εἰμί + Participle
In a finite **εἰμί + participle** periphrasis, the two forms jointly realize a verbal predicate. The finite form supplies person, number, mood, and tense-form; the participle supplies lexical content and contributes voice and aspectual information. Temporal reference and interpretation belong to the construction in context, not to an exceptionless formula 'εἰμί = time, participle = aspect'. The perfect system’s analysis remains as qualified in Chapter 47.
The participle agrees with its controller in gender, number, and case; in ordinary finite subject-oriented examples it is nominative. **ἦν διδάσκων** combines third singular imperfect indicative εἰμί with a present active nominative masculine singular participle: 'he was teaching'. The participle remains nonfinite and does not acquire indicative morphology.
Present Periphrastic
**Present indicative εἰμί + present participle**, when functioning periphrastically, forms a present-system predicate. **Constructed example:** **ἐστὶν διδάσκων**, 'he is teaching'. Its broad tense/aspect value can correspond to **διδάσκει**, but this does not prove identical emphasis, discourse function, or unrestricted interchangeability. Present participles need not always denote continuous activity.
**2 Corinthians 9:12** provides an actual present construction with **ἐστὶ προσαναπληροῦσα**. The participle agrees with **ἡ διακονία**, nominative feminine singular, and takes a direct object.
**2 Corinthians 9:12 — HBS BYZ04:** **οὐ μόνον ἐστὶ προσαναπληροῦσα τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν ἁγίων** ('is not only supplying the needs of the saints'). The following coordinated participle continues the description of this ministry.
Imperfect Periphrastic
**Imperfect indicative εἰμί + present participle** can form an imperfect periphrasis. **Luke 5:17**, **αὐτὸς ἦν διδάσκων**, presents Jesus teaching in the narrative setting. **ἦν** is third singular imperfect indicative; **διδάσκων** is present active participle, nominative masculine singular. The construction has a broad imperfect value comparable to **ἐδίδασκεν**, but the choice of expression can matter for presentation in discourse. Do not infer special intensity or uninterrupted duration merely from the two-word form.
**Luke 5:17 — HBS BYZ04:** **καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν διδάσκων** ('and he was teaching'). The sentence also has introductory **ἐγένετο** and other predicates; none invalidates this local periphrastic analysis.
Perfect Periphrastic
**Present indicative εἰμί + perfect participle** can form a perfect periphrasis. In **John 6:31**, **καθώς ἐστι γεγραμμένον** means 'as it is written'. **γεγραμμένον** has perfect middle/passive morphology and passive interpretation here; it is nominative neuter singular in the impersonal citation formula.
The construction is comparable to **γέγραπται**, but synthetic perfect forms remain in use. Do not explain every periphrastic perfect as a replacement for a lost form. Perfect morphology does not independently prove permanence, and some participial predicates admit both adjectival and verbal analyses.
**John 6:31 — HBS BYZ04:** **καθώς ἐστι γεγραμμένον** ('as it is written'). This edition has **ἐστι** here, without movable ν; retain the actual wording in quotations.
Pluperfect Periphrastic
**Imperfect indicative εἰμί + perfect participle** can form a pluperfect periphrasis, relating a perfect-system predication to a past reference point. **John 3:24**, **οὔπω γὰρ ἦν βεβλημένος**, is naturally rendered 'for he had not yet been put [in prison]'. **βεβλημένος** is a perfect middle/passive participle, nominative masculine singular, referring to John and interpreted passively.
The construction’s interpretation depends on the predicate and narrative reference point. Synthetic pluperfects also occur, as Chapter 47’s **εἰρήκει** illustrates. No claim that periphrasis supplied 'most' Koine pluperfect meanings is justified without a defined corpus and count.
**John 3:24 — HBS BYZ04:** **οὔπω γὰρ ἦν βεβλημένος εἰς τὴν φυλακὴν ὁ Ἰωάννης** ('for John had not yet been put in prison'). The negation belongs to the complete predicate; it must not be dropped when explaining the example.
Future Periphrastic
With future **εἰμί**, distinguish the participle’s form. **Luke 5:10**, **ἔσῃ ζωγρῶν**, combines second singular future indicative with a present active participle: 'you will be catching [people] alive'. The construction has future reference; the present participle contributes imperfective presentation without requiring uninterrupted activity.
