Bill Mounce

For an Informed Love of God

Toggle navigation

You are here

Home » Blogs » Monday with Mounce
Sunday, May 19, 2013

Is the subjunctive “shall” or “might”? (John 3:16)

I was asked about the subjunctive in John 3:16. The concern was that the NIV/NLT reads “shall,” which makes it a promise of salvation. His contention is that the subjunctive makes it a “condition of salvation” and it should be translated as “may,” and the Greek grammar does not “allow” the translation “shall.”

First of all, let’s have a little humility. To say that two major translations mistranslate a famous verse, choosing a translation that the Greek does not “allow,” is quite a claim.

Is it possible for two major translations to make a major mistake? Sure. I think that translating οὕτως in John 3:16 as “so” is precisely that. But is it possible that two major translations violate Greek grammar in the same verse? Highly unlikely.

Please people. Be very careful before claiming that major translations have chosen a translation that the Greek (or Hebrew) does not allow. You may disagree. You may not like it. But to claim that the translators violate Greek grammar requires too much hubris.

The NIV reads, “For God so loved the world that (ὥστε) he gave his one and only Son, that (ἵνα) whoever believes in him shall not perish (ἀπόληται) but have (ἔχῃ) eternal life.”

Why are ἀπόληται and ἔχῃ in the subjunctive? Is it because they are giving a “condition of salvation”? To be frank, I am not even sure what that means. Is there any question that if a person truly believes, he or she will truly be saved from perishing and will truly receive eternal life?

ἀπόληται and ἔχῃ are in the subjunctive because they are in a purpose clause. God sent his son for the purpose saving those who believe and for the purpose of bringing them safely to eternal life. Because purpose is not a statement of reality (indicative), it must be moved into the subjunctive.

The only remaining question is how to convey purpose in English. Some use “shall/will” (NIV, NLT, NASB, HCSB). Other translations use “should” (ESV, KJV) or “may” (NRSV,NJB). I don’t think there is any real difference in meaning.

Do you hear any difference?

Comments

Submitted by dmccullau on Mon, 2013-05-20 03:54
I would argue that a translation of 'may' is saying the identical thing to shall! If you 'may not' do something you 'shall not' do it!

Submitted by dathriill on Sun, 2015-07-26 09:56
There is a BIG difference between shall not and should not. Should not indicates that because we believe in Jesus we shouldn't perish but have ever lasting life but shall not makes it a fact and that is simply not true. It takes more than just believing in Jesus. We have to do certain things to achieve thiis so the proper word should be SHOULD and not SHALL. Shall not periish is stating a promise, should is implying that we shouldn't but leaves room for possibilities.

Submitted by jamesdowden on Mon, 2013-05-20 05:56
I don't think that they mean anything different, but "should" (or "might" (e.g. NAB, ISV)) sounds better English to me, because of the tense of "gave". For me, both "shall" and "may" sound slightly odd.

Submitted by Richard Walker on Tue, 2013-05-21 05:04
Translation of subjunctives into English using the modal auxiliaries "may", "might", etc. has come up here before. As I suggested then, I think these "problems" have more to do with modern (lack of) understanding of subjunctives in English (and, in particular, the varieties of meaning of "may" and "might") than any "difficulties" with the Greek text. For someone who wants to get to grips with subjunctives, I highly recommend learning German, in which a good knowledge of both (a) modal auxiliaries and (b) the (two types of) subjunctive is essential for communication. Subjunctives in Greek will seem much, much less "exotic" if one knows a modern language that still requires their use. (French is good for this too, but (IMHO) one will get more help with Greek by learning German. E.g., in German one gets noun cases just as in Greek.) I agree with your classification of claims of translator/translation errors as "too much hubris". But then you also made the claim that "translating οὕτως in John 3:16 as `so'" ... is ... "a major mistake". Why is that claim not also "too much hubris"?

Submitted by greekprof on Sun, 2013-06-09 15:51
Because one statement is built on a lack of knowledge and attacks the person, and the other is an interpretive decision based on grammatical meaning.

Submitted by warmbrod on Tue, 2013-05-21 08:16
I think that the problem is with our understanding of faith and not shall/will. Many would like to make faith be like a cup and once it is filled I have made it and nothing can change. To me, I see the OT and NT talking about faith being a path or a journey and if I stay on the path I shall be with the Lord.

Submitted by quistian on Wed, 2013-05-22 16:12
I like "would." I use "would" for the subjunctive. And "may" for the optative, because it seems to fit well as another step away from the indicative. "Would" in English seems to work perfectly for the semantic range in English. Of course, with the Greek "if" I omit "would" because it would be redundantly conditional. "Would" is perfect for the conditional and great for the range of subjunctive. Because "would" has semantic connotations certainly beyond solely the conditional. And here in this John3:16 concern "would" is similar to and implies "will." Other than that, though it could be arrogance to speak against the major translations to such a degree, it is not necessarily hubris. This might be a picky distinction, but no less as subtle as saying "allow." The righteous are as bold as a lion. IF something is grammatically true, I think it trumps any paragraph-scoped dynamic-equivalence of any (even) major translation, especially if there are theological concerns. Which there so easily are, aren't there. Case in point. Grammatically here, the subjunctive is not purely conditional. Theologically everywhere, salvation is absolutely unconditional. That is to say: once saved, always saved. Yet in another angle of conditionality, believing is certainly a condition to getting saved.