Grace Theological Journal 7.1 (1986) 3-19.
[Copyright © 1986 Grace
Theological Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally prepared for use at
THE
CLASSIFICATION OF
SUBJUNCTIVES: A STATISTICAL
STUDY*
JAMES L. BOYER
Besides providing statistical information not easily
available else-
where and offering supporting elements within each classified
use,
this study seeks to explore two related subjects which are
clarified by
this inductive study. They are (1) the parallel between the i!na + sub-
junctive construction and the infinitive, and (2) the occurrence of
future indicatives in many instances where aorist subjunctives
might
have appeared. Both of these are significant to the exegete.
*
* *
INTRODUCTION
IT
is not within the intended scope of this article to deal with the
theoretical question of the primary significance of
the subjunctive
mood or with the question of its historical origin
and development. I
begin with the basic understanding that the
subjunctive mood ex-
presses some doubtfulness, contingency, or
uncertainty by reason of
futurity. My purpose is to classify the various
constructions in which
*Informational materials and
listings generated in the preparation of this study
may be found in my "Supplemental Manual of
Information: Subjunctive Verbs." Those
interested may secure this manual through their
local library by interlibrary loan from
the Morgan Library, Grace Theological Seminary,
IN 46590. Also available is "Supplemental
Manual of Information: Infinitive Verbs."
This
augments my article "The Classification of Infinitives: A Statistical
Study" GTJ 6
(1985)
3-27. I plan to prepare other supplemental manuals as time permits, beginning
with one on participles.
This study is one of several
published in GTJ on related aspects of the grammar of
the Greek NT: (1) "Project Gramcord:
A Report" (1 [1980] 97-99); (2) "First Class
Conditions:
What Do They Mean?" (2 [1981] 75-114); (3) "Second Class Conditions
in New Testament Greek" (3 [1982] 81-88); (4)
"Third (and Fourth) Class Conditions"
(3
[1982] 163-75); (5) "Other Conditional Elements in New Testament
Greek" (4 [1983]
173-88);
(6) "The Classification of Participles: A Statistical Study" (5 [1984]
163-79);
and (7) "The Classification of Infinitives: A
Statistical Study" (6 [1985] 3-27).
4
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
the subjunctive appears in the Greek NT, providing
statistical informa-
tion about these structures
in general, and about many of the elements
which appear in them. The system of classification is
the traditional
one found in most grammars.
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN INDEPENDENT
CLAUSES
Hortatory Subjunctive
Usually named first of these
independent or main verb uses of
the subjunctive is the hortatory subjunctive, in
which "the speaker
is exhorting others to join him in the doing of an
action",l as in
I
John 4:7: ]Agaphtoi<,
a]gapw?men a]llh<louj / 'Beloved, let us love
one another’.2 Thus it serves to supply
the deficiency of the imperative
mood which like English has no first person forms.3
It is almost
always in the plural (66 of 69 occurrences); the three
exceptions seem
to express a slightly different sense. Rather than
an exhortation ad-
dressed to self there is an invitation to
someone else to permit the
speaker to do something, as in Luke
a@fej
e]kba<lw
to> ka<rfoj to> e]n t&? o]fqalm&? sou / 'Brother, let me
take out the speck that is in your eye'. The other
example of a first
person singular is Acts 7:34, with similar meaning.
The example just given also
illustrates another frequent char-
acteristic of the hortatory
subjunctive: the use of an introductory
imperatival word immediately before the subjunctive.
The words so
used in the NT (and their frequencies) are a@fej (3), a@fete
(1), deu?te
(3),
and deu?ro (1).4 The
first two are aorist imperatives but function
as mere hortatory particles. The last two are
adverbial particles, with
the ending inflected as if to show their
imperatival nature. All four
function elsewhere as equivalents of a full
imperative.5
Deliberative
Subjunctive
The subjunctive is also used in
deliberative questions, in which a
person asks himself or another what he is to do,6
as in Matt 6:31 ti<
1 H. P. V. Nunn, A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek (
University, 1951) 82.
2 Unless stated otherwise
the translation of biblical examples is from NASB.
3 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of
Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934) 93.
4 This usage also
characterized this construction in classical Greek, using a@ge, fe<re
or deu?ro. It continues in modern Greek in a@j (shortened from a@fej).
5 BAGD,
125, 176.
6 Nigel Turner, Syntax, vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek by J. H.
Moulton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963) 98.
BOYER: THE
CLASSIFICATION OF SUBJUNCTIVES 5
fa<gwmen / 'What shall we eat?'
Not all examples are deliberative,
however, and BDF expands the title to "the
Doubtful [Dubitative] or
Deliberative
Subjunctive7 (cf. Matt
you escape?'). The use of the subjunctive in these
sentences points to
the doubtful, hesitating quality of subjective
consideration.
Normally questions in the subjunctive use first
person, singular
or plural (57 of 102), but when these questions
are quoted indirectly
the first person may change to second or third.
Even beyond this
there are a few instances where the deliberation is
not with one's self,
but advice is being asked from another party. Mark
swmai; / 'What shall I ask
for?') does not mean that Herodias
is
deliberating with herself--rather
she is asking her mother's advice.
