The Indicative Mood

Greek syntax is a very important subject, and being extremely complex, it ought to be studied very carefully before arguments are made from it. Any field involving intricate nuances and exceptions is obviously open to abuse, and accordingly, a lot of principles have been drawn and arguments made which abuse Greek grammar in general.

For example, Frank Stagg wrote an article in Journal of Biblical Literature demonstrating that the aorist tense is often mis-represented, even in some grammars, when a careful distinction is not made between the writer's manner of presentation, to which the "punctiliar" idea of the aorist belongs, and the action itself, to which the "punctiliar" idea may or may not belong. ¹Citing eleven different noted men, Stagg says these are "a few of those ...who have built theology or Biblical interpretation upon ... a misunderstanding of the aorist ..." ²

In discussing "The important of syntax for the proper understanding of the Sacred Text of the New Testament," Dr. J. Harold Greenlee noted that many aspects of syntax are "...too commonly neglected or not adequately understood." ³And Julius R. Mantey, who, along with H. E. Dana, authored a Greek grammar, wrote an article entitled "Evidence that the Perfect Tense in John 20:23 and Matthew 16:19 is mistranslated," asking, "Was the refusal of the correct translation (i.e. what the apostles bind on earth "shall have been bound" in heaven - Matthew 16:19) due to theological bias or to the lack of an adequate knowledge of Greek grammar?" ³

Even as early as 1890 the importance of syntax and the danger of abuse received attention. Dr. Goodwin, speaking of the time when he had written thirty years earlier, said, "At that time prevailing theories, based chiefly on abstract speculations, had obscured some of the most important facts in the syntax of the moods, and perhaps no better service could be rendered by a new writer than the clearing away of some of the clouds. ⁴

Having thus seen that various abuses of Greek grammar have been a problem for many years, and clearly remain such today, one ought to be moved to proceed cautiously with arguments based on Greek syntax, recognizing the very real possibility of error. When one sees just how varied and characteristically different the indicative mood is, the danger of abuse and the need for careful study in this area will be obvious.

As the title suggests, the purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate that the indicative mood is characteristically different from the other moods. This presentation will begin with an examination of mood in general, progressing to a discussion of the indicative mood and the fact that it is different, this being illustrated by various specific examples. The list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive, nor is it within the scope of this chapter to discuss each particular illustration. The principles expressed will then be applied specifically to the present indicative, which will make it possible to critically evaluate the argument under question in this paper.

What is mood (or mode) ? Robertson points out that this is "...far and away the most difficult theme in Greek syntax." ⁵He gives a simple definition: "The mode is the manner of the affirmation, while voice and tense have to do with the action of the verb (voice with the relation of the subject to the action of the verb, tense with the state of the action)." ⁶

In a very general sense, Dana and Mantey suggest that there are, in the strictest analysis of the verb function in language, only two essential moods. They define mood as " ...the way in which an action is conceived with reference to reality...so the two essential moods in language are the real - represented in Greek by the indicative' and the potential..." ⁷

The number of moods is variously listed, but most grammars list the basic four in Greek as indicative, subjunctive, optative, and imperative, while some add participles and infinitives to this classification. There has even been some discussion as to whether the indicative ought to be classified as a mood, though there is no other classification under which one could suitably place it.

The indicative mood is"...the mood that is used in all Indo-Germanic languages unless there is a special reason to use one of the others. In fact, it is the normal mode in speech." ⁸According to Dana and Mantey, "The indicative is the mood which denotes the verbal idea as actual." ⁹They further state, "The indicative is the declarative mood, denoting a simple assertion or interrogation." ¹⁰

Moule quotes Moulton (Proleg, p. 164) as saying that the indicative mood is used for making simple statements of fact, while the imperative, subjunctive, and optative moods are all "characterized by a common subjective element, representing an attitude of mind on the part of the speaker." ¹¹But in discussing the reality of the indicative mood, it is important to keep in mind that what is referred to is the manner of affirmation. As Robertson points out, "The indicative has nothing to do with reality ...The speaker presents something as true... whether it is true or no is another matter. Most untruths are told in the indicative." ¹²

By its very nature, the indicative mood stands out as different from the others. Because of a unique"... difference between the indicative and the other moods in the matter of time, some grammars give a separate treatment to the indicative tenses." ¹³Although this element of time must not be accented unduly, yet it is an indication of the characteristic difference in this mood. It carries a double idea, namely, kind of action and time of action.

The individuality of the mood is further demonstrated by the fact that "...The present indicative... is the most frequent in actual use and hence shows the greatest diversity of development." Brugman finds thirty two distinct ways of forming the present tense in the Indo-Germanic tongues and thirty of them in the Greek." ¹⁴

That the indicative mood is distinctly different among the moods of the Greek language seems obvious. But a number of specific illustrations, by no means exhausting the list of variations unique to this mood, will perhaps demonstrate both the vastness of this diversity and the foolishness of pressing mood and tense generalities too far.

One unique feature of the indicative is that it is the only mood which shows "... time absolutely, present, past, or future." ¹⁵However, Robertson points out an exception to this general statement in that the future, differing from every other Greek tense, has the element of time in every mood in which it occurs, though it is far more common in the indicative than the other moods." ¹⁶And it is suggested by Dana and Mantey that although the "potential moods" do not carry temporal significance, "...as a rule they are relatively futuristic." ¹⁷

The augment, denoting past time, presents another peculiarity of this mood. "It appears only in the secondary or past tenses of the indicative mood, namely imperfect, aorist, and pluperfect. ¹⁸Note also that the imperfect and pluperfect occur only in the indicative, and as previously mentioned, the chief significance of the future tense is found there. And, "Repetition in past time is expressed ...in relative temporal clauses by an augmented tense of the indicative..." ¹⁹

Characteristically, the aorist tense was"...used as a matter of course, unless there was a special reason for using some other tense." ²⁰But in the indicative it takes on the added factor of indicating past time, and therefore would not fit that general "aorist rule."

The uses of the aorist in the indicative further demonstrates the mood's variation. Moule quotes Moulton (Proleg, 109) as distinguishing within the aorist indicative the "Ingressive" and the "Constantive" uses. ²⁰A much longer list of varying uses is given by Robertson, including (1) The Narrative or Historical tense, (2) The Gnomic Aorist, (3) Relation to the Imperfect, 4.Relation to the Past Perfect, (5) Relation to the Present, (6) Relation to the Present Perfect, (T) Epistolary Aorist, (8) Relation to the Future, (9) Aorist inWishes, (10) Variations in the Uses of Tenses, and (11) Translation of the Aorist into English. ²¹

The imperfect indicative also manifests a variety of uses, listed in Blass and Debrunner's grammar as (1) Iterative Imperfect, (2) Conative Imperfect, (3) Imperfect used to portray the manner of the action, (4) Imperfect with verbs of commanding, asking, etc., and (5) Imperfect used to express relative time. ²²

The present indicative also exhibits a wide variety, both in formation and uses. Of the great quantity of combinations in the formation, Robertson gives those of Monro as one of the most satisfying, including (1) The Root Class, (2) The Non-Thematic Reduplicated Present, (3) The Non-Thematic Present with – να – and – νυ –, (4) The Simple Thematic Present, (5) The Redupli-cated Present, and (6) The Thematic Present with a suffix (which has several classes listed under it). ²³

But the Present Indicative is not only varied in its formation, it has a wide variety of uses also. Smyth gives the following uses:

Present of Customary Action, Present of General Truth, Conative Present, Present for the future, Oracular Present, Historical Present, Annalistic Present, Present for Perfect, and Past and Present combined. ²⁴

The Periphrastic tenses are formed by a participle together with an auxiliary verb or verbs such as "to be" or "to have," and express progressive (linear) action. "The periphrastic aorist appears only ... in the indicative." ²⁵

It should also be noted here that "In the present tense the periphrastic construction marks more clearly the durative force, and in view of the fact that the present has no distinctive aoristic (punctiliar) form it offers a very convenient device, which fact makes it a little strange that it is infrequent in the New Testament." ²⁶This construction would thus come into play if one wished to clearly stress continuous action in the present time.

There is variety even in the kinds of sentences which use the indicative mood. Besides the general types (1) Declarative or Interrogative, and (2) Positive or Negative, Robertson lists special uses of the indicative under three heads. (1) For Courtesy, (2) Present necessity, Obligation, Possibility, Propriety in Tense of the Past, as well as (4) Impossible Wishes. ²⁷

Even in the smaller structure of clauses (relative) the indicative comes into play. The present and past tenses of the indicative without av express a fact or the assumption of a fact. The future indicative is used to denote purpose, present intention, or an intended result. (Unreality can be indicated by the indicative with αν).

Relative Clauses of Purpose (Final Relative Clauses regularly take the future indicative, even after past tenses) ... Relative Clauses can take the indicative... Relative Clauses of Result (Consecutive Relative Clauses) usually take the indicative...The future indicative is often used to express an intended result... especially... when the main clause contains an idea of ability, capacity, or characteristic, and the relative clause denotes what is to be expected of the subject... Simple present and past conditional relative clauses have the present or past indicative... Present and past unreal conditional reflective clauses have a secondary tense of the indicative... The present indicative instead of the subjunctive with an occurs in general conditional relative clauses... The indicative is generally used in parenthetical or appended relative clauses with otto. ²⁸

In his chapter on "Semitisms" Moule gives a Greek idiom stemming from the influence of a normal Hebrew construction where commands and prohibitions are translated into Greek by the future indicative. ²⁹

But looking at even smaller components, we find that even individual words come into play, because as a general rule, "οὐ negates the indicative, μὴ the remaining moods including the infinitive and participle." ²⁴As Bauer ²⁵shows, even this rule has exceptions. Another example involving a single word is εἶδον, in its New Testament usage, has, in the indicative, almost exclusively first aorist endings, instead of second aorist endings. ²⁶

What Does all the Mean?

