“Might” have eternal life?

In our weekly Greek class, we’ve been learning the basic mood known as the “indicative.” It is the most common verbal mood and deals with what is real, taking the form of either a statement or a question. Other Greek moods include the subjunctive (a probability), imperative (a command), and optative (a wish).
In a sense, the subjunctive mood is one step removed from reality, and often deals with what “might” or “could” to be. Sometimes, it deals with probability. But not always.
We haven’t gotten to the subjunctive mood yet in Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek yet (see ch. 31), but a student raised an interesting question last night about might/should/will in John 3:16 and our promise of everlasting life.
Greek: “μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ ̓ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.”
NASB: “shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
ESV: “should not perish, but have eternal life.”
Is there some uncertainty here? No. Apparently, the subjunctive mood was used by John out of grammatical necessity. The subjunctive is used simply because it follows the conjunction ἵνα, “in order that”. Mounce explains this use on p. 293:

31.13.  1. ἵνα and the subjunctive. ἵνα is almost always followed by the subjunctive and can indicate purpose.

Here’s a more in-depth explanation from Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 474:

3) Subjunctive mood used in a Purpose-Result Ἳνα Clause
Not only is ἵνα used for result in the NT, but also for purpose-result. That is, it indicates both the intention and its sure accomplishment. BAGD point out in this connection: “In many cases purpose and result cannot be clearly differentiated, and hence ἵνα is used for the result which follows according to the purpose of the subj[ect] or of God. As in Jewish and pagan thought, purpose and result are identical in declarations of the divine will.” Likewise, Moule points out that “the Semitic mind was notoriously unwilling to draw a sharp dividing-line between purpose and consequence.” In other words, the NT writers employ the language to reflect their theology: what God purposes is what happens and, consequently, ἵνα is used to express both the divine purpose and the result.
This probably does not represent a change in syntax from classical to Koine, but a change in subject matter. It is, of course, possible to treat each of these examples as simply purpose ἵνα clauses in which there is evidently no doubt about the accomplishment from the speaker’s viewpoint. Hence, in order that is an acceptable gloss.
Jn. 3:16 τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ ̓ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον
He gave his only Son, in order that everyone who believes in him should not perish but should have eternal life.
The fact that the subjunctive is all but required after ἴνα does not, of course, argue for uncertainty as to the fate of the believer. This fact is obvious, not from this text, but from the use of of οὐ μή in John 10:28 and 11:26, as well as the general theological contours of the gospel of John.

So, there you have it. By using ἵνα + the subjunctive mood, the Apostle John says that both the original purpose and the accomplished result of our faith in Christ is rescue from death and the gift of life! Eternal life is not just a possibility. It is an absolute certainty for those who believe.

When weak becomes strong

Two of the most common "adversative" or "negative" conjunctions in Greek are δέ (de), and ἀλλὰ (alla). δέ is the weaker of the two, and can be translated either "and" or "but" depending on the context. ἀλλὰ, on the other hand, is a stronger contrast. Of the 628 times it appears in the New Testament, only once is it translated "and," and in this instance, it still carries an adversative idea (Mt. 18:30). The vast majority of the time, it is translated "but" or "yet."

In the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus contrasts the external rules of the Jewish tradition with the internal laws of His Messianic kingdom, I naturally expected Jesus to choose the strong adversative ἀλλὰ. But this isn't the case! In all six instances, He actually chooses the weaker conjunction δέ:

Matthew 5:22 But I tell you,     ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν

Matthew 5:28 But I tell you,     ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν

Matthew 5:32 But I tell you,     ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν

Matthew 5:34 But I tell you,     ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν

Matthew 5:39 But I tell you,     ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν

Matthew 5:44 But I tell you,     ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν

Why didn’t Jesus use the stronger ἀλλὰ to show the sharp contrast between the Jewish traditions and His own teaching? Perhaps it's because contrast has already been supplied by the pronoun ἐγὼ, which is emphatic. Lit., He says, “But I Myself tell you.” Leon Morris writes,

“[Jesus] uses the emphatic ἐγώ. France comments, “This is not a new contribution to exegetical debate, but a definitive declaration of the will of God. It demands (and receives, 7:28–29) the response, ‘Who is this?’ Thus this passage contributes another aspect to the presentation of Jesus as the Messiah which is Matthew’s overriding purpose.”