Matt
27:22 is a similar case.
These may be simple questions or
introduced by an interrogative
pronoun or adverb, such as ti< (54), ti<j (1), pw?j; (18), pou? (6), o!pou
(2),
po<qen
(1), and poi<oj (1). Five times the
indirect question is pre-
ceded by the substantivizing
article.
The deliberative question (as the
hortatory subjunctive) may be
preceded by an introductory word, i.e., qe<leij,
qe<lete, or bou<lesqe
(as in classical). If these are thought of as proper verbs
the subjunctive
clause then would be an object clause replacing the
frequent infinitive
object. But the absence of a conjunction and the
parallel with the
introductory hortatory particles
make it at least possible to consider
these as compressed, deliberative, double questions,
as in Matt 20:32
ti<
qe<lete poih<sw u[mi?n / 'What do you want?
What shall I do for
you?'8 (In 1 Cor
sentence as two questions.)
There are other ways to express the deliberative
question. (1) The
future indicative is used, as in Luke
Luke
11:5 the future indicative is used first,. followed by two sub-
junctives, each connected with
the future indicative by kai<. (2) Even
the present indicative is used, as in John 11:45.
(3) A paraphrastic
a construction using dei? or
du<namai plus an infinitive may also be used,
as in Matt
Aorist Prohibition
Strange as it may seem to the beginning Greek
student, the use
of the subjunctive instead of the imperative in
aorist prohibitions is
native to Greek from earliest times. Robertson says,
"It seems clear
7 BDF, 185.
8 My translation; NASB renders this subjunctive as if it were an infinitive object
clause: 'What do you wish me to do for you?'
6
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
that originally both in Sanskrit and Greek
prohibition was expressed
only by the subj. Hence the growth of the imperative
never finally
displaced it.”9 In the NT as in
classical Greek these negative com-
mands are almost always in
the subjunctive mood when they use the
aorist tense. The exceptions are few10 and
there seems to be no clear
difference in sense. All of them are third person,
but there are also 6
examples where third person aorist prohibitions
are in the subjunctive
mood.
Since these subjunctives are substitutes for the
imperative, a con-
sideration of them will be
included in a later study of that mood.
Here
it may be sufficient to point out that they sometimes occur with
an introductory o!ra or o!rate, as in classical and parallel to intro-
ductory words with hortatory
and deliberative subjunctives. The
prohibition is introduced by mh< or one of its
compounds.
Emphatic Future Negation
The sense of this construction is clear; the
most emphatic way to
say that something shall not happen in the future
is to use ou]
mh< with
the subjunctive mood. But it is not so clear by
what process this
construction arose, nor why it means
what it does. The subjunctive
does not naturally express such certainty, and the
doubling of the
simple negative might seem to make an affirmative, but
the case is
not so simple. The grammarians review the theories
with varying
conclusions.11 I prefer to think of it as a form of litotes;
i.e., the
second negative (mh<) negates the
subjunctive verb and together they
express a doubtful idea; the first negative (ou]) negates the doubtful
clause introduced by mh<. As a whole the clause
communicates that
"there is no doubt about it; it is not an uncertain
matter."
The first negative in two instances is a
strengthened form of ou]
(ou]xi<, Luke
ou]de< (Luke
This category of subjunctive use is not limited
to the independent
or main clause classification. It may appear
anywhere an indicative
might appear, in o!ti substantive clauses
(11), in relative clauses (9), or
in object clauses (1). In Mark 13:2 it occurs both
in the main clause
and in the subordinate relative clause.
9 Robertson, Grammar, 841.
10 There are 8 aorist imperatives with mh< as compared with 88
subjunctives. One is
in Matt 6:3; the other 7 are in 3 parallel
passages of the synoptic gospels, Matt 24: 17-
18
= Mark
11 Cf. Robertson, Grammar, 929; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, vol. I of A Gram-
mar of NT Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906) 188ff.
BOYER: THE CLASSIFICATION OF SUBJUNCTIVES 7
Not strictly within the present scope of study
but closely related
to a major item to be dealt with later is the
occurrence of this con-
struction with the future
indicative instead of the subjunctive.12
Doubtful Assertion or
Cautious Statement
Is the subjunctive ever used in the New Testament
to express
doubtful assertion--what we express in English by
"I may do it"? It
would seem to be a natural sense; but the answer is
not clear. Classical
Greek
grammars speak of such a use; for example, "the present sub-
junctive with mh< may express a doubtful
assertion, with mh<
ou] a
doubtful negation."13 Turner says
it is "rare in the NT" and cites
three possible examples. Matt 25:9 has a variant
reading mh<pote ou]k
a]rke<s^ which then could be
read 'Perhaps there might not be suf-
ficient for us and you'. The
edited text has instead the ou]
mh< + sub-
junctive construction, 'No,
there will not be enough for us and you
too'. The second example is 1 Thess
5:15 which seems most naturally
to be a simple prohibitive subjunctive, 'See that
no one repays another
with evil for evil'. If it is indeed a subjunctive
of cautious statement
the meaning might be, 'Look, someone might repay
with evil', a
rather unlikely choice. The third example is 2 Tim
difficult sentence: mh<pote dw<^ au]toi?j o[ qeo>j meta<noian / 'if perhaps
God
may grant them repentance'. This translation in NASB could be
proper for a subjunctive of cautious statement, but NASB marginal
note points to Acts
structure is entirely different. Turner translates
the phrase 'perhaps
God
will give'. BAGD makes it elliptical, involving an imbedded
deliberative question: '(seeing)
whether God may perhaps grant'.15 At
any rate, this may possibly be the only example of
a subjunctive of
doubtful assertion in the NT.
