Paul Himes, «The Use of the Aorist Imperative in the Pastoral Epistles», Vol. 23 (2010) 73-92
In light of recent developments in the study of Koine Greek, this paper proposes to examine the difference between the aorist imperative and the present imperative in the Pastoral Epistles. The first section of the paper surveys the various scholarly positions on the imperative mood (including the prohibitory aorist subjunctive). The second portion of this paper examines every use of the aorist imperative and the aorist prohibitory subjunctive in the Pastoral Epistles, while the third section draws some conclusions based on this analysis. This paper concludes that the aorist tense should be regarded as the default, generic tense (but not necessarily the “background tense” as verbal aspect theory argues), and that its only significance lies in its insignificance. In contrast, however, the present tense does seem to possess a durative/habitual sense.
84 Paul Himes
3.2. Second Timothy
In 2 Tim, Paul uses thirty-four imperatives, but a substantially higher
number of them are aorist (eighteen, including one occurrence of μὴ with
the aorist subjunctive). The first two occurrences of the aorist (and of any
imperative) are in 1,8. There Paul uses an aorist subjunctive with μὴ to
tell Timothy not to be ashamed of the witness of the Lord. He follows that
with an admonition to Timothy to join together with others in suffering
for the Gospel (συγκακοπάθησον, a second aorist imperative). Here,
conceivably, a present could have been used since the concepts of both not
being ashamed of the Lord and suffering with others can be viewed from
a durative perspective. Yet the reason Paul used aorists may lie in the fact
that verse eight, as Philip Towner notes, consists of a “general command
to resume ministry”46. Mounce argues that the second verb, the aorist
imperative, is “continuing the force of the negated aorist subjunctive”47,
but one wonders whether or not “force” is an appropriate term here (if
the aorist is viewed generically, as the default tense, it does not possess
any “force”). Thomas Lea and Hayne Griffin, Jr. argue that “the use of the
Greek aorist tense suggests that at present Timothy was not ashamed”48,
but this would seem to be a completely unnecessary conjecture not born
out by the aorist prohibition elsewhere in Scripture (regardless of whether
or not it fits this particular instance)49.
In 2 Tim 1,14, Paul urges Timothy to guard that which had been given
over to him, a virtual mirror image of the command in 1 Tim 6,20. Once
again it is difficult to see why an aorist was used rather than a present.
The act of “guarding” can certainly be seen in a durative/iterative sense.
At the very least it is not a punctiliar action in the sense that it would
only occur once.
In 2 Tim 2,2 and 2,3 Paul uses aorist imperatives, despite having used
a present imperative in 2,1. At this point Paul urges Timothy to “be
strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus” while in 2,2-3 Timothy
is to deliver what he has heard from Paul to “faithful men” and then
to suffer along with others (συγκακοπάθησον, the same verb used in
1,8) “as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.” Like the other passages, this
tense change is difficult to explain. Why use a present for the concept
46
P. H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich. 2006)
463; Towner does not, however, discuss the tense change here.
47
Mounce, Pastoral Epistles 480.
48
T. D. Lea and H. P. Griffin, Jr., 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (NAC; Nashville, Tenn. 1992) 190.
49
See the third section of the paper for a discussion of this specific issue, namely
whether or not the aorist prohibition can be used to halt currently ongoing activity.