1. I have been in a few discussion where the Subjunctive mood has been tossed around to build positions or to refute positions. 2. The Subjunctive with all its possibilities wasn't intended to strangle anyone. 3. Here's the appreciation of the Greek verbs: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" (1 Cor 15:3-5, ESV, emphasis added) 4. The Greek verbs speak to kind of action and not time of acton, per se. a. Christ died is aorist. b. Christ was buried is aorist. c. Christ was raised is perfect. d. Christ appeared is aorist. 5. He died, was buried, and has been raised, never to die, the implication of the perfect tense. 6. When the same verb is used of Lazarus, it is the aorist, ηγειρεν (John 12:9). 7. And what do we make of our good friend the Subjunctive: Well, it was never intended to strangle anyone, but it has: a. When we say that because a verb is subjunctive it conveys only Possibility and not Certainty, aren't we challenging orthodoxy: "the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent(Col 1:18, ESV, emphasis mine) b. Are we to question whether or not Christ is the preeminent one because of our friend the Subjunctive "he might be"? c. The verb is Subjunctive because it is part of a hina clause, signifying either purpose or result at this point. 8. The Subjunctive was never meant to strangle us but only to support us. 9. I was thought to move from Theology to Text to Theology To Application. 10. And that context defines meaning and not just an isolation of a word or two.