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN DEPENDENT
CLAUSES
By far the more frequent use of the subjunctive
mood is in de-
pendent or subordinate clauses.16
12 There are 13 examples: Matt 15:6;
John
provide more.
13 H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges (
le is Book Co., 1916) 297.
14 Turner, Syntax, 98.
15 BAGD,519.
16 81.5%, or 1513 instances
to 344 in "main verb" clauses. Even this is not an
accurate representation, for as I have shown
above in dealing with the independent
8
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
In Final (Purpose/
Result) Clauses
The largest group of dependent subjunctives is
found in final
clauses those expressing purpose or result, or,
as they are referred to
in some grammars, telic or ecbatic.17
One example is Rom
de>
pareish?lqen i!na pleona<s^ to> para<ptwma
/ 'And the Law came
in that the transgression might increase'. These
clauses are introduced
by a variety of conjunctive expressions: i!na (405), i!na mh< (91), i!na
mhde< (l), i!na mhdei<j (2), i!na mh<pote
(1) (total with i!na 500); mh< (3),
mh<
pwj (5), mh<pote
(25) (total with mh< 33); o!pwj (33), o!pwj
a@n (5),
o!pwj
mh< (3) (total with o!pwj 41). These are all
consistent with older
Greek
usage, except that the i!na clause is greatly
extended because it
so often serves as a paraphrasis
for the infinitive,18 and o!pwj has lost
ground.
The same lack of distinction between purpose and
result is to be
seen in these clauses as with the infinitives of
purpose,19 though in
most cases the context makes the sense clear. The
vast majority are
true purpose clauses (97%). There are four examples
where the sense
clearly seems to be result,20 one of
which is especially difficult to
understand if it expresses purpose: John 9:2: [Rabbi<, ti<j h!marten, . . .
i!na
tuflo>j gennhq^?; / 'Rabbi, who sinned.
. . that he should be born
blind?' In 12 instances21 I have
considered the matter undecided, al-
though I would lean toward their being result. The
list of those cases
which are not clearly purpose or result could be
greatly expanded.
Another parallel with the infinitive of purpose
is the frequent use
of these subordinate purpose clauses after
intransitive verbs of motion,
and almost without exception the same verbs are
involved (a]nabai<nw,
katabai<nw and e@rxomai and its compounds). Also transitive verbs
(like
a]poste<llw
and pe<mpw)
use the subjunctive purpose clause and
the infinitive of purpose interchangeably.
In Substantival
or Noun Clauses
These noun clauses will be treated next because
they are closely;
related to the final clauses--they are not
second in frequency of
uses, many of them were found within subordinate clauses,
particularly in the delibera-
tive where the question is
being quoted indirectly and in emphatic negation which may
appear in any clause.
17 38%, or 574 of 1513.
18 BDF, 196-202.
19 Cf. my article, "The Classification
of Infinitives: A Statistical Study," GTJ
6
(1985)
10-12.
20 John 9:2; 1 Cor
21 Matt
2
Thess 3:14; and 2 Tim 1:4.
BOYER: THE CLASSIFICATION OF SUBJUNCTIVES 9
occurrence.22 Indeed, they are
identical with the final clauses in form,
using the same conjunctive phrases and the same
subjunctive mood.
Until
NT Greek was recognized as a part of Koine
Hellenistic Greek
rather than of older, classical Greek, grammarians and
commentators
went to great pains to insist that these must be
interpreted as telic.
Now
they are recognized as a legitimate idiom of the language of that
time and are treated separately.
The following conjunctive phrases are used in
these nominal
clauses: i!na (198), i!na
mh< (15), i!na
mhdei<j (2) (total with i!na 215); mh<
(16),
mh< pou
(1), mh< pwj
(4), mh<pote
(3) (total with mh< 24); o!pwj (14).
Like
the final clauses from which they were derived, these nominal
clauses most frequently function in places where
infinitives could have
been used.
As
Subject
There are 19 subjunctives in subject nominal
clauses. Ten are
subjects of an impersonal verb (sumfe<rei
[9] or lusitelei? [1]), as in
John
16:7: sumfe<rei u[mi?n
i!na e]gw> a]pe<lqw / 'it is to your advantage
that I go away'. Four are subjects of the copulative
verb e]sti<n
(whether
expressed [3] or understood [1]), as in Matt
t&?
maqht^? i{na ge<nhtai
w[j o[ dida<skaloj au]tou? / 'It is enough for the
disciple that he become as his teacher'. Five are
subjects of a passive
verb (di<dwmi
[2], gra<fw
[2], or zhte<w [1], as in 1 Cor 4:2: zhtei?tai
e]n
toi?j
oi]kono<moij i!na pisto<j
tij eu[req^? / 'It is required of
stewards
that one be found trustworthy'. Elsewhere the
infinitive is used com-
monly.