**Future εἰμί + perfect participle** gives the future-perfect pattern illustrated by **ἔσται δεδεμένον** in **Matthew 16:19**. It can be rendered 'will be bound' or 'will have been bound', depending on the analysis. As in Chapter 47, morphology alone does not settle the exact chronology of earthly and heavenly binding. A table saying merely 'future εἰμί + participle = future' obscures this distinction.
**HBS BYZ04:** **Luke 5:10:** **ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀνθρώπους ἔσῃ ζωγρῶν** ('from now on you will be catching people alive'). **Matthew 16:19:** **ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς** ('will be bound in the heavens'), with a perfect middle/passive participle interpreted passively.
γίνομαι + Participle
**γίνομαι** and **ὑπάρχω** occur with participles in constructions related to periphrasis, but are not interchangeable copies of εἰμί. **Mark 9:3**, **τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο στίλβοντα**, describes the clothes becoming gleaming; γίνομαι contributes change of state. Whether to call this verbal periphrasis or a copular predicate with a participle depends on the adopted criteria. The singular finite verb with a neuter plural subject is a Greek agreement pattern, not an error.
**Acts 8:16**, **βεβαπτισμένοι ὑπῆρχον**, presents a prior baptism/state in a past setting. Parse its actual components and consider the contribution of ὑπάρχω. Do not construct a supposed γίνομαι periphrasis by linking introductory ἐγένετο to διδάσκων across **ἦν** in Luke 5:17.
**HBS BYZ04:** **Mark 9:3:** **καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο στίλβοντα** ('and his clothes became gleaming'). **Acts 8:16:** **μόνον δὲ βεβαπτισμένοι ὑπῆρχον εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ** ('but they had only been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus'). **βεβαπτισμένοι** is perfect middle/passive, nominative masculine plural, with passive interpretation; **ὑπῆρχον** is imperfect active indicative, third plural here.
μέλλω + Infinitive
**μέλλω + infinitive** can express a prospective situation, expectation, intention, or what is destined to occur, according to context. 'Be about to' is appropriate in some passages, but immediate imminence is not invariant. **Acts 24:15** speaks of a resurrection that is to occur; the construction does not itself specify how soon.
Distinguish the complement from μέλλω’s own inflection: **μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι** has two infinitives in the larger construction. It is not a future indicative form. A broader analysis may call this prospective periphrasis; it differs from the εἰμί-plus-participle patterns above.
**Acts 24:15 — HBS BYZ04:** **ἀνάστασιν μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι νεκρῶν, δικαίων τε καὶ ἀδίκων** ('that there is to be a resurrection of the dead, both righteous and unrighteous'). **μέλλειν** is present active infinitive; **ἔσεσθαι** is the future middle-form infinitive of εἰμί.
Modal Periphrases
Modal predicates include **δεῖ + infinitive** ('it is necessary to') and **ὀφείλω + infinitive** ('ought/be obligated to'). These are complex predicates with infinitival complements; a broad use of 'periphrasis' should not obscure their lexical and syntactic differences from εἰμί + participle.
Do not confuse **δεῖ** with **δέομαι**. In request contexts δέομαι means 'ask/beg', not a general auxiliary 'need to'. In **Luke 9:38**, **δέομαί σου** ('I beg you') is followed in this edition by the imperative **ἐπίβλεψον** ('look upon'). That is a request with direct-command wording, not the alleged modal formula 'I need to'.
**HBS BYZ04:** **Luke 24:26:** **οὐχὶ ταῦτα ἔδει παθεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν** ('was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things?'). **1 John 2:6:** **ὀφείλει** is completed later by **περιπατεῖν** ('ought to walk'). **Luke 9:38:** **δέομαί σου, ἐπίβλεψον ἐπὶ τὸν υἱόν μου** ('I beg you, look upon my son'). These are distinct constructions.
Aspectual Periphrases
**Phase verbs** describe the beginning or ending of another situation. **ἄρχομαι + infinitive** supplies lexical onset: in **Mark 6:34**, **ἤρξατο διδάσκειν** means 'he began to teach'. The beginning comes from ἄρχομαι, not from treating every aorist as ingressive. The present infinitive has its own imperfective form.
**παύομαι** can take a supplementary participle: **ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν** in **Luke 5:4**, 'he stopped speaking'. Here **λαλῶν** is present active participle, nominative masculine singular, completing a phase predicate. Calling such combinations 'aspectual periphrases' in a broad sense must not erase the distinction between lexical phase and grammatical viewpoint aspect.
