Grace Theological Journal 3.2 (1982) 163-75.
[Copyright © 1982 Grace
Theological Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally prepared for use at
THIRD (AND FOURTH)
CLASS
CONDITIONS
JAMES L. BOYER
Third class conditional sentences, a very frequent type
of
conditional sentence, are identified and characterized by their use of
the subjunctive mood in the protasis.
The subjunctive indicates
potentiality, contingency, or simple futurity. It is the condition which
points to a future eventuality. The common notion that it indicates a
degree of probability is examined by inductive study of all the NT
examples and is concluded to be totally incorrect. Also, the often-
made distinction between present general and future particular condi-
tions within this third class is shown to be neither helpful nor
indicated by NT Greek texts. All third class conditions are
essentially
future contingencies.
*
* *
THE
third classification of conditional sentences in the Greek NT
occurs almost as frequently as the first and five
times more
frequently than the second.1 It is
designated by many names, reflecting
different understandings on the part of
grammarians of its basic
significance.
FORM
IDENTIFICATION
This group of conditional clauses is
identified by the use of e]a<n
and the subjunctive mood in the protasis.
The e]a<n of course is the
ordinary conditional particle ei], found in all the other types of
conditions, combined by crasis
and contraction with the modal
particle a@n.2 Primarily
it is the use of the subjunctive mood which
l There are about 305 first-class,
47 second-class, and 277 third-class conditions in
the NT. For a treatment of the first and
second-classes see my preceding articles,
"First-Class
Conditions: What Do They Mean?" GTJ
2 (1981) 74-114, and "Second-
Class
Conditions in New Testament Greek," GTJ
3 (1982) 81-88.
2 Historical grammarians
point out that in late Greek the distinction between
and e]a<n seems to be fading. See
A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New
164
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
identifies the type. All other conditions use the
indicative mood3 in
the protasis.
The apodosis appears in a wide
variety of forms. About 150 are
simple statements of fact, 32 are questions, 32 are promises
or threats,
27
are admonitory, 16 are warnings, 12 are commands, 11
are
instructions.
There is no pattern of tenses used,
either in the protasis or in the
apodosis. In the NT examples there are 110
present, 205 aorist, and 3
perfect subjunctive4 verbs in the protases. In the apodoses there are
116
present, 119 future, 7 aorist, and 6 perfect
indicatives, 25 aorist
subjunctives, 26 present and 16
aorist imperatives, 1 present optative,
1
present infinitive (of indirect discourse), and 2 present participles
(dependent on an imperative verb). The relationship of this
great
variety to the significance of this class of
condition will be examined
later.
In the discussion of this
many-faceted grammatical construction
two major questions need consideration; first, the
significance of the
Testament in Light of
Historical Research
(Nashville: Broadman, 1934) 1017. N.
Turner
says, "It is a feature of Hell. Greek that the connection between the mood
and
the conjunction (e.g., subj. after a@n) is becoming less determined, and so we have ei]
with subj., e]a<n with ind., o{te with subj., o{tan with indic., etc. In M Gr only the
fuller
conjunctions e]a<n and o{tan remain, and they have
both indic. (real) and subj. (probable)"
(Nigel
Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 3:
Syntax [
T. Clark, 1963] 107 n. 2).
The NT text shows a very few
variations from the usual pattern of ei] with the
indicative and e]a<n with the subjunctive,
and almost always they are textually suspect.
The
UBS text has 3 examples of ei] with the subjunctive:
Phil
verbatim repetition of a normal ei] + indicative example in
the preceeding verse, and
apparently with precisely the same meaning), and I Cor 14:5 (where e]kto>j ei] mh<
is a
fixed formula). There are two examples of e]a<n with a present indicative: I Thess
3:8
and I John
confusion
which used e]a<n for ei] and thus should be classified as
first-class. There are
two examples of e]a<n with a future
indicative (Luke
first class. However, the situation may be different
in the case of a future indicative,
since these forms in other constructions sometimes
seem to function as aorist sub-
junctives (e.g., 23 instances of i!na followed by a future
indicative, with no difference in
meaning). A. T. Robertson points out, "it
is quite probable that the future indicative is
just a variation of the aorist subjunctive"
(Robertson, Grammar, 924-25). Hence, e]a<n
with a future indicative may be a normal third-class
condition.
