John 17.20-22 Subjunctives

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
Post Reply
tghagen
Posts: 15
Joined: April 16th, 2025, 8:20 am

John 17.20-22 Subjunctives

Post by tghagen »

Hello everyone,
I have a question about the meaning of the subjunctives in John 17.20-22, especially the combination "ἵνα...ὦσιν".

"20 Οὐ περὶ τούτων δὲ ἐρωτῶ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῶν πιστευόντων διὰ τοῦ λόγου αὐτῶν εἰς ἐμέ, 21 ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν, καθὼς σύ, πατήρ, ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν σοί, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσιν, ἵνα ὁ κόσμος πιστεύῃ ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας. 22 κἀγὼ τὴν δόξαν ἣν δέδωκάς μοι δέδωκα αὐτοῖς, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς ἕν,"

My question actually arises from the use of the subjunctive in Italian, my adopted language. The subjunctive is much more common in Italian than in English, and occasionally it is used when the indicative in English means more or less certainty.

I wonder if that is what is happening in these verses from John. Let's take the first phrase from verse 21: "(ἐρωτῶ) ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν".

Does the subjunctive here convey the idea of certainty or necessity; that is, is Jesus certain that his disciples will be "one" because he is asking the Father to bring it about?

Or does the subjunctive convey the idea of possibility or hope or desire; that is, is Jesus aware of the precarious nature of his request? Is there the idea that, in spite of the Father's doing all He can, the disciples' unity will also depend on their response?

Thank you for any comments which can clarify this for me.

Thomas
tghagen
Posts: 15
Joined: April 16th, 2025, 8:20 am

Re: John 17.20-22 Subjunctives

Post by tghagen »

It seems I have asked the question that no one considers worth answering. That's all right; I can accept it. I have no pride as far as my (lack of) knowledge of Greek is concerned. However, no reply is somewhat discouraging. If this Forum wants to encourage beginners such as me, then simply tell us that we need to learn a little more on our own to avoid asking inappropriate questions.

Having said that, I'll present my original question from a different angle to see if it makes a difference. In a discussion of the subjunctives in John 17.20-22, I found this quote: "Theologically, many scholars argue that while the grammar implies a potentiality, the certainty of the outcome is often inferred from the character of the speaker (Jesus) and the nature of His prayer, rather than the verb form itself."

Is that bending grammar to theological prejudice, or is grammar flexible enough to express such a wide range of theological subtleties?
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 635
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: John 17.20-22 Subjunctives

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

The situation with this forum has nothing to do with your question. Unfortunately the amount of active writers is low nowadays. Some old prominent members have sadly passed away, and some have just stopped writing. Recently there have been only a couple of people answering.
Is that bending grammar to theological prejudice, or is grammar flexible enough to express such a wide range of theological subtleties?
As far as the quote you found goes, I think it points to the right direction. In general, usually the grammar can't bear heavy burdens. The meaning (of a word, of a form, of a grammatical/syntactic phenomenon) can be represented as possibilities when it's analyzed separately, but the one meaning when actually used comes in the context. The analytic possibilities, say, classifying a verb form under different named use cases or writing a dictionary entry with II.2.c style classification, are always far from perfect and require interpretation. Many misunderstandings and exegetical/theological claims come from the misguided enterprise of trying to fit real uses of linguistic phenomenon to some fixed analytical framework, and thinking that the way the framework speaks about things can be woodenly understand to describe 1:1 how the language works. In reality, the framework itself, for example how it explains subjunctive, may be good as long as it's understood in its own context, but problems start to appear when an interpreter thinks that how someone describes subjunctive describes the reality behind the language in concrete terms.

Moods are used in certain ways to signal the speaker's "attitude" towards the event, but it doesn't describe even the real psychological "attitude", let alone how the event happens in reality.

Applied to your quoted statement: "while the grammar implies a potentiality" is correct if it means a linguistic phenomenon only, and not what is the reality in our world, and is interpreted properly. "The certainty of the outcome is often inferred" is correct: the verb form itself doesn't bear much burden in itself, the final outcome of the text comes from the total context which is textual, historical, cultural. (Theology is actually part of history and culture, and in exegesis must be understood rather as their theology rather than our, later, theology.)
tghagen
Posts: 15
Joined: April 16th, 2025, 8:20 am

Re: John 17.20-22 Subjunctives

Post by tghagen »

Thank you for your very helpful reply and also for explaining the reason for the delay. On the basis of what you said and applying it to John 17.20-23, can we say anything definitive about Jesus' attitude toward the accomplishment of the unity for which he is praying?
Post Reply

Return to “What does this text mean?”