As
Object
A very large number of subjunctives appear in
clauses which
function as the object of a verb. These will be
classified according to
the different types of verbs which have these
clauses as objects.
Robertson
says that these clauses are "found with verbs of striving,
beseeching, commanding, fearing.”23 I
will follow that pattern, but
supplement it by calling attention to the close
parallels with object
infinitives.
With Verbs of Striving. The first category includes verbs which
express effort to bring about an action ('to
attempt', 'to accomplish',
'to
cause', 'to plan', etc.), as in John
h[me<raj e]bouleu<santo i!na a]poktei<nwsin au]to<n / 'So from that day
22 There are 251 instances (17%), making
them fourth in frequency.
23 Robertson, Grammar, 991.
10
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
on they planned together to kill Him'. There are
28 which use a i!na
clause as object: poie<w* ('to cause', 7), e[toima<zw (3), ti<qhmi ('to
appoint',
3), a]gallia<w (2), a]ggareu<w (2), bouleu<w (2), diati<qhmi (2),
and zhte<w* (I); (total 28).
Compare this group with the second
category of complementary infinitives. Those
marked with the asterisk
also use the infinitive object (three more [listed
below] have cognates
which use the infinitive).
With Verbs of Wishing. qe<lw is the only verb of
wishing which
uses the i!na clause as object, e.g., I Cor
14:5: qe<lw de> pa<ntaj u[ma?j
lalei?n
glw<ssaij, ma?llon de> i!na profhteu<hte
/ 'Now I wish that
you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you
would prophesy'.
qe<lw is used this way 8
times; there are 3 elliptical constructions in
which qe<lw
probably should be supplied. This usage is parallel to my
first category of complementary infinitives which
includes qe<lw
with
other verbs of similar meaning. Note that in the
example cited the
same verb has both an infinitive and a i!na clause complement.
With Verbs of Permitting. ]Afi<hmi
more frequently uses a
complementary infinitive
construction, but the i!na clause can express
the same sense, as in Mark 11:16: kai> ou]k
h@fien i!na tij diene<gk^
skeu?oj
dia> tou? i[erou? / 'And He would not
permit anyone to carry
goods through the temple'. In the other example
included in this
classification, di<dwmi (Mark
privilege] to [do something], to grant, to
permit."
The i!na clause
describes the gift which they were seeking
permission to have. This
use parallels the third category of complementary
infinitives.
With Verbs of Beseeching. There are 64 subjunctives in this
category. As object clauses of these verbs they
express the content of
the thing asked or sought and are thus a kind of
indirect discourse, as
in
gnwsin
tou? qelh<matoj au]tou? / 'to pray for you and to ask that you
may be filled with the knowledge of His will'. The
following con-
junctions are used: i!na
(49), i!na mh<
(6), and o!pwj (9). The verbs
which use this construction are parakale<w* (21), proseu<xomai*
(16),
e]rwta<w* (15), de<omai*
(6), ai]te<omai* (2), and 4 other
instances where
there is ellipsis requiring that "pray" or
"ask" be supplied.
With Verbs of Commanding. The object clause uses the sub-
junctive (also a form of
indirect discourse) to express the content of
the command 33 times, as in Luke 4:3: ei]pe>
t&? li<q&
tou<<t& i!na
ge<nhtai
a@rtoj / 'tell this stone to become bread'. The verbs
with
which the subjunctive is so used are ei#pon* ('to command', not simply
'to
say') (6), e]pitima<w (6), diaste<llw
(4), gra<fw*
(4), le<gw* (3),
BOYER: THE CLASSIFICATION OF SUBJUNCTIVES 11
a]pagge<lw*
(1), ba<llw
(1), diamartu<romai*
(1), e]mfai<nw (1), e]n-
te<llw* (1), e]corki<zw (1), khru<ssw* (1), paideu<w (1), paragge<llw*
(1),
and sunti<qhmi
(1). The conjunction is almost always i!na (28), or
one of its negatives, i!na
mh< (2), i!na
mhdei<j (2), or o!pwj (1).
It should be noted that this object clause with
a subjunctive verb
is used only when it would have been a command or
request in a
direct quotation, or in the imperative mood. It is not
used with an
indirectly quoted simple statement, which would
usually be o!ti with
the indicative. The infinitive of indirect
discourse may be used with
either statements or commands. Thus i!na with the subjunctive is
equivalent to some infinitives, o!ti with the indicative is equivalent to
some infinitives, but a i!na clause is never
equivalent to a o!ti clause.
