An Exegetical Examination of the Aorist Subjunctive with ἐὰν in 1 John 1:9 and its Gnomic Implications
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Examination of the Aorist Subjunctive with ἐὰν in 1 John 1:9 and its Gnomic Implications is based on a b-greek discussion from 3 April 2011.
The initial query explored New Testament or Septuagintal examples of the construction ἐὰν + aorist subjunctive that unequivocally convey a meaning beyond mere indefinite possibility. The inquirer questioned whether this construction typically assumes a ‘gnomic sense,’ arguing that ἐὰν primarily modifies the verb’s grammatical and semantic meaning. Citing Matthew 9:21 (‘ἐὰν μόνον ἅψωμαι‘), where the aorist subjunctive clearly refers to a singular potential event (the woman touching Jesus’ garment once), the discussion suggested that any ‘gnomic’ interpretation in such cases must be supplied by the broader context rather than inherent in the construction itself. Numerous other instances in Matthew (12:29, 16:26, 18:13,15-17, 21:3,21,24-26, 22:24, 26:42, 28:14) were provided as examples where the construction does not carry a gnomic force.
The central exegetical issue revolves around the precise temporal and aspectual force of the aorist subjunctive when governed by the conditional particle ἐὰν, particularly in passages like 1 John 1:9. The debate centers on whether such constructions inherently denote a ‘single act,’ a ‘repeated action,’ or a ‘timeless,’ ‘gnomic,’ or ‘omnitemporal’ principle. This inquiry delves into the nuances of Greek verbal aspect, Semitic influence on New Testament Greek, and the hermeneutical implications for understanding divine actions, specifically God’s forgiveness, as either discrete events or as an ongoing, abstract reality.
ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, πιστός ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιος, ἵνα ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας. (Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The text of 1 John 1:9 in SBLGNT (2010) is identical to the Nestle 1904 edition presented here, specifically regarding the verbal forms and particles under discussion. No substantive textual variants affect the grammatical or semantic force of ἐὰν + subjunctive or the aorist subjunctives ἀφῇ and καθαρίσῃ.
Textual and Lexical Notes
The Nestle-Aland 28th edition (NA28) presents the same Greek text for 1 John 1:9 as quoted above, indicating no significant textual variants that would alter the grammatical construction of ἐὰν + subjunctive or the aspectual force of the aorist subjunctive verbs. The textual tradition is remarkably stable for this verse.
Lexical Notes (BDAG, KITTEL)
- ὁμολογέω (homologéō): Occurs here as a present subjunctive, ὁμολογῶμεν, meaning “to confess, acknowledge.” BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature) highlights its range from public declaration to agreement. In this context, the present aspect suggests an ongoing, habitual, or repeated action of confession, forming the continuous condition for the subsequent divine actions.
- ἀφίημι (aphíēmi): Appears as an aorist subjunctive, ἀφῇ, meaning “to forgive, pardon, remit (sins, debts).” BDAG notes its various applications. Here, in the context of divine action, the aorist aspect signifies a complete, effective act of forgiveness. While the aorist typically denotes an undivided action without emphasis on its duration, its use in a conditional clause with ἵνα (purpose/result) and the potential influence of Semitic aspectual understandings (as discussed by Black, Fanning) allows for a wider interpretation beyond a simple punctiliar event, potentially emphasizing the *result* or *certainty* of the forgiveness.
- καθαρίζω (katharízō): Also an aorist subjunctive, καθαρίσῃ, meaning “to make clean, purify, cleanse.” Similar to ἀφίημι, the aorist aspect underscores the completion and efficacy of the purification. In the theological context of 1 John, this refers to moral and spiritual cleansing, removing the defilement of unrighteousness. KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) would elaborate on the cultic and moral dimensions of “cleansing” in both Hebrew and Greek traditions, emphasizing the transformative power of divine purification.
