English Language Learners Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for speakers of other languages learning English. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Recently I asked: "Are will and shall synonyms?" And they kind of were.
But now I would like to ask: Why are shall and should used interchangeably sometimes?
For example
You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall(should) not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall(will) surely die.”
I guess in first one shall means should
And in the second it means will
Okay, "shall" and "will" are used interchangeably often, but there's a slight difference. See my post herein to read about it: What is the difference between shall and may.
As for "shall" and "should", "should" is the past tense, imperfect, and past subjunctive form of "shall", so they have several overlapping meanings. The modal shall comes from Old English sculan meaning to owe. First-person present indicative of sculan was ic sceal, meaning I shall, whereas the past indicative and past subjunctive were both ic sceolde, meaning I should.
The old future tense rule has the following paradigm:
Simple Future: I shall, you will, he will, we shall, you will, they will
Emphatic Future: I will, you shall, he shall, we will, you shall, they shall
As for your examples above, "you shall not eat" is a command, i.e. "I order you not to eat", and is much more powerful than the simple "you should not eat", which is more of a suggestion such as "you ought not to eat." In your second usage of "shall", "you shall surely die" is far more powerful than "you will surely die." If you used "will" there, it would be more of a prediction that you're going to die whereas the usage of "shall" therein is prophetic: you are like a soothsayer; you can see into the future and so you are prophesying what shall happen. The usage of "shall" almost guarantees that the event will occur.
Here are some examples below using the formal English future-tense rule:
"I shall not be in school tomorrow." (a prediction)
"I will not be in school tomorrow." (you intend to skip school or you intend on not coming)
"You will not eat that fruit." (a prediction)
"You shall not eat that fruit." (a command: "you had better not eat it.")
"They will not pass." (a prediction)
"They shall not pass." (a command: "no way are they passing!")
"We shall die." (a prediction)
"We will die." (we intend to die; this is either suicide or a guarantee of death)
"You will win the game!" (a prediction)
"You shall win the game!" (a prophecy or a guarantee of a future occurrence)
Now, I want to reiterate that the examples above use the old future-tense rule whereon Fowler wrote his treatise in 1908. While some of the above usages still occur in English today although often inconsistently, many of them would be considered quite formal or outmoded. You should be aware of them, however, especially when you are reading the King James Bible or the English Standard Version, because this old rule is often followed in those versions of the Bible.
Should and shall are the same word. Shall is the form in the indicative mood, and should is the form in the subjunctive mood. Should is also the past tense form in the indicative mood.
Grammatically, you might therefore expect the second shall in your quotation to be should instead since it expresses a hypothetical event that will only occur in the event that the fruit is eaten.
Why the translators chose shall, I don't know. Possibly they felt that God, being omniscient, would not speak as if He were uncertain of the future. Possibly they were attempting to represent some grammar in the language they were translating from that does not translate perfectly to English.
In general, Bible translations don't attempt to use English the same way we do in every day conversation.
