The Use of the Aorist Imperative in the Pastoral Epistles 83 focus on the internal characteristics of the action as he did with “fight the good fight”? The context alone does not indicate either way, and one could even argue that a present tense verb would have been appropriate to describe how one “takes hold of” eternal life. After all, the issue does not seem to be conversion per se but rather sanctification or perseverance, certainly a continuous process. The final aorist imperative in 1 Tim occurs in 6,20, three verses distance from the previous imperative (6,17). In 6,20, Paul urges Timothy to guard that which has been given over to him. Within the same verse, however, Paul uses the present participle ἐκτρεπόμενος with an imperatival force to further clarify Timothy’s obligation. Thus for the third time the reader is confronted with two different tenses, and one could argue that both the present tense and the aorist tense would have worked for either. To guard something could very well be seen as a continual process while avoiding inappropriate conversations likewise could be viewed holistically (although probably not punctiliarly). Mounce argues that the initial aorist “calls for immediate action” and that the change of tense is probably significant: “Timothy must set his mind to guard the truth (aorist), which means that every day he must avoid (continuous) the godless chatter of the opponents”44. Yet this may be stretching it somewhat; is not the act of guarding the truth likewise continuous? Mounce’s addition of “set his mind” seems to be unnecessary, and he assumes a priori that the aorist indicates a sense of urgency in contrast to the present, something that may or may not have already been proven. One final point must be made. In all the passages quoted above, it is difficult to see how the aorist tense could be considered the “background” tense. Would not the “background” tense be expected to outnumber the use of the “foreground” tense? If the background tense is significantly rarer than the foreground tense, would not the background tense suddenly become more prominent than the present and thus lose its status as the background tense? Indeed, in what sense could the aorist tense be called the background tense if it draws attention to itself by virtue of its scarcity45? 44 W. D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (WBC; Nashville, Tenn.: 2000) 371. 45 The reader should note that 1 Tim only has a total of 14 aorists, regardless of mood (Accordance search, command line [VERB aorist] [VERB 2aorist]) as opposed to 203 occurrences of the present tense (command line [VERB present]). If anything, one could almost argue that the present tense is functioning as the background tense rather than the foreground tense.