90 Paul Himes Secondly, it is difficult to see how the aorist imperative (both positive and prohibitory) would necessarily be more “solemn” or “crisp” than the present. In 2 Tim 4,1-5, for example, the solemnity of the occasion is marked not by the use of the aorist imperative but rather by the weighty διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ that begins the entire section66. Indeed, the present here (“be sober-minded”) has just as much a right to “solemnity” as the other imperatives! Boyer makes an excellent point when he argues that to claim the aorist is more intense or urgent is to “glamorize the aorist.” Indeed, “it is contrary to the basic significance of the aorist to make it special in anyway”67. Any sense of urgency or “ crispness” would come not from the tense of the verb but from the inherent meaning(s) of that particular verb. Thirdly, it would seem best to reject any interpretation of the aorist imperative that necessarily calls for punctiliar action as opposed to other kinds of action. While Heidt’s observations may fit for some passages, they do not fit for all or even for Koine Greek in general. Matt 3,3 (“prepare the way of the Lord,” ESV); Matt 5,16 (“let your light shine”); 1 Cor 6,20 (“so glorify God in your body”); LXX Gen 16,9 (“humble yourself under her hands”; this writer’s own translation)68; and Prov 7,2 (“guard my commandments”; this writer’s own translation) are some of many examples where clearly a “one-time” action is not in view. Yet the general consensus on the present imperative, that it usually has a durative force, seems to be accurate. Out of the 68 occurrences of a present imperative in the Pastorals, every one can easily be understood in a durative sense, with the possible exceptions of 1 Tim 5,9 and 5,19 (5,17 is not a problem because it involves more than one elder; the others, by contrast, involve a singular noun and thus might indicate a one-time action). Ultimately, then, the present imperative would seem to possess aktionsart in that the speaker or writer desires continuous or habitual action. If indeed it is more than just a matter of style, one may posit that the present imperative distinguishes itself from the aorist due to its durative, habitual, or continual sense. What, then, are we to make of the aorist? This writer would suggest applying Stagg’s and others’ observations to the imperative just as much as to the indicative. The aorist imperative and aorist prohibitory subjunctive 66 See W. A. Richards, Difference and Distance in Post-Pauline Christianity (Studies in Biblical Literature; New York, 2002) 117, who calls this section of the verse a “solemn charge... calling on God and Christ Jesus, the coming judge, as witnesses to the responsibil- ity the sender is now laying on the recipient.” 67 Boyer, “Imperatives” 45. 68 Though the aorist imperative immediately prior could indeed be viewed as punctiliar.