To know/understand
Reading a lexicon entry
What this page is: Each lexicon entry shows the original Hebrew or Greek word behind the English translation: its meaning, its range of use, and where it appears in Scripture.
Strong's number: The Strong's code (H- or G-) is the standard reference number for this word. It connects this entry to chapter and passage language tabs.
Where it appears: The witness passages show where this word is used in context. Click any to open the study page for that passage.
This lexicon entry is part of our ongoing editorial review. If you notice missing content, unclear wording, or a possible correction, please send us a note through theConnect page. Screenshots are helpful.
G1987, epistamai, is a Greek verb for knowing, understanding, or being acquainted with someone or something. Its fourteen direct New Testament uses concern recognized facts, personal conduct, public events, practical familiarity, and the limits of human knowledge.
Reader summary
Full entry for ἐπίσταμαι (G1987) · Open the biblical lexicon
G1987, epistamai, is a Greek verb for knowing, understanding, or being acquainted with someone or something. Its fourteen direct New Testament uses concern recognized facts, personal conduct, public events, practical familiarity, and the limits of human knowledge.
The BSB source-word alignment has 14 aligned rows for this entry. Common renderings include know (3), [and] understands (1), [though] he knew (1), do not even know (1), I know about (1).
The source-word alignment first shows this entry at Mark 14:68. Its strongest book concentrations include Acts (9), 1 Timothy (1), Hebrews (1), James (1).
G1987, epistamai, is a Greek verb for knowing, understanding, or being acquainted with someone or something. Its fourteen direct New Testament uses concern recognized facts, personal conduct, public events, practical familiarity, and the limits of human knowledge. In Acts, speakers repeatedly appeal to what hearers know: Peter addresses a shared social practice, Paul points elders to the life they observed, and he tells Agrippa that the events surrounding Jesus were not hidden in a corner. Apollos knows the way of the Lord and teaches accurately, yet his knowledge is incomplete because he knows only John's baptism before Priscilla and Aquila explain the way more accurately.
The verb can also expose false or denied knowledge. Peter says he does not know or understand what is being said while denying Jesus. A conceited teacher in 1 Timothy understands nothing despite an appetite for disputes. Jude contrasts slander of what people do not understand with instinctive knowledge that does not make them wise. James reminds planners that they do not know what tomorrow will bring, and Hebrews commends Abraham for obeying without knowing his destination.
G1987 therefore does not describe omniscience, private spiritual superiority, or saving knowledge by itself. The object, speaker, evidence, and moral setting determine whether the knowledge is truthful, partial, denied, presumed, or absent. Faithful teaching honors real understanding while leaving room for correction, testimony, uncertainty, and obedient trust.
G1987 names knowledge or understanding that may be observed, partial, public, denied, presumed, or absent. Its contexts test not only what a person knows but whether that knowledge is truthful, humble, and responsibly used.
But he denied it. “I do not know or even understand what you are talking about,” he said. Then he went out to the gateway, and the rooster crowed.
Peter denies both knowledge and understanding while distancing himself from Jesus. The verb serves the narrative of failed witness, not an abstract discussion of cognition.
He had been instructed in the way of the Lord and was fervent in spirit. He spoke and taught accurately about Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
Apollos possesses real instruction and zeal, yet the object of his knowledge is limited. The following correction shows that genuine knowledge can remain teachable and become more accurate.
When they came to him, he said, “You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I arrived in the province of Asia.
Paul appeals to the elders' sustained observation of his conduct. Their knowledge is relational and evidentiary, grounded in a shared history rather than a private claim to authority.
For the king knows about these matters, and I can speak freely to him. I am confident that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.
Paul treats the events under discussion as publicly knowable and familiar to Agrippa. Familiarity creates accountability, though the verse does not equate awareness with faith.
