Subjunctive ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anthony DeNicola

Puritan Board Freshman
I have a question about the word “might” that we see apear in a lot of text . For example .

“For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him (might) be saved.”
‭‭John‬ ‭3‬:‭17‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“that he (might) sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he (might)present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5‬:‭26‬-‭27‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we (might)be made the righteousness of God in him.”
‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭5‬:‭21‬ ‭KJV‬‬

All of these verses have “might” in them which would impact the way people read these verses . It wouldnt suprise me that many people reject Calvinism because they take verses like this to mean may or may not happpen .

With my little to no knowledge of Greek , it seems that the reason “might” is there is because the mood in the Greek is in the subjunctive . Could someone please explain why the subjunctive is used ? And how we are to understand it ? It’s even used in John 3:16 as well.
 
Yes, you have it right that all of these are in the subjunctive mood.

The subjunctive mood is used in cases in which the action is not "real" (i.e. not a description of something actually happening in the past, present, or future) but rather is hypothetical, hoped for, desired, or purposed.

In these cases, the subjunctive is appropriate because the action is the desired purpose of the main clause.

Take this English example:

"I opened my door that I might greet my guest".

"Opened" is the actual action I am doing. "Greet" is the purposed outcome. It doesn't mean that my greeting of my guest is something that may or may not happen, rather, it is subjunctive because it is describing the purpose for which I am doing the indicative action.

I will re-arrange the scriptures you referenced so that the meaning is preserved but without using "might".

“For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but for the purpose of saving the world.”
‭‭John‬ ‭3‬:‭17‬ ‭

for the purpose of sanctifying and cleansing it with the washing of water by the word, for the purpose of presenting it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5‬:‭26‬-‭27‬ ‭

“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; for the purpose of making us the righteousness of God in him.”
‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭5‬:‭21‬ ‭
 
Yes, you have it right that all of these are in the subjunctive mood.

The subjunctive mood is used in cases in which the action is not "real" (i.e. not a description of something actually happening in the past, present, or future) but rather is hypothetical, hoped for, desired, or purposed.

In these cases, the subjunctive is appropriate because the action is the desired purpose of the main clause.

Take this English example:

"I opened my door that I might greet my guest".

"Opened" is the actual action I am doing. "Greet" is the purposed outcome. It doesn't mean that my greeting of my guest is something that may or may not happen, rather, it is subjunctive because it is describing the purpose for which I am doing the indicative action.

I will re-arrange the scriptures you referenced so that the meaning is preserved but without using "might".

“For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but for the purpose of saving the world.”
‭‭John‬ ‭3‬:‭17‬ ‭

for the purpose of sanctifying and cleansing it with the washing of water by the word, for the purpose of presenting it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5‬:‭26‬-‭27‬ ‭

“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; for the purpose of making us the righteousness of God in him.”
‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭5‬:‭21‬ ‭
This is extremely helpful . Thanks alot .

A few follow up questions , the subjunctive as you stated above can mean hoped for as well as for the purpose of . Would context determine that?

Is it correct to say that might is a proper translation because they are trying to capture the mood ? I guess it’s just foreign to use today as we don’t usually speak like that .
 
This is extremely helpful . Thanks alot .

A few follow up questions , the subjunctive as you stated above can mean hoped for as well as for the purpose of . Would context determine that?

Generally context determines everything. ;) But yes.

Is it correct to say that might is a proper translation because they are trying to capture the mood ? I guess it’s just foreign to use today as we don’t usually speak like that .

Can you clarify what you mean by "trying to capture the mood"?

I agree that in modern times the "might" construction isn't used much.
 
Generally context determines everything. ;) But yes.



Can you clarify what you mean by "trying to capture the mood"?

I agree that in modern times the "might" construction isn't used much.
Capture may have not been the right word, I just meant to say that the might is added to describe the mood .

I don’t see how anyone could argue against Calvinism if they understood this . Because I feel the simple question would be did He accomplish what He came to do , yes or no . To say no would be blasphemy.
 
Capture may have not been the right word, I just meant to say that the might is added to describe the mood .

I don’t see how anyone could argue against Calvinism if they understood this . Because I feel the simple question would be did He accomplish what He came to do , yes or no . To say no would be blasphemy.
Language is necessary for communication. There is an inevitable subjective quality to language; the human factor makes it inescapable.