3 The classical fourth-class condition
which used the optative mood does not occur
in the NT or the Greek of that period except in
archaic expressions or fragments of
sentences. This type shared with the third class
the use of a non-indicative mood. Its
relation to the third class and the actual NT
remnants will be treated later in this article
(see n. 41).
4 In John 3:27; 6:65; James 5:15. Also,
there are three examples (1 John
13:2;
in sense present, and I have counted these three
among the presents.
BOYER:
THIRD CLASS CONDITIONS 165
subjunctive mood used in the protasis
and its bearing on the semantic
significance of the type of
conditional sentence, and second, the
validity of the oft-claimed distinction between
the present-general
and the future-particular sub-classifications of
these e]a<n + subjunctive
conditions.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
SUBJUNCTIVE
Since the use of the subjunctive distinguishes
this class from the
others, it seems obvious that the basic significance
must be seen in the
meaning of the subjunctive mood. Here we face a
confusing divergence
of expression on the part of grammarians. As A. T.
Robertson says,
".
. . mode is far and away the most difficult theme in Greek syntax.”5
Later
he says specifically of the subjunctive mood, "So the gram-
marians lead us a merry dance
with the Subjunctive.”6 In spite of the
difficulty and confusion, however, there is
wide-spread agreement7 on
its basic meaning.
Mood of Uncertainty. Potentiality, Futurity
A. T. Robertson, in his Short Grammar, calls both the subjunctive
and optative moods
"the modes for doubtful affirmation.”8 Later, in
his major work, he more explicitly summarizes the
use of the sub-
junctive under three headings:
(a) futuristic, (b) volitive, and (c)
deliberative.9 Admitting that some do
not see these as distinct, yet,
"for practical purposes," he uses them. When he deals
specifically
with conditional sentences he uses the term undetermined to designate
those which use the subjunctive or optative moods, in contrast with
those he calls determined,
which use the indicative. He explains
undetermined by saying, "Naturally
the indicative is not allowed here.
The
element of uncertainty calls for the subj. or the optative.
. . . They
are the moods of doubtful, hesitating affirmation.
. . . In this type the
premise is not assumed to be either true or
untrue. The point is in the
air and the cloud gathers round it."10
He calls the subjunctive "the
mode of expectation,"11 and says of
its time reference, "the third class
5 Robertson, Grammar, 912.
6 Ibid., 927.
7 In the following discussion I have
chosen to use the words of one well-known and
influential scholar, A. T. Robertson, rather than to
record the many similar statements
of other grammarians. Where there is not this
essential agreement I shall seek to
compare and evaluate, as, for example, in the
section "Degree of Probability."
8 A. T. Robertson, A Short Grammar of the Greek
New Testament (
Doubleday, Doran & Co., 1929) 129-31.
9 Robertson, Grammar, 928-34.
10 Ibid., 1004-5.
11 Ibid., 1016.
166
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
condition is confined to the future (from the
standpoint of the
speaker or writer).”12 He frequently
calls attention to this element of
futurity: "The subj. is always future, in
subordinate clauses relatively
future.”13
Seeking to summarize, it seems to me that the
use of the
subjunctive points essentially to the condition
expressed by the protasis
as being doubtful, uncertain, undetermined
(because it has not yet
been determined). The term potential is accurate. It
is "not yet." It
may be, if. . . . Perhaps the term contingent would
be even clearer. It
depends on any number of factors.14
In any case, the common
denominator is futurity. As Goodwin says, the
"only fundamental
idea always present in the subjunctive is that of
futurity",15 and he
traces it back to the idiom of Homer. Perhaps the best
name for this
type of condition is simply the Future Condition.16
Basis of Potentiality
One major item for investigation in this
inductive study of all the
third class conditions in the NT has been the
question of the basis of
the potentiality. Why does the writer use the mood
of contingency?