The interaction of the present subjunctive ὁμολογῶμεν (ongoing confession) with the aorist subjunctives ἀφῇ and καθαρίσῃ (completed forgiveness and cleansing) within the framework of ἐὰν… ἵνα creates a dynamic interplay between human action and divine response. The aorist aspect, in this construction, tends to emphasize the *result* or *kind* of action rather than its duration, aligning with interpretations that lean towards an “omnitemporal” or “gnomic” sense for the divine acts.
Translation Variants
The grammatical structure of 1 John 1:9 presents a conditional clause (ἐὰν + present subjunctive) followed by a main clause and a purpose/result clause (ἵνα + aorist subjunctive). The phrase “ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν” sets the condition for the divine response. The present subjunctive ὁμολογῶμεν naturally suggests an ongoing or repeated act of confession – “if we are confessing” or “if we repeatedly confess.”
The central point of exegetical contention, as highlighted in the discussion, lies in the aorist subjunctives ἀφῇ (“might forgive”) and καθαρίσῃ (“might cleanse”). While the aorist aspect fundamentally presents an action as a whole, without reference to its internal duration, its interpretation in conditional or purpose clauses can be nuanced. Scholars like Stanley E. Porter categorize such uses as “omnitemporal,” suggesting that the verb describes a timeless truth or a general principle that holds true whenever the condition is met. Similarly, Robert L. Fanning, building on the work of C.F.D. Moule and others, discusses “gnomic aorists” and “aorists for Semitic perfects” in the Septuagint (LXX) and New Testament. This perspective posits that the aorist here may reflect a Semitic linguistic background, where the perfect tense often conveys a completed state or a timeless truth, rather than a past event.
Rhetorically, the choice of the aorist emphasizes the *certainty* and *efficacy* of God’s forgiveness and cleansing. It is not about *how long* God forgives, but that He *does* forgive—a definitive, complete act in response to confession. This moves beyond a singular, time-situated event to describe an inherent quality of God’s faithfulness and justice. The purpose clause introduced by ἵνα (hina) frames these divine actions as the intended and guaranteed outcome of confession. Thus, the aorist here functions to abstract the act of forgiveness and cleansing into a theological truth, a reliable pattern of God’s interaction with humanity, rather than merely a sequence of discrete events.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The analysis of 1 John 1:9 reveals that the aorist subjunctive, particularly in the context of ἵνα and potentially influenced by Semitic verbal aspect, conveys a sense of completed action that transcends simple punctiliarity. It speaks to the reliable and definitive nature of God’s forgiveness and cleansing when the condition of confession is met. The diverse scholarly views (omnitemporal, gnomic, Semitic perfect) all point towards an interpretation where the divine act is viewed as a unified, timeless reality rather than solely a single, discrete event.
-
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, so that he *will forgive* us our sins and *will cleanse* us from all unrighteousness.”
This translation emphasizes the future certainty and singular effect of God’s action, treating each instance of confession as eliciting a complete act of forgiveness and cleansing.
-
“Whenever we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to *forgive* us our sins and *cleanse* us from all unrighteousness.”
This rendition highlights the repeated or general nature of the divine response, implying a consistent principle that holds true every time the condition of confession is met, thus moving towards an ‘omnitemporal’ understanding.
-
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, for it is his nature to *forgive* us our sins and *to cleanse* us from all unrighteousness.”
This translation attempts to capture the gnomic or timeless aspect more explicitly, suggesting that God’s forgiveness and cleansing are an enduring, guaranteed outcome rooted in His character, reflecting the ‘timeless unity’ or ‘Semitic perfect’ interpretations.
Dear Alastair,
I do consider “gnomic” to refer to generic meaning, however there does not seem to be evidence that this generic meaning is intrinsic to the verb or, for that matter, even a whole complete clause, just as in English the statement “I will get what I want” is ambiguous, either meaning “I will get later what I want at the present” or the gnomic “I will get what I want in general”, so whether some statement is gnomic in English depends completely upon the wider context, not even the immediate context and certainly not the verbs. I do believe the same is true in Greek.
