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.
86 Paul Himes
in 4,553. Knight states, “The present tense is probably used for this one
command in the midst of a series of aorist imperatives because the
qualifying prepositional phrase ἐν πᾶσιν envisions various situations that
would require the continued action that the present tense represents”54.
Regarding 4,2, Lea and Griffin declare, “Five aorist imperatives in this
verse set forth commands with the crisp forcefulness of a military order”
while in 4,5, “the Greek present tense underscores the need for continuous
alertness”55. Thorley argues, “The tenor is deliberately vigorous and a call
for action, rather than the solemn exhortations to be pondered over that
the present imperatives would have implied”56.
It may be somewhat of a stretch (in light of the discussion in section
one), to necessarily see the idea of “briskness” or “military crispness” in the
aorist tense. Also, to this writer’s knowledge, no one has yet demonstrated
that the aorist is somehow a more “solemn” or “serious” verb than the
present (contra Mounce). Furthermore, Mounce’s statement that the
shift to the present “is appropriate for a general admonition”57 seems to
disregard the arguments that the aorist is actually the more general verb.
Nevertheless, Paul’s usage of the tenses here is difficult to explain. Knight
may be right with his statement, yet this writer is not convinced of the
idea that a prepositional phrase alone would influence the change in a
verb’s tense (and the rest of the verbs of 4,5 have just as much a right to
be viewed with a continuous aktionsart as the first verb, νῆφε). From the
perspective of verbal aspect theory, it is difficult to understand why out
of all the verbs only the command to be sober would be foregrounded or
viewed subjectively from an internal perspective. Is the call to soberness
truly the command that Paul wished to highlight the most?
In both 2 Tim 4,9 and 4,21, just as in 2,15, Paul uses the aorist
imperative form of σπουδάζω, combined with an aorist infinitive. In 4,9
and 4,21 he urges Timothy to come to him soon. In 4,19, Paul uses the
aorist tense to urge Timothy to greet certain people for him. It is difficult
to see any significance here in the usage of the aorist, and it is somewhat
odd that 4,9’s request for Timothy to come to Paul has an aorist, while the
request in 4,11 to bring Mark and the request in 4,13 to bring his coat are
both present tenses (ἄγε and φέρε respectively).
53
Hendriksen and Kistemaker, Thessalonians, the Pastorals, and Hebrews 308.
54
Knight, The Pastoral Epistles 456-457.
55
Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy 242, 245.
56
Thorley, “Aktionsart in New Testament Greek” 308.
57
Mounce, Pastoral Epistles 576 (emphasis added).