I suspect that in this case, using the stronger adversative conjunction ἀλλὰ may have actually stolen emphasis away from the pronoun, where Jesus wanted all His shock and emphasis to land. So Jesus instead chose a weaker conjunction and put all the emphasis squarely on the pronoun ἐγὼ. He says, "It is I alone, and not the tradition of the elders, who will instruct you in God's Law."

A new authority had arrived in town. His name was Jesus, and He was singlehandedly overturning centuries of oral tradition with one sermon.

Greek & Hebrew alphabet songs

When I took beginning Greek, our "alphabet song" was sung by Bill Mounce to the whimsical tune "Shortnin' Bread." My how things have changed!

Here are two new tunes to learn the Greek and Hebrew alphabets by...

Greek is heartless

Heb hop

HT: Justin Taylor

Which came first -- the love or the forgiveness?

I recently received this question about Luke 7:47 from a student in our Greek class,

I know this is a bit beyond where we're at but its there away to tell from the Greek if her love or being forgiven came first? "Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."

There are a few questions that may help us answer this question:

1. What are the verb tenses? Do these tip us off to the timing?
2. What is the meaning of the conjunction "for"?
3. What seems to be the logic of Jesus' statement?

To answer question 1, we would definitely be getting ahead of ourselves in our Greek class, but the short answer is - there is nothing I can see that dictates that love came after or before the forgiveness. "Loved" is a simple, aorist verb that is undefined in time; it is just a generic past tense idea.

Regarding question 2, the Greek word is "oti" (or "hoti" with the rough breathing mark). Mounce defines this conjunction as "that, since, because." This might suggest the woman was forgiven BECAUSE she loved God so much. Most translations simply say "for."

However, notice these two translations:

Holman Christian Standard Bible Luke 7:47 Therefore I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; THAT'S WHY she loved much. But the one who is forgiven little, loves little.

NET Bible Luke 7:47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which were many, are forgiven, THUS she loved much; but the one who is forgiven little loves little.

These two translations see her love as the RESULT rather than the CAUSE. This is one legitimate use of "hoti." Daniel Wallace in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics says this about result conjunctions: "This use gives the outcome or consequence of an action. The focus is on the outcome of the action rather than on its intention. Major conjunctions used this way are: ὥστε, ὡς, ὅτι, and less frequently, ἵνα. This use can be translated that, so that, or with the result that. By far the most common is ὥστε."

When we come to question 3 (Jesus' logic), I think the idea clearly is that the woman kissed and anointed Jesus' feet BECAUSE she loved Him so much, and she loved Him so much BECAUSE she knew her many sins had been forgiven by God.

Thus, from both a logical and a grammatical standpoint, it seems best to see love as the result to forgiveness. May all of us be equally grateful to Christ for the forgiveness He bought for us with His blood.

Book review: Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar

Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar by William Mounce is the best beginning Biblical Greek grammar available today.

After introducing the Greek alphabet and word structure, Mounce helps students gain a solid control of Greek nouns (ch. 5-14). He then moves on to indicative mood verbs (chs. 15-25) followed by participles, non-indicative mood, and other troublesome verbs (chs. 26-35). The appendix itself, full of charts and paradigms, is worth its weight in gold.

I'm currently teaching a beginning Greek class with about 15 lay people at our church using the 2nd edition textbook. Mounce is such a clear teacher that any student with self-discipline could actually teach himself the language. Using Mounce's Greek Workbook and Flachcards (each sold separately), you can practice exercises and review vocabulary that reinforce each chapter. The author also provides an alternate track for those who want to introduce verbs earlier in the learning process. Other benefits include a CD-ROM, links to Mounce's website, and cross references to his Morphology book and Wallace's intermediate Grammar for those who want to dig deeper into the language. If there are any drawbacks, it would be an underemphasis on accenting and linguistics.

Please note: there is now a Third Edition of this text available as of December 2009. You will have to decide if you want to buy the second or third edition. The third edition employs more white space in the margins, new pictures, color shades, and book dimensions that are about 30% larger. It now looks more like a Jr. or Sr. High language textbook. The new book also has the benefit of laying open flat on your desk without pages being tempted to flip closed. Apart from the new "look" and size and a few new features, content in the 3rd edition is largely unchanged from the second edition. To learn about the specific differences between the second and third edition, click here.