What
is the element of uncertainty involved? On what factors or
circumstances does the fulfillment of
the condition depend? In the
study of each example in context, first a "basis
of potentiality" was
assigned. Afterward, this list was classified
under appropriate group-
ings. The results are seen
in this tabulation, with the number so
designated, and some examples.
Personal will, choice,
judgment 5317
Spiritual condition 2318
Personal actions 10919
Actions of others 3620
Ability, opportunity 421
12 Ibid., 1018.
13 Ibid., 924.
14 See my next section, "Basis of
Potentiality."
15 W. W. Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (New
16 J. G. Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners (
1950) 132.
17 Examples: Matt
18 Examples: John 3:3, 5;
19 Examples: Mark
20 Examples: Matt
21 Example: Matt
22 Examples: Matt
BOYER: THIRD CLASS CONDITIONS 167
The purpose in listing these is not to provide a
system of
classification, but to illustrate and
enforce the point that these third
class conditions are indeed doubtful, contingent,
undetermined,
belonging to the future. All of the instances manifest this quality. I
believe an examination of the examples will
confirm this claim.
Degree of Probability
The matter next to be considered brings us to a
major problem
in the way most grammarians have dealt with the
third class con-
ditions: Does the use of the
subjunctive imply anything as to the
degree of uncertainty involved? This clearly is
claimed by many
grammarians. Robertson calls this
"Undetermined, but with prospect
of determination" in contrast with the fourth
class, "Undetermined,
with remote prospect of determination," and
says further, "This
fourth class is undetermined with less likelihood of
determination
than is true of the third class with the subj."23
Of the third class he
says, "The subj. mode brings the expectation
within the horizon of a
lively hope in spite of the cloud of hovering doubt.”24
Blass considers
it to denote "circumstances actual or likely
to happen.”25 Winer
makes it a "condition with assumption of
'objective' possibility where
experience will decide whether it is real or not.”26
supposition which refers to the future, suggesting
some probability to
its fulfillment.”27 Blass-Debrunner describes it as "that which under
certain circumstances is expected," calling
it "a case of expectation.”28
Chamberlain
says of it, "The condition is stated as a matter of doubt,
with some prospect of fulfillment," then of the
fourth class he says,
"even
more doubtful than the third class.”29
Most explicit of these is the grammar of Dana
and Mantey. In a
very helpful appraisal of the general significance
of the subjunctive
mood, they point out that there are only "two
essential moods. . . that
which is actual and that which is possible. . . . So
the two essential
23 Robertson, Grammar, 1016, 1020.
24 Ibid., 1016.
25 F. Blass, Grammar of New Testament Greek. Tr. by Henry
(London, MacMillan,
1911) 213, 214.
26 G. B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idioms of the Greek Language
of the New
Testament (Andover: Draper, 1897)
291.
27 E. D.
(Chicago: University of Chicago, 1897) 104.
28 F. Blass and A. DeBrunner,
A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and
Other
Early Christian
Literature,
trans. and rev. by Robert W. Funk (
29 W. D. Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1941) 198-99.
168
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
moods in language are the real--represented in Greek by the
indicative; and the potential--embracing the
subjunctive, optative
and imperative.”30 Then, however, they
proceed to characterize these
potential moods as representing a continuum of
degree of potentiality,
from objectively possible (subjunctive) to subjectively
possible (op-
tative) to volitionally
possible (imperative), or from probability (sub-
junctive) to possibility (optative) to intention (imperative), or from
mild contingency (subjunctive) to strong contingency
(optative). Thus,
the third-class condition becomes the "More
Probable Future Condi-
tion" in contrast with
the fourth which they call the "Less Probable
Future
Condition.”31
Are these measurements of potentiality or
degrees of probability
valid? Can we say of a third-class condition,
"There is doubt, of
course, but it probably will be realized"? One of
the primary purposes
of this study was to investigate this question. It
is the judgment of the
present writer that this scheme, while it may be
theoretically logical,
is completely unsupported and in fact totally
discredited by actual
usage in the NT.