The
mood is significant--nominal clauses use the subjunctive when
they refer to something indefinite, doubtful,
subjective, potential, or
future.24
With Verbs a/Fearing, Apprehension. A group of verbs which
express fear, warning, or apprehension, often in
English followed by
'lest', may express the ground for that apprehension by a
nominal
clause with a subjunctive verb,25 as in
Acts
lao<n, mh>
liqasqw?sin / 'for they were afraid of the people, lest
they
be stoned'. The conjunction characteristically
used is mh< (15), but
these occur also: mh<pote
(3), mh< pwj
(4), mh< pou
(1), and even i!na (3)
and i!na mh< (1) occur with ble<pw. The verbs used are ble<pw ('watch
out
for') (11), fobe<omai*
(10), e]piskope<w (2), prose<xw*
(2), and
skope<w (1). In one instance the governing verb
should be supplied,
probably with ble<pw.
As
Limiting or Epexegetic
A nominal clause with a subjunctive verb often
explains or limits
another substantive (a use termed 'epexegetic'
when used of an infini-
tive). The substantive so
described may be noun, an adjective, or a
pronoun.
Limiting a Noun. The i!na clause can define the meaning or
application of a noun, as with e]cousi<a in Mark
th>n e]cousi<an
i!na tau?ta poi^?j / 'who gave You this authority to do
24 This has also been seen
in indirect questions; they normally use the indicative,
but when they are deliberative in nature they
preserve the subjunctive.
25 The indicative also is used with this
construction. "Mh< in an expression of
apprehension is combined in
classical with the subjunctive if the anxiety is directed
towards warding off something still dependent on
the will, with the indicative of all
tenses if directed towards something which has already
taken place or is entirely
independent of the will" (BDF, 188).
12
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
these things?' The conjunctions used are i!na
(30) and o!pwj (4). This
usage is parallel to the epexegetic infinitive, and 8
of the 16 nouns so
described also use the infinitive construction.
Limiting an Adjective. The subjunctive can be used in a clause
to
limit an adjective, as in John
lu<sw
au]tou? to>n i[ma<nta tou?
u[podh<matoj / 'The thong of whose sandal
I
am not worthy to untie'. The adjective a@cioj is related to
'untying'.
The
conjunction is always i!na (6). Three of the 4
adjectives so limited
also occur with the epexegetic infinitive (the
fourth occurs in its
negative form).
Limiting a Pronoun. A subjunctive clause can also limit a pro-
noun, as in John 11:3: au@th
de< e]stin h[ ai]w<nioj zwh<, i!na
ginw<skwsin
se / 'And this is eternal life, that they may know
Thee'. The i!na
clause stands in apposition to and is explanatory of
the pronoun
au!th. The conjunctions used
are i!na (28), i!na mh< (1), and mh< (1). The
pronoun in each case is ou$toj. This same construction also uses the
infinitive frequently.
In Indefinite Clauses
"Ordinary relative clauses simply define
more exactly a definite
antecedent, and take the construction and negative
of simple sen-
tences.”26
Thus the mood is indicative and the negative used is ou].
But
when the antecedent is indefinite the relative is accompanied
characteristically by the indefinite modal
particle a@n or e]a<n and the
mood is subjunctive. These indefinite relative clauses
are usually ex-
pressed in English by adding '-ever' to the
relative: whoever, when-
ever, wherever, etc. Strictly speaking the term
includes the clauses
introduced by the relative adverbs of time, place,
etc., and in this
larger connotation they comprise the second largest
category of sub-
junctive usage.27 For
clarity, I will deal with them in several cate-
gories, using the term
'indefinite relative clauses' for those introduced
by a relative pronoun. Those using relative
adverbs of time, place,
etc.,
will be labeled accordingly.
26 Smyth, Grammar, 359.
27 J. Greshem Machen, in his New
Testament Greek for Beginners (
MacMillan, 1950) 175, says "This is one of
the commonest uses of the subjunctive,"
and includes among his examples one indefinite
relative clause of place. The actual
counts are: indefinite relative 137, indefinite
temporal 205, indefinite locational 10,
indefinite comparative 6; total 358 or about 24%.
Many grammarians term this con-
struction "conditional
relative clause," drawing very precise analogies between it and
the various patterns of formal conditional clauses.
See my discussion in "Other Con-
ditional Elements," GTJ 4 (1983) 183-84, esp. n. 29.
BOYER: THE CLASSIFICATION OF SUBJUNCTIVES 13
Indefinite
Relative Clauses
Indefinite relative clauses characteristically
use a subjunctive and
are introduced by a relative pronoun with the
indefinite particle, as in
1
John
'Whoever
confesses that Jesus is the Son of God'. The pronouns
used
are the simple relative o!j (110), the correlative o!soj (14), or the
indefinite relative o!stij (12). The indefinite
particles used are a@n (82)
or e]a<n (51).28 In
the 3 cases where an indefinite particle is absent, the
pronoun itself is indefinite.29
Indefinite
Temporal Clauses
Clauses expressing time constitute a second type
of indefinite
relative clause which uses the subjunctive mood.