**HBS BYZ04:** **Mark 6:34:** **ἤρξατο διδάσκειν αὐτοὺς πολλά** ('he began to teach them many things'). **Luke 5:4:** **ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν** ('when he stopped speaking'). The former uses an infinitive; the latter a supplementary participle.
Auxiliary-Like Verbs
Distinguish construction types before applying the label **auxiliary**. **εἰμί + participle** can realize a periphrastic tense predicate. **γίνομαι** and **ὑπάρχω** have related copular/participial uses with their own lexical contributions. **μέλλω + infinitive** expresses prospective meanings; **δεῖ** and **ὀφείλω + infinitive** express necessity or obligation; **ἄρχομαι + infinitive** and **παύομαι + participle** express phase.
These verbs do not all select the same complement, and no verb is an auxiliary in every occurrence. **δέομαι** belongs to request constructions in the example examined here. A description of a verb as auxiliary-like is an analysis of a particular construction, not permission to replace it freely with εἰμί or omit its lexical contribution.
Distinguishing True Periphrasis from Predicate Participles
For **εἰμί + participle**, ask whether the forms jointly express one verbal predication in their local clause. Identify the participle’s controller and agreement, its complements, and the role of εἰμί. Is εἰμί auxiliary-like, or does it independently express existence or location? Is the participle verbal, adjectival, substantival, or circumstantial in this construction?
A plausible synthetic paraphrase is helpful evidence, not a sufficient mechanical test. Neither adjacency, article status, word order, nor an English progressive translation settles the question alone. The boundary between a result-state predicate and verbal perfect periphrasis can be difficult, and analyses may differ. Another independent or coordinated predicate elsewhere does not rule out periphrasis. **Luke 5:17** illustrates this: introductory **ἐγένετο** coexists with the local predicate **ἦν διδάσκων**; it does not form a single unit with διδάσκων across that intervening predicate.
Paradigms
Periphrastic Constructions
Classify the local construction before applying these patterns. The finite component and participle contribute jointly; temporal reference and interpretation require context. Synthetic counterparts can coexist, and broad correspondence does not prove identical discourse function.
| Pattern | Construction when periphrastic | Typical interpretation / example |
| Present | Present indicative εἰμί + present participle | Present-system predicate; ἐστὶ προσαναπληροῦσα (2 Cor 9:12) |
|---|---|---|
| Imperfect | Imperfect indicative εἰμί + present participle | Imperfect periphrasis; ἦν διδάσκων (Luke 5:17) |
| Perfect | Present indicative εἰμί + perfect participle | Perfect periphrasis; ἐστι γεγραμμένον (John 6:31) |
| Pluperfect | Imperfect indicative εἰμί + perfect participle | Pluperfect periphrasis; οὔπω ἦν βεβλημένος (John 3:24, abridged) |
| Future / future perfect | Future εἰμί + present OR perfect participle | Present: ἔσῃ ζωγρῶν (Luke 5:10); perfect: ἔσται δεδεμένον (Matt 16:19) |
Chapter glossary
- — periphrastic
verb
A construction realizing a verbal predicate through multiple words. In finite εἰμί + participle examples, the forms function jointly; mere co-occurrence does not establish periphrasis. Other complex predicates must be analyzed separately.- — imperfect periphrastic
verb
Imperfect indicative εἰμί with a present participle functioning as one predicate, as ἦν διδάσκων in Luke 5:17. The construction is imperfect; the participle remains morphologically present and nonfinite.- — perfect periphrastic
verb
Present indicative εἰμί with a perfect participle functioning as a verbal predicate, as ἐστι γεγραμμένον in John 6:31, 'it is written'. Distinguish the components’ morphology from the whole construction’s interpretation.- — pluperfect periphrastic
verb
Imperfect indicative εἰμί with a perfect participle functioning as a past-reference perfect-system predicate. John 3:24 has οὔπω ἦν βεβλημένος, 'had not yet been put'. Synthetic pluperfect forms coexist with periphrasis.- μέλλω — I am about to (+ infinitive)
mellō
verb
With an infinitive, can express a prospective, expected, intended, or destined situation. 'Be about to' fits some contexts but does not always imply immediate imminence. Acts 24:15 has μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι, referring to a resurrection to come.- — auxiliary
verb
A verb functioning within a construction to help realize grammatical meaning with a nonfinite verb. Auxiliary status is construction-dependent; modal, phase, and participial predicates differ in complement selection and retained lexical meaning.