In conducting the study, an attempt was made to
assign to each
of these examples a "measure word"
indicating from the context the
degree of probability or improbability involved in the
realization of
the condition. Out of this grew a list of words,
arranged here
somewhat in a "logical" order, with the
number of instances and a
few representative examples.
Fulfillment certain 1932
Fulfillment probable 6333
Fulfillment doubtful 2034
Fulfillment improbable
1635
Fulfillment possible 436
Fulfillment
conceivable3037
30 H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey,
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(New York: MacMillan,
1948) 165-67.
31 Ibid., 290.
32 In addition to the illustrations given
in the discussion following, see: Mark
33 Examples: Matt
34 Examples: Matt
35 Examples: Luke
36 Examples: Matt 24:48-51; 28:14; 1 Cor
37 Examples: Matt
Rom
BOYER: THIRD CLASS CONDITIONS 169
Certain not to be fulfilled 738
No indication of
probability 12039
Several observations result from this study.
First, the first category above represents third
class conditions
which are used of future events which are absolutely
certain of
fulfillment, such as the lifting up of Christ on the
cross (John
his return to heaven (John 14:3; 16:7), his second
coming (1 John
earthly house (2 Cor
5:1). The potentiality of such things is simple
futurity; it has not happened yet. To use the
word "probable" with
such would be completely misleading. We could never
understand
Christ
to say, "I probably will come again," and the third-class
condition used does not in fact mean that.
Second, the seventh category above represents
third-class condi-
tions which are certain not to be fulfilled. Some are set in
pairs as
opposites to others in the "certain"
category (John 16:7; 1 Cor
They
include such totally impossible items as Christ not seeing what
the Father does (John
Father
(John
man's keeping the law (Rom
ship with resulting loss of life (Acts 27:31) after
Paul has already
assured them that God had promised all would be
safe. Again, the
element of contingency here is simple futurity,
and the remarks in the
preceeding paragraph are
applicable here.
Third, the vast bulk of examples in the middle
of the spectrum
obviously fit the characterization of third-class
conditions as doubtful,
contingent, or potential, but they do not support
the concept that
degree of potentiality is involved. They range from
probable to
doubtful to improbable. They include what
possibly might occur and
what the mind can conceive as possible. It should be
noted that all
these "degree of probability" terms are
derived from the context; they
all are simple e]a<n + subjunctive
conditions.
Fourth, the very large number of instances
labeled as "No
indication" (120 out of 277, or 42%)
underscore the same conclusion.
They
are passages where even the context cannot tell the degree of
probability. Often, opposite contingencies are
listed, each using the
38 All of the examples so classified have
been listed in the discussion following.
39 In addition to the examples given in the discussion, see: Matt 4:9;
Luke
13:3, 5; John 6:44, 51; 7:17; 15:7; Rom 7:2-3; 13:4; I Cor
4:19; Heb 3:7; James
170 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
same conditional form; you may forgive, or not
forgive (Matt
15),
your eye may be single or evil (Matt
enter may be worthy or not worthy (Matt
hear you when you rebuke him, or he may not, or he
may refuse to
hear when you take another along, or he may refuse
to hear the
church (Matt
(John
11:9, 10), we may live or die, in either case we do so "unto the
Lord"
(Rom 14:8). More frequently they are single contingencies; a
man may or may not “want to do His will” (John
Lord's
will or it may not (I Cor
may marry or not (I Cor
hair or not (I Cor
stand fast in the Lord (I Thess
3:8). Clearly, degree of probability or
potentiality is not in the
third-class construction. If it is present at all
it is in the context.
Comparison with
Fourth-Class Conditions
Such terms expressing comparison have their
origin in the clas-
sical grammarians and refer
to a comparison between two classes of
future
condition, those using e]a<n + subjunctive and those
using ei] +
optative. W. W. Goodwin
distinguished these as "Future More Vivid"
and "Future Less Vivid.”40 By
vividness he did not mean more or less
probable, but a greater or lesser distinctness
and definiteness of
concept. B. L. Gildersleeve,
followed by Robertson and a host of NT
grammarians, made mode rather than time the decisive
factor in
classification of conditional sentence
and gave us the familiar "four
class" terminology. Within this group,
apparently, the more probable-
less probable concept has grown.