The time referred to
is indefinite or unknown, always future to the
viewpoint of the
speaker, as in Matt
there until I tell you'. There is a great variety of
introductory expres-
sions, including
conjunctions, temporal adverbs, and improper preposi-
tions with a genitive relative
pronoun as object.30 Most of them
include the indefinite particle a@n or e]a<n. The actual
combinations are
as follows: o!tan (124), e!wj (12), e!wj
a@n (20), e!wj
ou$ (14), e!wj
o!tou
(4),
a@xri (4), a@xri h$j (1), a@xri ou$ (2), a@xrij ou$
(3), a@xrij
ou$ a@n (1),
me<xri (1), me<xrij ou$ (2), e]pa<n (3), o]sa<kij e]a<n (4), w[j a@n
(3), a]f ] ou$
a@n (3), h[ni<ka
a@n (1), h[ni<ka
e]a<n
(1), and pri>n
h} a@n (1).
A large number of temporal clauses uses the indicative mood,
including some which are introduced by the same
conjunctive phrases
used to introduce the subjunctive. When a temporal
clause refers to
definite or known time the normal mood is
indicative. When the time
is indefinite or uncertain because it is still
future or not yet known the
normal mood is subjunctive.
Indefinite
Local Clauses
In a few instances clauses introduced by
relative adverbs of place
use
the subjunctive, as in Mark 14:14: o!pou e]a>n ei]se<lq^ ei@pate t&?
oi]kodespo<t^ / 'wherever he enters,
say to the owner of the house'.
The
adverbs used are o!pou (9) and ou$ (1); in every instance it is
followed by the indefinite particle e]a<n (9) or a@n (1).
28 Cf. Moulton, Prolegomena, 423; BDF, 57; and
Robertson, Grammar, 190-91.
29 o!stij in James
and indefinite pronoun.
30 h$j, antecedent h[me<raj;
ou$, antecedent xro<nou
(supplied); and o!tou (gen. of
o!stij).
14
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
Indefinite
Comparative Clauses
Comparative clauses almost always use the indicative
mood, but
two passages (using 6 verbs) have the comparative
particle w[j
fol-
lowed by the subjunctive. 1 Thess
2:7 has w[j
e]a<n
which clearly is
indefinite and understandably takes the
subjunctive. In Mark
is followed by 4 subjunctive verbs and the
indefinite particle is missing
in the earliest manuscripts.31 BAGD32
calls this "gravely irregular fr. a
grammatical viewpoint" and suggests textual
corruption. BDF points
out the need for "the indispensable e]a<n or o!tan."33 But Robertson34
argues that e]a<n is not indispensable
with the subjunctive (for example,
temporal w[j in some manuscripts of
Gal
subjunctive alone makes it indefinite.
In
Third Class Conditional Clauses
The third largest group (328, or 21.7%) of subordinate
subjunc-
tives occurs in the protasis of the simple future condition which char-
acteristically is introduced by e]a<n or a@n and has its verb in the
subjunctive. The mood reflects accurately the basic
significance of
this construction, that of potentiality or
indefiniteness by reason of
futurity.35
This construction is usually introduced by e]a<n (241),36 e]a<n
mh< (63), a@n (4), ka@n (13), e]a<nper (3) (total with e]a<n 324); and by ei]
(1),
ei@te
. . . ei@te (2), e]kto>j ei] mh< (1) (total with ei] 4).37
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The i!na Clause as an Equivalent to the Infinitive
It is not within the scope of this study to
explain or even to trace
the historical development by which the Greek
language ultimately
lost its infinitive before the encroachment of the i!na clause; rather I
will survey the situation as it was in the Greek in
the NT. As o!ti with
the indicative increasingly became a substitute for
the infinitive in
indirect statements, so i!na with the subjunctive became a substitute
for the infinitive in indirect commands and
requests. But beyond this,
31 For example, K, B, and D.
32 BAGD,897.
33 BDF, 192.
34 Robertson, Grammar, 968.
35 For a full treatment the reader is
referred to my previous article, "Third (and
Fourth) Class Conditions," GTJ 3 (1982) 163-75.
36 The numbers here indicate the times the
subjunctive verb occurs in these con-
structions, not the number of
third class conditional sentences.
37 For a discussion of these anomalous
constructions see my articles "Third (and
Fourth) Class Conditions," 164 and
"Other Conditional Elements," 174-75.
BOYER: THE CLASSIFICATION OF SUBJUNCTIVES 15
the i!na clause became an
alternative expression for almost every func-
tion of the infinitive. It
seems important at this point to demonstrate
this, and to let it impact the interpretive process.
A comparison of the functions of the infinitive
with those of the
i!na clause shows their
remarkable parallels. Even in older Greek both
were used to express purpose, but in the NT the
infinitive increases in
frequency, particularly with verbs of motion. In
contrast with this
tendency, the use of the infinitive in its
noun-functions shows a sharp
decrease in favor of the o!ti or i!na clause. Every use of
the infinitive
demonstrates this. In this section I
will examine the relationship
between the i!na clause and the
infinitive.
