues.

Within the broader Gospel, the form fits ordinary narrative introduction and does not need to carry special doctrinal weight. It simply supports the way the text tells who Andrew is in relation to Simon Peter and the earlier discipleship scene.

In translation and teaching, the form is best rendered with a simple past copula or existential sense such as 'was.' That keeps the focus on the sentence's identifying function.

Do not infer that the verb alone proves emphasis, timeless existence, or a distinct theological formula. Do not press imperfect aspect beyond the conservative sense that the clause is set in past narrative context.