For example, that which you quoted from Iliad is: [Iliad II:17:30-32] “but you having retreated, I urge [you] to go into [a] crowd, not even standing opposite me, before [you] suffer something evil. moreover [it] having been done, even [a] fool shall know [it].” Yes, in this context the gnomic meaning is intended, but it is dependent on the context and independent of the verb tense. The anarthous “nhpios” is part of it, because it has no referrent and therefore implies a “general” fool.
And I cannot agree that we should assume that “ean” only influences the choice of mood and does not affect the semantic meaning. As far as I have seen, the usage reflects not only the choice of the subjunctive mood but also the range of semantic meaning that can be expressed. Also the subjunctive does not exist in certain “tenses” and therefore cannot have a one-to-one correspondence with its indicative counterpart. So all my examples were meant to prove is that the gnomic meaning is determined solely by the context and not by the verb tense.
As for those which I listed, you might dispute Matt 12:29, but it means “how can anyone enter into the house of the strong man unless [he] first binds the strong man?”. If it said “[a] strong man” I agree that it can be gnomic, but because it refers to “the strong man”, and the context has Jesus saying “if I cast out the demons in [the] spirit of God, then the kingdom of God came upon you” before and “and then [he] will plunder his house” after, the context indicates the intended meaning to be association between Jesus and the one who binds the strong man, the strong man having been referred to earlier. Other examples similarly refer to an indefinite possibility rather than a generic truth. Matt 18:13 uses both present imperative “go” and aorist imperative “reprove” as well, if we consider imperatives also in our study.
Regards,
David Lim
Dear Alastair,
It is true that the definite article would not in general exclude the possibility of a statement being gnomic. However an article usually means one of three things. We would first expect it to refer to an antecedent, which is usually the closest in grammatical proximity. If there is none in the expected places, we would then expect the articular noun to be specified by one or more adjectival clauses, which may include prepositional clauses or participles. If neither of the two are present then it usually refers to a known entity in the wider current scope, which may end up being the common frame of reference. This is meant mostly for ordinary nouns and names are not included. “pneumati qeou” therefore falls into the third category, referring to “[the] spirit of God” in the Jewish frame of reference. “h basileia tou qeou” is in the second category, referring to “the kingdom which is of God”. The second “the strong man” is of course in the first category, referring to the previously-mentioned “strong man”. Within that sentence alone it is impossible to decide for the first, however Matt 12:24-28 indicates that Jesus had a specific “strong man” in mind, therefore it must be non-gnomic, although of course anyone may disagree with this analysis. The point is that it is most probably non-gnomic. =)
Regards, David Lim
Hi again David
I’m going to be a little naughty, and try to steal your example (Matthew 12:29), which I think you have accurately identified as a subjunctive aorist in the protasis of a conditional, where a generic/gnomic/omnitemporal reading might be a possibility. Although you provide evidence that, at least in this case, the aorist isn’t generic/gnomic/omnitemporal, please allow me to offer counter-evidence.
29b ἐὰν μὴ πρῶτον δήσῃ τὸν ἰσχυρόν; 29c καὶ τότε τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ διαρπάσει. 29b EAN MH PRWTON DHSHi ISXURON; 29c KAI TOTE THN OIKIAN AUTOU DIARPASEI.
The example is slightly complicated because the verb (in this case DEW, “I bind”) is negated (by MH). Additionally, the example suggests, to me at least, that the connection between protasis and apodosis, in this particular case, is procedural (note PRWTON … TOTE) rather than deontological or teleological, as in Matthew 6:14-15. However, it is nicely analagous to Matthew in that the conditional structure is “EAN + (aorist) subjunctive (DHSHi) … future indicative (DIARPASEI)”.
There’s another complication, though, in that the protasis does double-duty, providing a condition both for 12:29a and 12:29c.