It is usually not clearly recognized that this
comparison, whatever
its nature, referred to classical grammar, not to
NT grammar. With
no attempt to evaluate the propriety of this
analysis for classical
Greek,
it should be noted that such can have no application to NT
Greek,
for the obvious reason that the NT has no fourth-class
conditions.41 As Robertson himself
says, "It is an ornament of the
40 W. W. Goodwin, Greek Grammar, rev. by C. B. Gulick
(Boston: Ginn, 1930)
298.
41 The correctness of this statement needs
to be supported. There are 10 instances
where ei] appears with an optative verb, thus possibly a fourth class protasis. Of these,
one is not conditional at all: ei] is introducing an
indirect question, "whether" (Acts
25:20;
perhaps also 17:27). Five appear to be stereotyped, almost parenthetical expres-
sions, the kind which might
survive after the construction has become archaic (ei]
tu<xoi I Cor
three remaining seem clearly to be fourth-class protases; one with an apodosis which is
BOYER: THIRD CLASS CONDITIONS 171
cultured class and was little used by the masses
save in a few set
phrases. It is not strange, therefore, that no
complete example of this
fourth-class condition appears in the
LXX, the NT or the papyri so
far as examined. . . . No example of the opt. in
both condition and
conclusion in the current koinh<. In the modern Greek it has
disappeared completely.”42 Now, if all
future conditions in the NT are
third class, that is, all are more probable, there is
no longer any
meaning to "more." "More
probable" must be understood to mean
"more probable than if he had used the optative,"
not "more likely
than not." It seems much better to follow the
suggestion of
Gibbs,
"that the e]a<n with the subjunctive
has become merely a
formula for presenting a future condition. Any
suggestion of expecta-
tion of fulfillment which
might have existed at one time (if ever it did)
has now vanished. The condition is simply a large
basket made to
hold any future condition, likely or unlikely,
possible or absurd.”43
Comparison with ei] + Future Indicative
When we call this third class the Future
Condition we do not
mean that all conditions future in time belong to
this class. In my
previous study I discovered 14 examples of ei] + future indicative in
the protasis. These
first-class conditions of course are also future in
time reference. How do they relate to the
third-class future conditions?
The
discussions of the grammarians reflect their own understanding
of the basic significance of the two classes.
Goodwin says, "The future
indicative with ei] is very often used in
future conditions implying
strong likelihood of fulfillment, especially in
appeals to the feelings
and in threats and warnings.”44 Smyth
calls it the "Emotional Future
Condition.
. . . When the condition expresses a strong feeling, the
future indicative with ei] is generally used
instead of e]a<n with the
subjunctive. Such. . . commonly
contain a warning or a threat or in
general something undesirable.”45 Zerwick, who characterizes the first
class as "the concrete case," says "ei] with future (instead of e]a<n with
in indirect discourse (Acts 24:19); the other two
(I Pet
the verb is left unexpressed. There is thus no
complete example of the fourth-class
condition.
It should be noted that the only optatives which are involved here are those with ei]
forming a protasis. Optatives occurring in so-called "implied
apodoses" (without a
protasis) are simple instances
of the potential optative and are not conditional,
except
perhaps by implication.
42 Robertson, Grammar, 1020-21.
43
M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979)
51.
44 Goodwin, Grammar, 298.
45 H. W. Smyth, A Greek Grammar (New York: American Book Co., 1916) 346.
172
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
the subjunctive) is of course perfectly correct and
classical, so long as
the condition is to be represented as a concrete
one.”46 Turner says,
"This
sometimes conveys the same idea but occurs very seldom in
Ptol. pap.
The feeling of definiteness and actual realization accom-
panies it. It is almost
causal.”47 But after citing several examples he
admits, "The difficulty about this view is 2 Tim
condition was surely conceived as no more than
hypothetical.”
