Plural Pronouns and the Scope of Matthew 23:39

The issue here concerns how the second-person plural in Greek functions in Matthew 23:39, and whether this supports reading "ye" as a collective singular (what I have elsewhere called a "ye-plus" usage), where a plural pronoun plus certain grammatical features mark out a unified group acting as one.

The Greek Structure of Matthew 23:39

Matthew 23:39 in the King James Version reads:

"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."

In Greek, the verse has:

• "I say unto you" – with an explicit second person plural pronoun in the dative: "to you" (plural).
• "ye shall not see" – a second person plural verb meaning "you (plural) will not see."
• "till ye shall say" – another second person plural verb, "you (plural) will say."

Blue Letter Bible is correct that the verb "ye shall say" is second person plural. However, note that in that particular clause there is no separate, explicit pronoun "you" in Greek; it is only carried in the plural verb form itself. English brings in "ye" for clarity, but in Greek the pronoun is embedded in the verb ending.

The Formula of Introduction

The phrase "For I say unto you" is what grammarians call a formula of introduction. It introduces the statement that follows, often a quotation or prophetic declaration. Grammatically and conceptually it is distinct from the main content that is being introduced.

So the structure is:

Formula of introduction: "I say unto you" (plural addressees). Content: "Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."

The key question is whether the explicit plural pronoun in the formula of introduction should be used to classify the following clauses under a special "ye-plus" rule, as if the presence of the pronoun there automatically turns all subsequent plural verbs into a technically distinct category (a collective singular group).

The "Ye-Plus" Rule and Its Limits

The "ye-plus" observation, as I have used it, looks for instances where:

• There is an explicit second person plural pronoun in Greek (not just implied in the verb), and
• That pronoun is closely tied to a singular noun or a singular conceptual entity, so that "ye" (plural) plus the singular indicates the group viewed collectively as one.

Even when English shows "ye," we must check whether Greek has a separate pronoun, and whether the construction is one of tight identification (for example, "ye are [singular noun]").

In Matthew 23:39, the crucial prophecy is: "Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say..." This contains plural verbs addressed to a plural group (Jerusalem/Israel), but it does not have a second, explicit plural pronoun within those clauses. The only explicit plural pronoun in the verse is inside the formula of introduction, "I say unto you."

Because that opening formula is grammatically set off from the main content, it is better not to use it as the basis for treating the following plural verbs as if they bore a technical "ye-plus" collective singular marker. The verbs themselves simply indicate a plural "you."

So, in this case, the "ye-plus" rule is not clearly activated in the way it is in passages where you have a direct and tight construction like "ye are [the body]" with both the explicit pronoun and a singular predicate noun.

How to Take the Plural "Ye" Here

Therefore:

• Blue Letter Bible is correct that "ye shall say" is a second person plural verb.
• The verse does address a plural entity (the people represented by Jerusalem), and the plural "ye" is real.
• But it is better not to press Matthew 23:39 as a technical example of a "ye-plus" collective singular based on the formula of introduction.

The main force of the verse remains: the collective body addressed (Jerusalem/Israel) will not see Christ again until they, as a people, say, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." The plurality is genuine, and the verse envisions a future corporate confession. Yet grammatically, this particular text does not provide the clearest support for a specialized "ye-plus" category; the formula of introduction stands somewhat apart from the main prophetic assertion.

So, you are right that the verbs are plural; the hesitation comes in pressing this as a technical instance of a singularized "ye-plus" construction. Here the safer exegesis is to read it as a straightforward address to a plural group whose collective future confession is in view, without building a specific rule on the introductory formula.

questiontransition