29a ἢ πῶς δύναται τις εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ 29a καὶ τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ ἁρπάσαι, …
29a Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, 29b unless he first binds the strong man? 29c And then he will plunder his house. (NASB)
The basic idea seems to be: (all x) (all y) (possible for x to rob y implies possible for x to bind y) equivalently (all x) (all y) (impossible for x to bind y implies impossible for x to rob y).
The significance, of course, is that Jesus (according to the text) is not only asserting power to bind, but intention to rob. The dispute with the Pharisees is regarding them acknowledging Jesus’ power, but questioning his motives. So, yes, as you said David, “the strong man” in this gospel tradition, refers to the Devil: Jesus’ boss according to the Pharisees, but his “target” according to Jesus. However, I think you’re too smart for the text, David. Jesus is his typically (almost annoyingly) circumlocutionary self here, talking of some abstract, generalised “strong man” rather than giving the Devil his name in this verse.
I should stop there, and just ask some questions. Why does the text have a future tense hARPASAI? Why not a perfect instead of the aorist DHSHi? Why does the NASB translate both into the English present?
I think there are a lot of generic indicators in this verse. “How is it possible for just anybody to go into the home of the strong and grab his stuff? Unless…”
alastair
Dear Alastair,
Alright, I will give my answers to your questions then. =)
Why does the text have a future tense hARPASAI? Because “[he] will plunder his house” after “[he] binds the strong [one]”, just as the phrase “kai tote” implies. Clearly “the strong [one]” is singular and not plural, so it is not impossible but unlikely to refer to “the strong [ones]” in general.
Why not a *perfect* instead of the aorist DHSHi? Because subjunctives usually come in aorist form, as Mark Lightman also pointed out. In other words what we call tense of the verb (present, aorist, perfect…) may be constrained by what we call the mood (indicative, subjunctive), and may not be independent “parameters” of the verb. It is almost natural for “ean” to be followed by either a present or aorist subjunctive, so they do not have exactly the same meaning as the indicative counterparts (even if they once had).
Why does the NASB translate both into the English *present*? I am not interested in what people translate the words as, especially since each translation has its own features and flaws. I think we are instead interested in what the author originally meant, which may not be anything more than an indefinite possibility.
Regards,
David Lim
EAN (ἐὰν) originated in crasis (vocalic mingling) of εἰ and ἀν (EI and AN).
As for why an aorist is translated into Engish as a Present tense, I think the simple reason is that English has no Aorist tense, but the Present tense in English has much broader range of usage.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Dear Alastair,
Oh if you were concerned with just how to render the Greek into English, then for Matt 6:14-15 I certainly agree that the closest representative of “ean afhte” is “if you forgive”, however we should note that translation is not exactly what we are concerned with. As another point to note, I do believe “ean” causes the subjunctive verb to drop its tense, becoming something like the infinitive, inasmuch as “ean afhte” is, as Carl mentioned, similar to “ei an afhte” which is approximately “if you shall forgive”, which is why I said being an aorist does not mean the same thing in different constructions. Anyway, Matt 6:12 in the Byzantine text-type says “ws kai hmeis afiemen” so I never saw what you meant in the first place until I looked at the NU text haha.. Perhaps the scribes saw no difference between the present and aorist (for this particular context), thus the variants.
Regards, David Lim
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]>
Dear Alastair,
I do consider “gnomic” to refer to generic meaning, however there does not seem to be evidence that this generic meaning is intrinsic to the verb or, for that matter, even a whole complete clause, just as in English the statement “I will get what I want” is ambiguous, either meaning “I will get later what I want at the present” or the gnomic “I will get what I want in general”, so whether some statement is gnomic in English depends completely upon the wider context, not even the immediate context and certainly not the verbs. I do believe the same is true in Greek.
For example, that which you quoted from Iliad is: [Iliad II:17:30-32] “but you having retreated, I urge [you] to go into [a] crowd, not even standing opposite me, before [you] suffer something evil. moreover [it] having been done, even [a] fool shall know [it].” Yes, in this context the gnomic meaning is intended, but it is dependent on the context and independent of the verb tense. The anarthous “nhpios” is part of it, because it has no referrent and therefore implies a “general” fool.
