The Narrow Path Ministries

Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς Αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

Why do you suppose God chose to use a subjunctive for apollumi and echo? Why not use a indicative? apollumi = he/she/it will not be destroyed and echo = he/she/it has, as opposed to: he/she/it may not be destroyed and he/she/it may have. These verbs are obviously in reference to the "one who is trusting" πιστεύων.

Also in verse 15 echo is a subjunctive instead of an indicative, what gives?

Sorry...I have to...

That's all Greek to me.

Ben, I had posted a different message here, one that wasn't very supportive. I apologize to anyone who read it, and especially to Ben for doubting his humility in asking his question.

Ben, you stated in another thread that those who study the Bible only in English would not receive your ridicule, but would be considered by you to only have "milk" for spiritual nourishment. You said that the Greek text is the "meat." Speaking as a person who only knows one language, English, that kind of hurts, and was the reason for my initial sarcastic posting. Again, my apologies.

I hope another Greek scholar comes along to discuss your question and you find a suitable solution. God bless.

MichelleM wrote:Ben, I had posted a different message here, one that wasn't very supportive. I apologize to anyone who read it, and especially to Ben for doubting his humility in asking his question.

I never saw it. I always wondered why some verses use "may" for truths that are suppose to be concrete and now that I have a little knowledge of the original language I can better ask the question. For example, in John 3:16 it states, "Thus for God loved the world/order so he gave the only son in order for the one who is trusting in Him he may not be destroyed, but he may have life eternal." The subjunctives are those phrases with "may" in it. A subjunctive is something that can express a possibility and probability. In John 3:16 you can see how the subjunctives are used by expressing a possibility that the person "may have" eternal life and "may not" be destroyed.

My question is why that is? Why does it not read "the one who is trusting in Him, he will not be destroyed, but he has life eternal." If it read like that, the verse would use indicative verbs which express factual information rather than possibilities.

Ben, you stated in another thread that those who study the Bible only in English would not receive your ridicule, but would be considered by you to only have "milk" for spiritual nourishment. You said that the Greek text is the "meat." Speaking as a person who only knows one language, English, that kind of hurts, and was the reason for my initial sarcastic posting. Again, my apologies.

If I didn't think the original language had anything to offer, I probably wouldn't ever speak about it, because I know it can look arrogant even when it is not intentioned to. I made that post and I continue to talk about what I've learned thus far in the original language in hopes of encouraging others to learn Greek. A man at my church was always anxious to share what he was learning, and it stimulated me to learn Greek for which I am thankful for. In that other post I used the word 'ridicule', but in my head I was thinking 'criticize'.

Some people look down on others for using any other translation than the KJV, and others may look down upon those who aren't willing to learn Greek, but all those issues are amoral. I understand people have difficulties with time and other factors that lead them to only read the English Bible, and that's fine, but I know the language in which it was penned is 'meatier' than any interpretation.

Benzoic:

Why do you suppose God chose to use a subjunctive for apollumi and echo? Why not use a indicative?

I'm not sure that God chose to use a subjunctive, but John the apostle used it, probably because it is correct grammar, and the King James translators used an English subjunctive for the same reason. This question is simply a grammatical question.

Many modern people omit the subjunctive mood altogether in their speech and writing, and substitute a simple future in the indicative. But the subjunctive mood was used up to about 1950 or so. It is difficult to find a grammar book which deals at any length with the subjunctive in English. Many people are not even aware that it exists, and I myself have only partial knowledge of the English forms of the subjuntive.

The fact that "may" and "might" have both a subjunctive use and a non-subjuctive meaning further confuses the matter. Consider this conversation between John and Joe:

John notices Joe heating iron in the physics lab.
John: Joe, why are you heating that piece of iron?
Joe: I am heating it so that it may expand.
John: May expand? There's no "may" about it. If you heat it, it will expand!
Joe: John! After "so that" one uses the subjunctive mood in English. It is grammatically incorrect to say, "I'm heating the metal so that it will expand." When you object to my using "may", you are thinking of the "possibility may". I was using the "subjunctive may.

Examples:
1. Possibility "may"

Sam said, "I may go to town today."
Sam is not sure whether or not he'll go to town today. He hasn't decided yet.

2. Possibility "might"
Much the same meaning. Sam said, "I might go to town today."

3. Subjunctive "may"
I am studying hard so that I may pass the exam.
Often the main clause (in the case "I am studying hard") states a necessary condition in order that the statement of the other clause "I may pass the exam" may come to be true.

Sometimes when the subjuctive is used after "that" or "so that", when the condition stated in the main clause is not a necessary condition.

Sometimes the statement of the main clause is both a necessary and sufficient condition in order that the statement in the other clause come to be true. An example of this would be the one mentioned above concerning the heating of the iron. It is necessary to heat iron so that it may expand, and it is a sufficient condition to make it expand.

The use of the subjunctive in itself does not indicate whether the main clause describes a necessary condition, or both an necessary and sufficient condition, or neither.

4. Subjunctive "might"

John proposed to Xenia so that she might marry him.
This is not the "possibility might" This is not a statment that Xenia might marry John, or she might not. Rather it is the "subjuctive might".

God ... sent His only-begotten Son that whoever believes in him might not perish but have aeonian life.

Again this is not the "possibility might". If John has meant that he would have written something like, "God sent His only-begotten Son. Whoever believes in Him might not perish but have aeonian life." That would be a completely different meaning.

The King James uses "should not perish", another form of the subjunctive. It means the same as "might not perish" when used in the subjunctive mood.

We Christians believe that the sending of God's Son coupled with our believing in Him (I know there is disagreement about what "believing in Him" means --- but that's another issue we won't discuss right now), is a necessary and sufficient condition for having aeonian life. We know it is not a "possibility might" that is being used here, but a "subjunctive might". The subjunctive mood is a grammatical matter and is unrelated to how certain the truth of the second clause is, if the stated condition of the main clause if fulfilled.

how about David's: " thy word have i hid in my heart, that I MIGHT not sin against thee." sounds like a subjunctive might, although originally it wasnt greek. just another example of english subjunctive "might."

TK