The i!na clause is used as the subject of impersonal, predicative,
and passive verbs, as is the infinitive.38
It is used as the object of
many verbs which often use the complementary
infinitive, as, e.g.,
verbs of wishing (qe<lw),
verbs of striving and doing (di<dwmi, e[toi-
ma<zw,
permitting or granting (a]fi<hmi, di<dwmi),
as well as other verbs of like
kind which do not use the infinitive in the NT. The i!na clause also
forms the object of verbs of mental action and
communication which
take the infinitive of indirect discourse, such as
verbs of beseeching
(ai]te<omai,
de<omai, e]rwta<w, parakale<w, proseu<xomai),
and verbs of
commanding (a]pagge<llw, diamartu<romai, ei#pon ['to order, com-
mand '], e]nte<llw, gra<fw, khru<ssw, le<gw ['tell to'], paideu<w, parag-
ge<llw, and sunti<qhmi). Note that the i!na clause is used in
indirect
discourse only with verbs of beseeching and
commanding, where the
direct discourse would have been in the imperative.
For indirectly
quoted statements o!ti
+
indicative can be used in place of the infini-
tive. A clause introduced by
i!na, i!na mh<, or mh< with a subjunctive
verb is also used as object after verbs of fearing
and apprehension
(fobe<omai,
prose<xw) where occasionally the object infinitive
occurs.
The substantival i!na clause also substitutes
for an epexegetic
infinitive, one which limits or qualifies or stands
in apposition to
another substantive. Again it is found
frequently with the same words
as the infinitive, such as nouns (boulh<, xrei<a,
xro<noj, e]ntolh<,
eu]kairi<a,
e]cousi<a, qe<lhma, w$ra), adjectives (a@cioj, di<kaioj, i[
and in apposition to the demonstrative pronoun ou$toj.
Even the so-called "imperatival
infinitive" has its counterpart
with the "imperatival i!na clause,"39 although both are probably mis-
named and should rather be considered elliptical,
with some governing
verb to be supplied from the context.
38 Examples of these and the following will
be found above in the various classifica-
tions.
39 Cf. Turner, Syntax, 94-95. For my discussion of the
imperatival infinitive see
"The
Classification of Infinitives: A Statistical Study," GTJ 6 (1985) 14-15.
16
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
That leaves only one infinitive usage without a
parallel i!na con-
struction, the articular infinitive after prepositions to express various
adverbial relationships. Indeed this is one of the
two uses of the
infinitive which in NT Greek shows an increase, the
other being the
purpose infinitive.
This very close correspondence between the
infinitive and the i!na
clause must certainly be taken into consideration in
the exegetical
process. For example, 1 John 1:9 (pisto<j e]stin kai> di<kaioj i!na
a]f^?
h[mi?n / 'He is faithful and righteous to forgive') should be
understood
so that the i!na clause is epexegetic to
the two adjectives. It is not a
purpose clause--forgiveness is not the purpose
for which God is faith-
ful and just. To see it as
result would be clearer ("so that He will. . ."),
but the epexegetic infinitive provides the clearest
sense.
The Ambivalence of the
Future Indicative
with the Aorist Subjunctive
A
Definition of the Phenomenon
In places where an aorist subjunctive verb might
be expected,
occasionally a future indicative is
found. This does not happen in the
reverse, however; never does an aorist
subjunctive occur where a
future indicative might be expected.40 The
future functions normally
as an indicative, but it also functions in certain
situations where the
subjunctive (the potential future) might be
expected.
Historical
Background
Grammarians have attempted to explain this
ambivalence by
resorting to a study of the historical development
of the language.41
Several
factors have been suggested. (1) Historically the future indica-
tive may have originated
from the aorist subjunctive. (The aorist
subjunctive functioned as a simple future in Homer,
for example.)
(2)
There was always some duplication and confusion in form between
the two, either in actual identity of spelling
(e.g., lu<sw,
for both fut.
ind. and aor. subj.) or in similarity or
identity of sound between the
long and short thematic vowel (e.g., lu<sei and lu<shi [later written
lu<s^], or lu<somen and lu<swmen). (3) This confusion is
often demon-
strated in variations between
manuscripts of the same text. (4) The
40 For example, there are
4 places where ei] is followed by a
subjunctive verb; in
none of these can it be explained as a substitute
for a future indicative (ei] in 1 Cor 14:5
and Rev 11:5; ei@te in 1 Thess
Elements," GTJ 4 (1983) 175. In each instance the element of future
contingency is
present and the subjunctive is the expected
mood. It is the conditional particle that
needs explanation.
41 BDF, 183, 186-88;
Robertson, Grammar, 924-28, 984.
BOYER: THE CLASSIFICATION OF SUBJUNCTIVES 17
basic significance of the subjunctive is always
futuristic; its connota-
tion of doubtful assertion
or potentiality is by reason of futurity-it is
uncertain because it has not happened. Even when
the subjunctive
was used to describe an event which was only a
possibility to the
speaker at that time, the verb would often be
changed to the indicative
after the fact.
Survey
of the Occurrences
Since a list of subjunctives such as has been
the basis of this
study is compiled from form rather than function the
instances where
a future so functions are not included. And a
list of future indicatives
would have to be subjected to the same type of study
as I have
attempted here on subjunctives in order to
discover which categories
of usage are parallel. I have not yet done this,
so I have attempted to
find these ambivalent future indicatives from the
other end--by search-
ing the constructions which
normally take the subjunctive in order to
find instances where the future is found instead. It
would be too
much to expect that I have found them all.