And I cannot agree that we should assume that “ean” only influences the choice of mood and does not affect the semantic meaning. As far as I have seen, the usage reflects not only the choice of the subjunctive mood but also the range of semantic meaning that can be expressed. Also the subjunctive does not exist in certain “tenses” and therefore cannot have a one-to-one correspondence with its indicative counterpart. So all my examples were meant to prove is that the gnomic meaning is determined solely by the context and not by the verb tense.
As for those which I listed, you might dispute Matt 12:29, but it means “how can anyone enter into the house of the strong man unless [he] first binds the strong man?”. If it said “[a] strong man” I agree that it can be gnomic, but because it refers to “the strong man”, and the context has Jesus saying “if I cast out the demons in [the] spirit of God, then the kingdom of God came upon you” before and “and then [he] will plunder his house” after, the context indicates the intended meaning to be association between Jesus and the one who binds the strong man, the strong man having been referred to earlier. Other examples similarly refer to an indefinite possibility rather than a generic truth. Matt 18:13 uses both present imperative “go” and aorist imperative “reprove” as well, if we consider imperatives also in our study.
Regards,
David Lim
Dear Alastair,
It is true that the definite article would not in general exclude the possibility of a statement being gnomic. However an article usually means one of three things. We would first expect it to refer to an antecedent, which is usually the closest in grammatical proximity. If there is none in the expected places, we would then expect the articular noun to be specified by one or more adjectival clauses, which may include prepositional clauses or participles. If neither of the two are present then it usually refers to a known entity in the wider current scope, which may end up being the common frame of reference. This is meant mostly for ordinary nouns and names are not included. “pneumati qeou” therefore falls into the third category, referring to “[the] spirit of God” in the Jewish frame of reference. “h basileia tou qeou” is in the second category, referring to “the kingdom which is of God”. The second “the strong man” is of course in the first category, referring to the previously-mentioned “strong man”. Within that sentence alone it is impossible to decide for the first, however Matt 12:24-28 indicates that Jesus had a specific “strong man” in mind, therefore it must be non-gnomic, although of course anyone may disagree with this analysis. The point is that it is most probably non-gnomic. =)
Regards, David Lim
Hi again David
I’m going to be a little naughty, and try to steal your example (Matthew 12:29), which I think you have accurately identified as a subjunctive aorist in the protasis of a conditional, where a generic/gnomic/omnitemporal reading might be a possibility. Although you provide evidence that, at least in this case, the aorist isn’t generic/gnomic/omnitemporal, please allow me to offer counter-evidence.
29b ἐὰν μὴ πρῶτον δήσῃ τὸν ἰσχυρόν; 29c καὶ τότε τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ διαρπάσει. 29b EAN MH PRWTON DHSHi ISXURON; 29c KAI TOTE THN OIKIAN AUTOU DIARPASEI.
The example is slightly complicated because the verb (in this case DEW, “I bind”) is negated (by MH). Additionally, the example suggests, to me at least, that the connection between protasis and apodosis, in this particular case, is procedural (note PRWTON … TOTE) rather than deontological or teleological, as in Matthew 6:14-15. However, it is nicely analagous to Matthew in that the conditional structure is “EAN + (aorist) subjunctive (DHSHi) … future indicative (DIARPASEI)”.
There’s another complication, though, in that the protasis does double-duty, providing a condition both for 12:29a and 12:29c.
29a ἢ πῶς δύναται τις εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ 29a καὶ τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ ἁρπάσαι, …
29a Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, 29b unless he first binds the strong man? 29c And then he will plunder his house. (NASB)
The basic idea seems to be: (all x) (all y) (possible for x to rob y implies possible for x to bind y) equivalently (all x) (all y) (impossible for x to bind y implies impossible for x to rob y).
