88 Paul Himes however, some observations may be made and some misunderstandings corrected. To begin with, the whole issue of “aspect” vs. “aktionsart” becomes incredibly complex within the imperative mood. One is forced to ask whether or not a subjective portrayal of an action even makes coherent sense within the imperative mood (in contrast with the indicative mood). In other words, is it possible for a speaker or writer to speak of the internal makeup of a command in a subjective sense while giving that command? What would be the point of using a present imperative if the speaker did not necessarily want the hearer to do something repeatedly/habitually/ etc. but only meant the present tense for his or her own perspective? To clarify, consider the difference between an indicative and the imperative. If verbal aspect theory (specifically Porter’s form61) holds true, the use of a present tense as opposed to an aorist in a narrative or epistle does not necessarily mean that the action is or was continuous, but rather that the action was simply being portrayed that way by the speaker or writer and/or used for (more or less) stylistic purposes. He or she may have used the present tense (even if it does not have a durative/iterative/ habitual aktionsart) to emphasize it and bring it to the “foreground”62. Yet an imperative differs from an indicative in this regard: the speaker in actuality desires something to take place. Thus would a speaker or writer naturally think of “style” or “foregrounding” when giving a command? In literature the answer would be (potentially) yes, but it is difficult to picture the average 1st century imperial officer or Greco- Roman household master stopping in mid-command to determine whether or not he should “foreground” or “background” his command (and it is difficult to understand why his subordinate would even care!). Consider 2 Tim 4,1-5. It is difficult to see how, if Timothy (or the church as a whole) was having somebody read the letter to him, style or foregrounding would matter in the imperative mood as much as it would in the indicative63. If Timothy (and the church) is intent on obeying Paul’s commands/requests, why does it matter which request is foregrounded and which is backgrounded? Are not all of them requests that must be followed? 61 To be fair, Porter does not seem to extend all of his observations regarding the indica- tive to the imperative, yet neither does Porter take great pains to distinguish the function of aspect in the imperative from the indicative. As noted above, see his discussion in Idioms 53-54. 62 As Porter argues for verbs in general in Studies 15-16. 63 Of course, if we view the Pastorals strictly as literary documents rather than personal letters (or a combination of the two), the problem would disappear. This writer, however, is not inclined to do so.