Robertson
surprisingly says, "The kinship in origin and sense of the
aorist subj. and fut. ind.
makes the line a rather fine one between ei]
and
the fut. ind. and e]a<n and the subj."48
If we understand the first
class as being simple logical connection, as I have
attempted to
demonstrate earlier,49 then ei] with a future indicative indicates a
simple logical connection in future time. If we accept
the understand-
ing of the third-class
being presented in this paper, then e]a<n with a
subjunctive calls attention to some element of
future contingency
involved. The form used will depend on the
purpose of the speaker or
writer.
Summary
What term can be used to express the essential
meaning of the
third class condition? Such terms as
"probable," "likely," "expectancy,"
"anticipatory" are all misleading and not suitable.
"Potential" or
"contingent" are neutral terms which express well the
meaning if
properly understood. Zerwick,
in the English translation, uses the
term "eventual," apparently to refer to
that which may eventualize or
come to pass. The English dictionary gives that as a
legitimate
meaning for "eventual," but probably
it is not normally understood in
that sense by English readers. We come back to the
term "Future
Condition,"
which in my judgment is to be preferred.
GENERAL VERSUS
PARTICULAR
It has been broadly recognized that within this e]a<n + subjunctive
class there are two distinct50 types of
conditional statements. One
46 M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, trans. by Joseph Smith (
Institute, 1963) 111.
47 N. Turner, Syntax, 115.
48 Robertson, Grammar, 1017.
49 In the first article of this series, GTJ 2 (1981).
50 One needs to take care not to
overestimate this distinctness.
While
semantically it is easy to see the distinction, yet in actual usage it often is
not so obvious. The present writer has attempted to
classify these third-class conditions
in the NT between present-general and
future-particular, on two occasions widely
separated in time. The results were greatly
divergent. And when these were compared
BOYER: THIRD CLASS CONDITIONS 173
group expresses general or universal suppositions
which, whenever
they are fulfilled, bring the stated results.
"If a kingdom is divided
against itself it cannot stand" (Mark
condemn if it does not first hear. . . and know.
. . ." (John
anyone walks in the night he stumbles" (John
speaks of particular, specific, future suppositions,
such as, "Lord, if
you will you can heal me" (Matt 8:2); "If
someone should come to
them from the dead, they will repent" (Luke
away fasting they will faint in the way" (Mark
8:3). All these
examples share in common the e]a<n + subjunctive form.
If it seems strange to us that such distinct
types should be thrown
together in one grammatical form it should alert
us to the probability
that we are not looking at it as the Greek writer did.
Apparently he
did not see these as diverse types; there must be
some common
characteristic which in his mind
linked them in the same manner of
expression. His choice to use the subjunctive
points to the common
element. They are both undetermined, contingent
suppositions, future
in time reference. Whether that potentiality was
seen as some par-
ticular occurrence or one which
would produce the result whenever it
occurred was not the primary thought in the mind
of the speaker. He
used a form which in either case expressed the
future eventuality.
Some grammarians do attempt to distinguish two
separate classes.
W.
W. Goodwin notes that "the character of the apodosis distinguishes
these future conditions from the present general
supposition" and
claims that the present general class uses a present
indicative or its
equivalent in the apodosis, while the future
particular class has some
future form.51 Machen
calls the e]a<n + subjunctive class "future
conditions," but in a footnote he calls
attention to the fact that this
term takes no account of the large group of present
general conditions
which share the structural form.52 Zerwick also distinguishes two
classes, the "eventual" and the
"universal," warning, however, that
"the distinction between type C (eventual) and E (universal),
though
certain grammarians make it, is not a linguistic
or grammatical one,
but a purely extrinsic one based on subject matter
(and an analysis
according to the speech-habits of some other
language than Greek).”53
with the conclusions of another scholar an even
wider difference was seen. It is not easy
to decide whether "If anyone wants to do His
will he shall know. . ." (John
you love me you will keep my commandments"
(John
truth always true, or is to be thought of as looking
to some particular future situation.
The
distinction is highly subjective, as well as totally without indication in the
language
itself.
51 Goodwin, Grammar, 298.
52 Machen, Greek for Beginners, 132 n. 1.
53 Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 111.
