Ten years ago, Ronald D. Peters published _The Greek Article_ (Brill, 2014), in which he proposed the novel theory that the Greek article “functions as a reduced form of the relative pronoun” (3) in the Koine period by the time of the NT (69). Daniel B. Wallace wrote a very negative review of this monograph, and then Peters followed with a rejoinder plus a short essay, where he further refined his view. Nothing more on Peters’s understanding appeared until two recent commentaries on the Pastorals approvingly cite him. Both Porter and Pao seem to adopt Peters’s theory in their analysis of Paul’s grammar. In my paper (which is a follow-up to my “Negation and Ellipsis” in 2022), I will examine numerous passages in the Pastorals where Peters, Porter, and Pao have actually misunderstood the Apostle’s syntax. Besides the simple copula (ἐστί or εἰσί), other forms of εἰμί can be omitted. As an example, let us consider the very familiar phrase Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (Matt 6:9). Even though the Greek article here is often translated into English with a relative clause, “Our Father, who is in heaven” (NASB, 2020 ed.), there is no relative clause in the Greek, since there is no finite verb. Instead of the Greek article ὁ functioning as a relative pronoun, I argue that the present participle of ὤν has been omitted: Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ [ὢν] ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (“Our Father, the One [being] in heaven”). Oftentimes the familiar forms of εἰμί are left unexpressed, since they are so easily understood to be inherently present in the syntax. And these “invisible” forms of εἰμί include the participle. In 1 Tim 4:8, we find the phrase ζωῆς τῆς νῦν. Under the influence of Peters, Pao argues that this τῆς “functions as a relative pronoun,” and he specifically cites Peters here. So ζωῆς τῆς νῦν means the “life which is now” or the “life that is now.” But I argue that the adverb νῦν directly modifies the unexpressed participle οὔσης, so that the entire participial phrase modifies the noun ζωῆς. In this way, νῦν still functions as an adverb modifying an adjectival (attributive) participle rather than directly modifying the noun ζωῆς, as if νῦν were an adjective. This “invisible” but understood participle οὔσης parallels the visible participle μελλούσης: ἡ δὲ εὐσέβεια . . . ἐπαγγελίαν ἔχουσα ζωῆς τῆς [οὔσης] νῦν καὶ τῆς μελλούσης (“godliness . . . holding a promise of life, the one [being] now and the one going to come”). Contrary to both Peters and Pao, the Greek article τῆς here does not function like a relative pronoun. Likewise, Porter cites Peters in his explanation of the syntax in μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος (1 Tim 4:14). But instead of the article τοῦ functioning like a relative pronoun (“Do not neglect the gift which is in you”), the participle ὄντος must be supplied: μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ [ὄντος] ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος (“Do not neglect the gift [being] in you”). I discuss several other passages.