This ambivalence occurs in most of the
classified functions of the
subjunctive. Among the main-clause uses it may be
found in delibera-
tive questions42
but it clearly is present in the emphatic negation
category as well: ou]
mh< + future indicative.43
This ambivalence between aorist subjunctives and
future indica-
tives occurs most frequently
in places where the subjunctive would be
expected in subordinate clauses. It is rare in
conditional44 and relative
clauses,45 as well as temporal
indefinite relative clauses. It normally
by uses the subjunctive verb but twice the future
indicative is found.46 It
42 A few possible examples found were Luke
22:49; John 3:12; Rom 3:5; 4:4;
even a present indicative is found in John 11:47.
But not all future questions are
deliberative; those so described
usually show an element of anxiety or perplexity. The
examples just cited may be matter of fact
examples of a simple future question.
43 Matt 15:6; 16:22; 26:35; Mark 13:31;
14:31; Luke 21:33; John 4:14; 6:35; 10:5;
the Gal 4:30; Heb 10:17; Rev 9:6;
44 Luke 19:40; Acts 8:31. There are also
examples of other tenses in the indicative
after e]a>n present (I Thess 3:8) and perfect (I John
Conditional Elements," GTJ 4 (1983) 175.
45 In relative clauses the indicative is
normal, and only in the category called
'Indefinite Relative' would the subjunctive be
expected.
But the term 'indefinite' may be
a bit confusing. For example, it is not merely
that the relative has an indefinite
antecedent (in Matt
indicative, as it is also in
exactly parallel passage. (But cf. Matt
along with a verb in the subjunctive.) This construction
looks at the action itself as
indefinite or uncertain by reason of futurity.
46 Luke 13:28; Rev 4:9. The imperfect is
also used (Mark
present (Mark
18
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
is primarily in the clauses introduced by i!na, i!na
mh<, and o!pwj where the
future indicative more frequently takes the place of
the aorist sub-
junctive.47 It occurs in both the
final and nominal clauses introduced
by these words.
Is
there a Distinction in Meaning?
All that has been said thus far would not lead
one to expect any
difference in meaning between the future indicative
and aorist subjunc-
tive in these clauses--the
difference would seem to be formal, not
semantic. But some have insisted upon a
distinction in meaning. One
of my students in a Greek exegesis class called to
my attention the
view that in 1 Pet 3:1 the future indicative means
that the purpose
was guaranteed fulfillment, since the indicative is
the mood of actu-
ality. The believing wife who
lives a godly life before her unbelieving
husband is assured that she will win her
husband. Is this claim valid?
How
can it be checked?
Since the claim is based on a grammatical
principle, it can be
checked. When the grammars are checked for
theoretical statements
about the indicative mood, there are claims that it
is the mood of
certainty, of actual statement, etc.; but there is
no claim which applies
that principle to this situation. Instead there are
explanations such as
those reviewed above, but there is no suggestion of a
difference in
meaning.
A study of all the contexts where the idiom
occurs is more
decisive, and such a study demonstrates that
there are some contexts
where the purpose was actually accomplished, although
there is no
indication that it was guaranteed. In most
instances, predictably, there
47 After i!na Mark
6:4,
11; 9:4, 5;
mh<: Luke
In addition there are a number of places where
the clause contains one or more
subjunctives normally, with a kai< and a future indicative
following: Matt
Rom
3:4 (after o!pwj); Eph 6:3;
is another ambivalent use of the future and the
verb is simply another dependent on the
conjunction, or it is a new beginning, an additional
comment in which the future
indicative stands independently. The latter seems
to fit the sense better in most cases.
There are also a number of places where these
clauses use indicative verbs
other than the future: aorist (Luke 24:20, after o!pwj Gal
(Gal
but it may be noted that of those using the aorist
and perfect 3 are in contexts
expressing apprehension where even older Greek used
mh< with indicative (cf.
BDF,
188)
and the other communicates the proper sense although the structure may seem to
be irregular. The two showing present indicatives do
appear to be standing where
subjunctives would be expected. At
least they illustrate that in Hellenistic Greek the
correspondence between the conjunction
and the mood are somewhat relaxed.
BOYER: THE CLASSIFICATION OF SUBJUNCTIVES 19
is no indication whether the purpose was realized
or not. But there
are a number of instances where the purpose was not realized, and
obviously was not guaranteed. For example, in Luke
of the vineyard sent his servant i!na . . . du<sousin / 'in order that they
might give him some of the produce'. In Gal 2:4-5
false brethren
sneaked in to spy i!na
h[ma?j katadoulw<sousin oi$j ou]de>
pro>j w!ran
ei@camen / 'in
order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield. . .
even an hour'. (See also Gal 4:17 and Mark 14:2.)
These examples
demonstrate that the principle "usage
determines meaning" is as true
in syntax as it is in lexicography.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu