Dave you have shown me some new translations COOL. Thanks so much.
You used the ‘Phillips’ translation. 
Cool Bro 
Dave, it doesn’t matter how many versions one quotes that render the text as “every knee SHALL bow.” All of them are mistranslations.
The Greek is a subjunctive, not a future. And so it needs to be translated into English as a subjunctive in English. The problem is that grammar is seldom taught in modern elementary schools. The solution to the problem is not to substitute English subjunctives with futures. The solution is to teach grammar. When you look back in the thread, many examples of English subjunctives were used as examples.
The text states that God exalted Him and bestowed the highest name on Him FOR A PURPOSE. The purpose is so that every knee should (or “would” if you prefer) bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. This makes it no less certain than the sentence, “Every knee will bow.”
Let me give you an example. I might say, “I gave the starving man some food so that he should live.” Isn’t the probability that the man will live just as great as if I had said, “I gave the starving man some food, and now he will live.”
I would have thought that maybe one or two of the translators would have known that. The fact that they ALL mistranslated it just boggles my mind.
The word ‘should’ does not convey the same meaning, generally, as ‘will’. “I should go to church next Sunday” vs “I will go to church next Sunday”.
Every knee ‘will bow’ or ‘every knee should bow’.
Will every knee bow, Don? Is that what Paul meant?
It’s maybe not that bad Dave…
31 render the word — “should”
22 render the word — “will” (2 of which render it twice)
4 render the word — “shall”
The subjunctive mood refers to verbs that are used to describe hypothetical or non-real actions, events, or situations; used to express an action which may or should happen, but not necessarily true at the present. Examples: we are out to dinner, and I say… “I should pick up the tab on this” — and subsequently I do. Or, we catch a taxi from the airport, and you say… “I should pay the driver” — and subsequently you do.
That <κάμψῃ> kamyē (bow or bend) of Phil 2:10 is in the active voice means the subject produces the action, i.e., it is NOT something imposed upon said subject — if that were the case such would be indicated by the passive voice; It’s not.
Okay, thanks. I should have (no pun) paid more attention in grammar class.
Active voice, subjunctive mood. I get that.
For my $.02, the overriding ‘tone’ of the passage is one of victory and joy, bringing praise to God the Father; it does not have any sense of hesitation or wistful hopefulness - it reads like: Every voice will confess (active) Jesus as Lord.
Do you think Paul was unconvinced about the hope, so used ‘should’ rather than ‘will’’?
I don’t think so, but that’s me. Seems to me it’s been more a supposed problem raised in arguments against universalism where claims are sometimes raised that the worship involved is forced… I personally think that notion in itself is “forced”, quite apart from any universalism.
From what you wrote above, it seems that you still don’t get it. “Should” is used in TWO different ways in English. You appear to be stuck on the one that means “ought to”. The subjunctive “should” does NOT mean “ought to.” Your sentence, “I should go to church next Sunday” means I ought to go to church next Sunday. That is NOT a subjunctive. However, if the sentence were:
“My wife pressured be so that I should go to church next Sunday,” THAT would be a subjunctive. I have already suggested that if you prefer, you can substitute “would” since that is the way many modern people used the subjunctive. The would say it this way:
“My wife pressured me so that I would go to church next Sunday.” That would the most usual way of using the subjunctive in our day. The meaning is the same whether the word is “should” or “would.”
This sentence DOES NOT MEAN “My wife pressured me so that I OUGHT TO go to church next Sunday.” Nor would it be appropriate to remove the first part and write, "“I will go to church next Sunday.” That would be a simple future and not a subjunctive at all. It would be true whether my wife pressured me or not.
So examining the Philippians passage, let’s substitute “would” for “should” and see if that makes sense to you:
So God exalted His Son and bestowed on Him the highest name FOR A PURPOSE. The purpose was so than every knee would bow to Him.
If we can accept that God’s exaltation of His Son will truly have this effect, then it will be true that every knee will bow.
By using “should” instead of “would” as the subjunctive, the meaning is the same.
Why does the NASB (and NAS 1977) translate Phil.2:10 as:
New American Standard Bible
so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Do the caps indicate a quote? Does the NASB have any footnotes explaining the translation as “will” instead of “should” or “may”(YLT)?
Is there a textual variant as this claims:
"The “debate” mentioned in the quotation is over a textual variant – a spelling difference between different Greek copies of Paul’s letter. It’s a difference of just one letter: ἐξομολογήσεται v. ἐξομολογήσηται. The translation difference is thus “every tongue will confess” v. “every tongue should confess.” "
Ok, thanks, yep I did not get it, still don’t, but I do understand what you are saying in the quote above.
In and of itself, the verses don’t ‘sew up the case’ for UR - Paul could have, I reckon, used the word for ‘will’ instead of that subjunctive mood.
Do you think Paul was thinking ‘will’?
NT Wright is considered a leading NT scholar. His version has “shall”.
I’ve read a ton of Wright and respect his scholarship immensely. I’m heartened to hear his ‘shall’ in this context.
I’ve read a ton of Wright and respect his scholarship immensely. I’m heartened to hear his ‘shall’ in this context.
I think the context is about exalting Jesus so Paul may be simply saying that in Isaiah it says “everyone knee will bow” to God and now that Jesus is Lord , every knee should now bow to Jesus that had been destined to bow to God.
This is a comment by Greek scholar & popular author Bill Mounce:
"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?"
billmounce.com/monday-with- … -john-3-16
There are interesting comments following the above quote.
Here’s another comment from NT Greek scholar Bill Mounce re the subjunctive:
"A few blogs back I talked about my growing apprehension with connecting may and might by default with the subjunctive. Many of you responded with helpful information. Thanks.
Mike Aubrey left a comment about Margaret Sim’s book Marking Thought and Talk in New Testament Greek: New Light from Linguistics on the Particles Hina and Hoti, and it was repeated by Carl Conrad on the Biblical Greek forum. Richard Walker is correct; It seems that the use of may/might in purpose clauses now belongs to a higher register of English and is to be eliminated from modern translations that aspire to a certain type of clarity. Thanks.
The comment by David Croatia was also helpful. He started polling people and found that almost every person hears the idea of contingency or probability in may/might. His examples of misuse were especially interesting. (Translations are from the NIV.)
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to (ἵνα) help you and be (ᾖ) with you forever (John 14:16, NIV). Is there any question that the Holy Spirit might be with you?
For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us (ἵνα) to do (περιπατήσωμεν) (Eph 2:10). Does this mean, as David heard preached, that sanctification is probable, but not a reality, because of the subjunctive verb. It is true that we do not always do what the Lord has prepared for us to do, but that doesn’t come from the subjunctive. The NIV got this one right.
Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that (ἵνα) they too may obtain (τύχωσιν) the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. 2 Timothy 2:10. Does this mean that the elect might, but not necessarily, obtain their salvation? The NIV committee needs to look at this one.
So I am more encouraged than ever to remove may/might as default translations for the subjunctive."
“2:9-11 Subjunctive Purpose-Result Ina Clause”
“Normally the subjunctive mood refers to potential action. However, this use of ina
with verbs in the subjunctive mood indicates not only intention, but also its sure accomplishment
(Wallace, 473). Therefore, Paul is not merely arguing God’s desire that pa/n go,nu ka,myh | i.e.
“every knee should bow” and pa/sa glw/ssa evxomologh,shtai i.e. “every tongue should confess”,
he is declaring the intention that God will most certainly carry out. “The fulfillment of this
divine intention will take place at the parousia” (O’Brien, 239).”
angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver … 2_1-11.pdf
“What may be influencing the translation of Philippians 2:10 is the verb “confess” in Philippians 2:11. Some texts have this verb in the subjunctive mood, but there are a good number of texts with it in the indicative mood (the difference is a single letter).”
Thanks Origen! Very interesting.
I wonder if the early manuscripts have it in the indicative mood?
[/quote]
The comments i’ve seen don’t go into detail re specific MSS:
[Re confess in Phil.2:11]:
“The verb can be taken as a future passive indicative (exomologesatai) or as an aorist subjunctive (exomologesetai).The manuscript evidence is about evenly divided. The aorist subjunctive parallels KAMPSE (bow) in 2:10. The change to the aorist subjunctive could have been intended to bring the two verbs in line with each other, or a scribe could have been influenced by Isa 45:23, where both verbs - KAMPSEI and EXOMOLOGESETAI - are in the future indicative. In either case the meaning is not changed.”
“Philippians and Philemon (2009): A Commentary By Charles B. Cousar” [p.51]
books.google.com/books?id=uZh1B … ve&f=false
“All that the Prophets Have Declared: The Appropriation of Scripture in the …By Matthew R Malcolm” [see endnotes # 66ff]
Here is the paragraph from Bill Mounce (quoted by Origen) that makes the same point that I made:
Exactly!
I thought I would never say this, and perhaps it has never been said: I am disgusted by the subjunctive mood. I’m a moodist. I would round up all the subjunctives and send them back to Latin school, or Greek school, and good riddance to them all. They have no place in the crystal-clear empyrean intellectual heights in which I dwell. UP here, we see a subjunctive flappin’ around, we shoot 'em. Yep. We load up with a… load of indicatives packed in gerunds and hang a few dangling participles on that load and fire away. 'Subjunct THAT" we yell. Or someone will do the Michael Jackson crotch-grab and bellow “Yo I got yer subjunctive right here, yo!”
Okay okay, I made a little bit of that up out of thin Empyrean air. But someone said let your yes be yes, and your no your no. It was actually put a bit more elegantly if I remember.
So when the good St. Paul says the S -word - ‘should’ - someone, Timothy maybe, or Mark, or Chip or someone - ‘should’ have jumped up and said “Paul, I mean, what the hey? Say what you mean. Will everyone confess? What’s this ‘may’ stuff and this ‘should’ stuff?? Are you getting moody? (ha).”
Peace. The fit has passed, I accept the grammatical realities and will rest contentedly, sorta, within them.