Translations follow conventions, they employ rules, they should adjust with the times and the ongoing linguistic flex of every language. Editors and publishers must pick among the options, and the best of them aim for a high degree of accuracy according to authorial intent, while maintaining comprehensibility for the average reader. Variation in choices made by different entities, and also in translation philosophy, lead to the multiplication of "versions" we encounter today.

The bottom line is that even the original text was susceptible to misinterpretation. The writer of Scripture might have to explain himself, or have another of similar mind accurately present his thought for him raised from the text of his letter. Now, add a layer of complexity through translation.

At some point, it is the duty of the reader or hearer of God's word to have a submissive spirit, to make a good-faith stab at understanding on his own while not neglecting the gift of pastor-teachers for the church, given by Christ for (among other things) a careful, reverent, and accurate exposition of the Bible. You would think a person who claims to respect the Bible is open to becoming a better reader and hearer, if he discovers his assumptions about his interpretive skill may not be what he thought. Yet, we humans remain stubbornly attached to our presumptions.

Grammar is not everyone's strong suit. The emphasis on effective communication that used to be a hallmark of grade school education is probably not what it was. According to social elites, communication is only necessary for propaganda purposes; and for that, all that is necessary is a low-grade homogeneity of thought, a herd mentality. Under such conditions it is not surprising that a mood like "subjunctive" is commonly misunderstood, and its possible uses reduced to one: "maybe?"

For some people, introduction to or reminder of a fuller linguistic concept will produce an educated, open mind. But natural knowledge is still insufficient. The only real resolution to the problem of understanding Scripture is docility under the guidance of the Spirit. Darkness blinds eyes (1Jn.2:11) and the heart (Eph.4:18). This is the work of the god of this age, 2Cor.4:4. Prayer alone is our defense and resistance to deviltry, and calls on God to produce real understanding and the change of mind and behavior that follows. "This kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting," Mt.17:21. Coming to the Light or further into the Light is by no other agency than the Spirit.
 
It's grammatical mood, so it marks whether the verb is factual or conditional etc. As distinct from 'capturing the mood' in the sense of having a snappy form of words to accurately describe people's feelings in the moment.

Contemporary English doesn't use the 'might' construction to express the subjunctive mood, but we still have the subjunctive mood. Eg rather than 'that the world through him might be saved,' something like 'so that the world through him would be saved.' It would have been an accurate translation for the time when 'might' was the subjunctive form of 'may'.
 
The Christian Standard Bible (CSB) translation aptly addresses the issue in all those verses.

John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.​
Eph. 5:26-27 ...to make her holy, cleansing her with the washing of water by the word. He did this to present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and blameless.​
2 Cor. 5:21 He made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.​
John 3:16 For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.​
 
Contemporary English doesn't use the 'might' construction to express the subjunctive mood, but we still have the subjunctive mood. Eg rather than 'that the world through him might be saved,' something like 'so that the world through him would be saved.' It would have been an accurate translation for the time when 'might' was the subjunctive form of 'may'.
This is sticking point for native English speakers learning many languages notably Spanish and French. Developing instincts for the subjunctive is difficult to say the least because it is not “felt” the same way in English. As you hinted above, “may” and “might” are now used interchangeable.
 
This is sticking point for native English speakers learning many languages notably Spanish and French. Developing instincts for the subjunctive is difficult to say the least because it is not “felt” the same way in English. As you hinted above, “may” and “might” are now used interchangeable.
Exactly. Mood, tense and aspect are difficult enough to grasp for your native language, never mind archaic versions of your native language, never mind in a second language!
 
It's grammatical mood, so it marks whether the verb is factual or conditional etc. As distinct from 'capturing the mood' in the sense of having a snappy form of words to accurately describe people's feelings in the moment.

Contemporary English doesn't use the 'might' construction to express the subjunctive mood, but we still have the subjunctive mood. Eg rather than 'that the world through him might be saved,' something like 'so that the world through him would be saved.' It would have been an accurate translation for the time when 'might' was the subjunctive form of 'may'.
"Would" is conditional. The present subjunctive is marked in English in the third person singular of present tense verbs by omitting the s.
I.e. "He dies" is indicative, but "She shot him so that he die" is subjunctive.
Or with "be" we use "be" as the subjunctive. That is, we use the basic form of the verb where it would otherwise be proscribed.
"Might" should not be used to express the subjunctive in English. In most cases the present subjunctive just has to be translated as indicative. The past subjunctive can be translated with "were" or "would", depending on the context.
 