The significance, of course, is that Jesus (according to the text) is not only asserting power to bind, but intention to rob. The dispute with the Pharisees is regarding them acknowledging Jesus’ power, but questioning his motives. So, yes, as you said David, “the strong man” in this gospel tradition, refers to the Devil: Jesus’ boss according to the Pharisees, but his “target” according to Jesus. However, I think you’re too smart for the text, David. Jesus is his typically (almost annoyingly) circumlocutionary self here, talking of some abstract, generalised “strong man” rather than giving the Devil his name in this verse.
I should stop there, and just ask some questions. Why does the text have a future tense hARPASAI? Why not a perfect instead of the aorist DHSHi? Why does the NASB translate both into the English present?
I think there are a lot of generic indicators in this verse. “How is it possible for just anybody to go into the home of the strong and grab his stuff? Unless…”
alastair
Dear Alastair,
Alright, I will give my answers to your questions then. =)
Why does the text have a future tense hARPASAI? Because “[he] will plunder his house” after “[he] binds the strong [one]”, just as the phrase “kai tote” implies. Clearly “the strong [one]” is singular and not plural, so it is not impossible but unlikely to refer to “the strong [ones]” in general.
Why not a *perfect* instead of the aorist DHSHi? Because subjunctives usually come in aorist form, as Mark Lightman also pointed out. In other words what we call tense of the verb (present, aorist, perfect…) may be constrained by what we call the mood (indicative, subjunctive), and may not be independent “parameters” of the verb. It is almost natural for “ean” to be followed by either a present or aorist subjunctive, so they do not have exactly the same meaning as the indicative counterparts (even if they once had).
Why does the NASB translate both into the English *present*? I am not interested in what people translate the words as, especially since each translation has its own features and flaws. I think we are instead interested in what the author originally meant, which may not be anything more than an indefinite possibility.
Regards,
David Lim
EAN (ἐὰν) originated in crasis (vocalic mingling) of εἰ and ἀν (EI and AN).
As for why an aorist is translated into Engish as a Present tense, I think the simple reason is that English has no Aorist tense, but the Present tense in English has much broader range of usage.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Dear Alastair,
Oh if you were concerned with just how to render the Greek into English, then for Matt 6:14-15 I certainly agree that the closest representative of “ean afhte” is “if you forgive”, however we should note that translation is not exactly what we are concerned with. As another point to note, I do believe “ean” causes the subjunctive verb to drop its tense, becoming something like the infinitive, inasmuch as “ean afhte” is, as Carl mentioned, similar to “ei an afhte” which is approximately “if you shall forgive”, which is why I said being an aorist does not mean the same thing in different constructions. Anyway, Matt 6:12 in the Byzantine text-type says “ws kai hmeis afiemen” so I never saw what you meant in the first place until I looked at the NU text haha.. Perhaps the scribes saw no difference between the present and aorist (for this particular context), thus the variants.
Regards, David Lim
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]>
To my dear Greek friends. Thank you and keep up the good work. I know when I’m beat. lol
To my dear Greek friends. Thank you and keep up the good work. I know when I’m beat. lol
Come to think about it dont have no greek friends per se. Have some greek scholar friends if that counts Street Preacherz
My apologies, Mr Troy Day
Dear friends students and scholars of Greek. I think it’s wonderful. Keep up the good work. Churchill once said he flunked English but it served him well. While his peers went on with Greek and Latin he was still learning the structure of the English sentence.
I do think, if I’m not mistaken, that there are a few scholars and pastors from Greece.
Come to think about it dont have no greek friends per se. Have some greek scholar friends if that counts Street Preacherz
My apologies, Mr Troy Day
Dear friends students and scholars of Greek. I think it’s wonderful. Keep up the good work. Churchill once said he flunked English but it served him well. While his peers went on with Greek and Latin he was still learning the structure of the English sentence.
I do think, if I’m not mistaken, that there are a few scholars and pastors from Greece.