He is conceited and understands nothing. Instead, he has an unhealthy interest in controversies and disputes about words, out of which come envy, strife, abusive talk, evil suspicions,
The disputed teacher's confidence masks an absence of understanding, and the resulting relational fruit exposes the problem. Argumentative intensity is not evidence of knowledge.
By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, without knowing where he was going.
Abraham's obedience proceeds without full knowledge of the destination. The verse honors trust in God's call without praising ignorance or rejecting the knowledge God has given.
You do not even know what will happen tomorrow! What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.
James exposes the limits beneath confident planning. Not knowing tomorrow calls for humble dependence on the Lord, not passivity toward present duties.
BSB source-word alignment connects this entry to exact verse rows, English rendering, source form, transliteration, and parsing.
How English Renders ItA compact distribution from source-word alignment before the full evidence tables.
Greek word. to know/understand
(prob. an old mid, of ἐφίστημι, which see), [in LXX chiefly for יָדַע ;] to know, know of, understand: with accusative of person(s), Act.19:15; with ptcp., Act.24:10; with accusative of thing(s), Mrk.14:68, Act.18:25, 1Ti.6:4, Jas.4:14, Ju 10; before περί, Act.26:26; ὅτι, Act.15:7 19:25 22:19; ὡς, Act.10:28; πῶς, Act.20:18; ποῦ, Heb.11:8. SYN: γινώσκω (which see), οἶδα
Textus Receptus witness, full corpusGreek token appearances from Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus in the full New Testament corpus.
14 Greek text appearances shown. Linked morphology labels have verse guides.
I know, understand
Read verseI know, understand
Read verseI know, understand
Read verseI know, understand
Read verseI know, understand
Read verseI know, understand
Read verseI know, understand
Read verseI know, understand
Read verseI know, understand
Read verseI know, understand
Read verseI know, understand
Read verseI know, understand
Read verseI know, understand
Read verseI know, understand
Read verseFull New Testament corpus: 260 chapters, 7,957 verses, 140,628 tokens. Data source: honza/textus-receptus (data only), with authority check against byztxt/greektext-textus-receptus.
How this verb appears across 14 occurrences in the NT discourse index (MACULA Greek SBLGNT).
Aspect reflects grammatical form — not authorial emphasis. Participles and infinitives are verbal adjectives and nouns respectively.
Clause data: MACULA Greek (Clear Bible, CC BY 4.0) · SBLGNT (Logos/SBL, CC BY 4.0)
ἐπίσταμαι is built from these roots:
G1987 shows that knowledge has objects, limits, witnesses, and moral consequences. Apollos knows much that is true and teaches with fervor, but his understanding is incomplete. Because he receives fuller instruction, limited knowledge becomes an occasion for growth rather than shame. Paul appeals to knowledge rooted in observable life and public events: the Ephesian elders know how he lived, and Agrippa knows the matters under discussion.
That kind of knowledge can support accountable testimony, but awareness alone is not conversion. Other texts expose knowledge's failures. Peter denies what he knows when fear governs him. The conceited teacher of 1 Timothy understands nothing even while generating controversy, so verbal intensity cannot substitute for truth and godly fruit. James and Hebrews give a constructive account of limits.
Believers do not know tomorrow, and Abraham obeys without knowing his destination, yet neither text celebrates ignorance. They call for humble dependence on the God who speaks truthfully. Teachers can therefore commend study, evidence, and clarity while making room for correction and confessed uncertainty. G1987 invites the church to ask not merely whether people sound informed, but whether their knowledge is true, accountable, humble, and obedient.
Acts.18.25
G1987 appears in present middle-form morphology with varied complements: people know that, how, where, a person, a matter, or nothing. Negation and the object of knowing are therefore essential to interpretation; the lemma alone does not state whether knowledge is complete or faithful.
Across Scripture, knowing is both gift and responsibility: God's people receive revelation, remember His works, and remain creatures who do not control tomorrow. The New Testament uses G1987 within that wider pattern without making it a direct lexical equivalent of every Hebrew knowledge term.