"Would" is conditional. The present subjunctive is marked in English in the third person singular of present tense verbs by omitting the s.
I.e. "He dies" is indicative, but "She shot him so that he die" is subjunctive.
Or with "be" we use "be" as the subjunctive. That is, we use the basic form of the verb where it would otherwise be proscribed.
"Might" should not be used to express the subjunctive in English. In most cases the present subjunctive just has to be translated as indicative. The past subjunctive can be translated with "were" or "would", depending on the context.
“Would” can be conditional or subjunctive?
 
“Would” can be conditional or subjunctive?
"Would" is always conditional, but Latin and Greek lack a morphologically distinct conditional mood (Spanish does have one, on the other hand), so sometimes things that are morphologically subjunctive in Latin get translated to English with "would."
See the table here under "imaginary situations."
And in Greek, things that are morphologically subjunctive can be translated to English with "were", as in the phrase "If he were a bat, he would sleep all day."
 
The present subjunctive is marked in English in the third person singular of present tense verbs by omitting the s.
I.e. "He dies" is indicative, but "She shot him so that he die" is subjunctive.
Or with "be" we use "be" as the subjunctive. That is, we use the basic form of the verb where it would otherwise be proscribed.
Think "was marked in English" would be more accurate here - don't think "so that he die" (or "be" as subjunctive) is grammatical in contemporary usage, at least in the UK Englishes I'm familiar with.
 
Language is necessary for communication. There is an inevitable subjective quality to language; the human factor makes it inescapable.

Translations follow conventions, they employ rules, they should adjust with the times and the ongoing linguistic flex of every language. Editors and publishers must pick among the options, and the best of them aim for a high degree of accuracy according to authorial intent, while maintaining comprehensibility for the average reader. Variation in choices made by different entities, and also in translation philosophy, lead to the multiplication of "versions" we encounter today.

The bottom line is that even the original text was susceptible to misinterpretation. The writer of Scripture might have to explain himself, or have another of similar mind accurately present his thought for him raised from the text of his letter. Now, add a layer of complexity through translation.

At some point, it is the duty of the reader or hearer of God's word to have a submissive spirit, to make a good-faith stab at understanding on his own while not neglecting the gift of pastor-teachers for the church, given by Christ for (among other things) a careful, reverent, and accurate exposition of the Bible. You would think a person who claims to respect the Bible is open to becoming a better reader and hearer, if he discovers his assumptions about his interpretive skill may not be what he thought. Yet, we humans remain stubbornly attached to our presumptions.

Grammar is not everyone's strong suit. The emphasis on effective communication that used to be a hallmark of grade school education is probably not what it was. According to social elites, communication is only necessary for propaganda purposes; and for that, all that is necessary is a low-grade homogeneity of thought, a herd mentality. Under such conditions it is not surprising that a mood like "subjunctive" is commonly misunderstood, and its possible uses reduced to one: "maybe?"

For some people, introduction to or reminder of a fuller linguistic concept will produce an educated, open mind. But natural knowledge is still insufficient. The only real resolution to the problem of understanding Scripture is docility under the guidance of the Spirit. Darkness blinds eyes (1Jn.2:11) and the heart (Eph.4:18). This is the work of the god of this age, 2Cor.4:4. Prayer alone is our defense and resistance to deviltry, and calls on God to produce real understanding and the change of mind and behavior that follows. "This kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting," Mt.17:21. Coming to the Light or further into the Light is by no other agency than the Spirit.
Thanks for this reply . You hit on a ton of good points which helped me to really see the big picture .

I’m curious know your thoughts though do you think that a lack linguistic concept has led to a ton of doctrinal errors and specific away from Calvinistic doctrine ? It really wouldn’t surprise me that many evangelical who read John 3:17 would say , see Jesus came to make salvation possible .
 
The Christian Standard Bible (CSB) translation aptly addresses the issue in all those verses.

John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.​
Eph. 5:26-27 ...to make her holy, cleansing her with the washing of water by the word. He did this to present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and blameless.​
2 Cor. 5:21 He made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.​
John 3:16 For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.​
This seems to be the best translation for these versions to avoid confusion. ESV, NASB, KJV, LSB, NKJV all follow the same construction in regard to “might” it just seems unprofitable to me and misleading . I completely understand why it’s there but I think it does more harm them good in the 21st century
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top