It is obvious to even a beginning student of the Greek language that the indicative mood is characteristically different from the other moods, and therefore care should be taken in exegesis to avoid tense generalizations, which do not consider the mood, or any of a number of other factors which may be involved. Application of this principle can readily be observed in the present tense of the indicative mood, which brings us specifically to the subject of this study. The generalized rule that present tense denotes linear action runs into a difficulty in the indicative mood. Moulton explains this difficulty:

In order to say I walk without reference to time, English can be unambiguous; not so Greek. It must use the indicative of the present... if the aorist indicative were used it would but confuse still more by bringing in the augment which indicates past time. Thus in Greek one seldom knows apart from the context whether the pres. indic. means_ walk or lam walking. In other moods than the indic., of course, the problem does not arise, there being no complicating augment, and so the aorist stem is freely used to indicate punctiliar action in present time. One must always bear that in mind for exegesis. ²⁷

Robertson is also quite clear on this subject, writing,

This defect is chiefly found in the indicative, since in the subj., opt..., inf.., and part.., as already shown, the aorist is always punctiliar and the so called present practically always linear, unless the aktionsart of the verb itself is strongly punctiliar... But in the indicative present thye sharp line drawn between the imperf. and the aorist ind. (past time) does not exist... The one Greek form covers both ideas in the ind.... It is not wise therefore to define the pres. ind. as denoting "action in progress" like the imperf. as Burton does, for he has to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the 'Aoristic Present, which he calls a "distinct departure from the prevailing use of the present tense to denote action in progress." In sooth, it is no "departure" at all. The idiom is as old as the tense itself and is due to the failure in the development of separate tenses for punctiliar and linear action in the ind. of present time. ²⁸

Evidently not understanding these points which Moulton said must be kept in mind and which Robertson said are no departure from the norm at all, those using the present tense argument discussed in this paper make a broad generalization about the present tense in general, ignoring the mood and the fact that the present indicative cannot be treated the same as the present subjunctive, present imperative, etc.

This distinction can be illustrated as follows:

For example, one author obviously missed this distinction, saying, "Everybody who knows anything about Greek tense knows that the NORMAL, REGULAR, GENERAL meaning of present tense is continuous action." ²⁹Interestingly, when he cited scriptures to illustrate his point, he referred to Matthew 6:33 and Colossians 3:1, where "dzateite" ...{has a} literal meaning... keep

on seeking," and he gives Acts 9:34, "healeth," as an example of a present tense verb involving "point" action. He concluded there-fore, "I am right now confidently affirming that the present tense verb moichatai in Matthew 19:9 CANNOT mean anything other than continuous action." He reached this conclusion about this verb in Matthew 19:9, which is in the indicative mood, because of what he demonstrated in the examples above. But what about these examples? What about the mood distinctions?

In the case of the two examples where the meaning is "keeps on" both are present imperatives, not indicatives. In Matthew 19:9 the verb in question is indicative. In the example of "point action" the verb is a present indicative, like the verb in Matthew 19:9. Thus his examples illustrate what he denied in his conclusion. The examples agree with what Moulton and Robertson said, but his "rule" does not agree with them or even with his own examples. This shows us what can result when broad generalities are arbitrarily imposed, ignoring the various mood distinctions.

It would certainly seem that the present indicative must be considered in its own right rather than by generalized rules for the present tense of the other moods. Since it is not wise, as Robertson put it, "to define the present indicative as denoting 'action in progress'" in view of the fact that the present indicative does service for both linear and punctiliar in an ambiguous way, it appears obvious that the present indicative, in and of itself, does not stress the linear idea as the present does in the other moods. Actually there are several ways in which the durative force may be stressed in the present indicative. such as when "...the periphrastic construction is used or when the aktionsart comes in to help out the word itself." ²⁹

Therefore, it is not accurate grammatically to argue that a Greek verb in the present indicative stresses continuous or repeated action solely because it is a present indicative. On the other hand, since the indicative is the most frequent mood in all languages, and since it is the normal mood to use when there is no special reason for employing another, ³⁰perhaps more significance should be attached to an occasion when the indicative is not employed rather than when it is.

From the foregoing study this writer would draw the following conclusions, in addition to the fact that the argument being evaluated is not accurate grammatically. First, the more one learns of the Greek language of New Testament times, the more he should realize the need for greater caution and less dogmatism, being " swift to hear, slow to speak..." (James 1:19).

Secondly, mood is a difficult theme. And thirdly, broad, sweeping generalizations are more likely to be brought forth out of ignorance than an advanced knowledge of the Greek language.

It is hoped that this chapter, as well as the rest of this study, will help to fill that gap in the knowledge of those seeking to accurately instruct others in the word of God. Ignorance bears no shame unless it becomes willful ignorance.

But now this study turns to an in-depth examination of the text of the scriptures to see if these grammatical principles do indeed show forth in actual use.