174 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
The
term "present general" commonly used for the universal condition
is an unfortunate one, based probably on the claim
by Goodwin
quoted above that the apodosis is a present indicative
or its equivalent.
Elsewhere
he speaks of this as a "quasi-present.”54 Zerwick
uses still
another limiting designation of this present,
"a general (universal)
condition in the (atemporal)
present, referring to any case of the kind
expressed.”55
Thus Goodwin affirms and Zerwick
denies that the form of the
apodosis indicates the distinction between the
general and the par-
ticular sub-classification of
this third-class. Again, without presuming
to evaluate the propriety of this as it applies to
classical Greek, I have
in this study attempted to check its validity for
the NT. The present
indicative occurs about 135 times in the apodoses
of this class in the
NT,
81 times (61%) in those which I have classified as general, 52
times (38%) in those classified as particular. The future
indicative
occurs 118 times, 18% in general examples, 82% in
particular
examples. While these may conform in a majority of cases with the
proposed rule, yet 4 out of 10 or even l out of 5
is a high percent of
error.
But the problem is even greater. The rule as
stated spoke of
"present indicative or its equivalent," and on the other
hand "any
future form." When we ask more specifically for
the time-reference of
the apodosis instead of the tense form, a very interesting factor
appears: in almost every instance the
time-reference is discovered to
be future.
Let me illustrate and explain this conclusion.
The apodosis uses
the imperative mood 45 times (27 present, 15
aorist, 1 aorist sub-
junctive with mh< as a prohibition).
Also, in another example the
apodosis is expressed by two participles which
depend on an
imperative verb and in another by an infinitive of
indirect discourse
representing an imperative in the
direct. The imperative time-reference
is clearly future. On 12 occasions ou] mh< + aorist subjunctive, a strong
future denial, forms the apodosis. On 10 other times
the aorist
subjunctive is used when the apodosis is a purpose
clause with i!na,
etc. Once, the apodosis has pw<j with the deliberative
subjunctive.
Again,
these are all future in time reference.
Next, examining the 81 examples of the present
indicative in the
apodoses of general suppositions, it is probable
that even these
represent future time. 20 of these seem to be
gnomic or atemporal,
which includes future time. But specifically in the
apodosis of a
54 W. W. Goodwin, "On the
Classification of Conditional Sentences in Greek
Syntax," Transactions of the American Philological Association 4 (1873) 66.
55 Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 111.
BOYER: THIRD CLASS CONDITIONS 175
contingent condition this present must be logically
future to the
fulfillment of the protasis.
Two examples of these presents are
"futuristic" ("I am coming," John 14:3; note
that it is accompanied by
a future tense verb in the same apodosis).
Another 21 instances
involve verbs which involve potential action
looking forward to the
future: "I am able to . . ." etc. Some 26
express what I choose to label
"resulting action," what will happen or result when the protasis is
realized: "even if someone strives he is not
crowned if he does not
strive lawfully" (2 Tim 2:5); "If we love
one another God abides in us”
(I
John
remaining 55 present indicatives in apodoses
express what I have
called "discovered state," identifying the
condition which will be
discovered to be true when the condition is met:
"If you abide in me
you are truly my disciple" (John
not have a part with me" (John 13:8); "If
you release this man you are
not a friend of Caesar" (John
you keep the law"(Rom
(1
Cor
(1
John 1:7).
The only apodosis verbs left to be considered
are 7 aorist
indicatives. These I would consider to be expressive
of "discovered
resulting action": "If he hears you, you
have gained your brother
(Matt
and has withered. . ." (John 15:6); "If you
marry you have not
sinned" (I Cor
you. . . , have you not discriminated and become
judges. . . ?" (James
2:2-4).
It is not expected that everyone will agree with
all of these
explanations, but certainly it is
clear that there is no discernible
distinction in form in the NT Greek which will
identify the two types
of conditional statements within the third class.
In fact, there is some
future time-reference in all of the examples, even
those which are
often called present-general. The general-particular
may be a valid
distinction, but it depends on subject-matter and
the interpretive
exegesis of the commentator, not on the Greek
text of the NT.
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