Grace Theological
Journal 2.2 (Fall 1981) 205-26.
[Copyright © 1981 Grace Theological
Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally
prepared for use at
ERRANT AORIST
INTERPRETERS
CHARLES R. SMITH
The thesis of this essay is that exegesis and theology
have been
plagued by the tendency of Greek scholars and students to make
their
field of knowledge more esoteric, recondite, and occult than is
actually the case. There is an innate human inclination to attempt
to
impress people with the hidden secrets which only the truly
initiated
can rightly understand or explain. Nowhere is this more evident
than
in the plethora of arcane labels assigned to the aorist tense
in its
supposed classifications and significations. Important theological dis-
tinctions are often based on the tense and presented with all the
authority that voice or pen can muster. It is here proposed that the
aorist tense (like many other grammatical features) should be
"de-
mythologized" and simply recognized for what it is--the standard
verbal aspect employed for naming or labeling an act or event. As
such, apart from its indications of time relationships, it is
exegetically
insignificant: (1) It does not necessarily refer to past time; (2) It
neither
identifies nor views action as punctiliar;
(3) It does not indicate once-
for-all action; (4) It does not designate the kind of action; (5)
It is not
the opposite of a present, imperfect, or perfect; (6) It does
not occur
in classes or kinds; and, (7) It may describe any action or
event.
*
* *
THE ABUSED AORIST
In 1972 Frank Stagg
performed yeoman service in publishing an
article titled "The Abused Aorist."1
A number of the illustrations
referred to in the following discussion are taken
from his article. His
was not the first voice, however, nor the last, to
be raised in objection
to the disservice rendered to this most useful
servant in the Greek
tense system. But the warnings have largely gone
unheeded.
During a recent automobile trip the author
listened to two
successive sermons (one on tape and one on radio)
in which an aorist
1 Frank Stagg, "The Abused Aorist," JBL (1972) 222-31.
206
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
tense was grossly perverted in "proving" a
point of theological conten-
tion. In the first case, a
well-known and gifted pastor argued that the
use of an aorist form of the verb ni<ptw ("wash") in
John 13:8
proves that the footwashing
by Jesus symbolized the once-for-all
washing of salvation rather than the subsequent
daily cleansing! This
was in spite of the unmentioned fact that the same
logic would require
that people who have bathed need never to wash their
feet but once
thereafter (aorist in v 10). The second message argued
that Jesus did
not die spiritually for our sins because the aorist
tense of the verb
a]poqnh<skw ("died") in 1
Cor 15:3 refers only to a single act of dying!
Such abuses would be humorous were it not for
the fact that they
are presented and received with such sincere
conviction as the basis
for significant theological assertions. Greek
grammarians would
instantly recognize the fallacies of the
illustrations cited and have
often spoken out against errors of this type. It is
therefore quite
surprising to find genuine scholars who may in one
place legitimately
describe the aorist tense, yet in another place
misuse it in a manner
not greatly different from the illustrations just
cited. It is not sur-
prising that student term
papers, theses, and dissertations are often
influenced by confusion in the grammars and
commentaries.
The following discussion will briefly define the
aorist tense and
then respond to a number of the most common
misrepresentations of
its significance.
MEANING OF THE TERM
Unlike other grammatical terms, which are often
ambiguous, the
term aorist
is an explicit and ideal grammatical term. A Greek
'present' tense does not always indicate present time--we
have futur-
istic presents, historic
presents, customary presents, and others. Like-
wise, the terms 'imperfect' and 'perfect' are not
perfect. But like the
term 'future,' the term 'aorist' is perfectly
descriptive. No single aspect
of the present tense is inviolable. Just as it
does not always indicate
present time, so it does not always indicate
process. But the aorist
tense is invariable--all aorists are aoristic!
In the matter of 'aspect' the purpose of the
aorist is to be
invisible. The term means "no boundary," "without horizon,"
"non-
specific," "noncommittal,"
"indefinite," etc. The whole point of the
aorist is to refrain
from saying anything about the nature of the
action. As Chamberlain said, the word means "I do
not define.2
Grammarians generally agree that the aorist
represents the most
basic form of the Greek verb, employing the oldest
and simplest stem
2 William
Testament (New York: Macmillan,
1960) 67.
SMITH: ERRANT AORIST INTERPRETERS 207
form. Due to contemporary lexicographical
methodology it would be
impracticable but one could almost
wish that Greek students could
learn the aorist form of verbs first in order to entrench the basic
concept of the verbal idea apart from an
emphasis on time or aspect.
Other
tenses should be recognized as for the purpose of adding time
or aspect considerations. As it relates to the matter of aspect, the
aorist is transparent, it leaves the verbal idea
'naked' by adding
nothing to the basic vocabulary
concept. It merely labels or titles the
act.
Since, in the familiar words of Broadus, Greek
is "an aorist
loving language,"3 it is essential
that the tense be stripped of its
mythological accretions.
THE
AORIST DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFER TO PAST TIME
The aorist is essentially, though not entirely,
timeless. This is, of
course, obvious in all but the indicative. Except for
the participles it
is mostly futuristic in its unaugmented
forms. It hardly seems neces-
sary to belabor this point,
but on the part of some who do not use
Greek
regularly there is still a tendency to overemphasize the time
aspect, and on the part of some scholars there is a
tendency to
overstate the case and remove all time
considerations from the aorist.
Examples of accuracy
A. T. Robertson averred that "If one gets
it into his head that the
root idea of tense is time, he may never get it out
and he will therefore
never understand the beauty of the Greek tense, the
most wonderful
development in the history of language.4
Chamberlain states that "The student should
disabuse his mind at
once of the notion that the primary idea of tense in
the Greek verb is
time.5
3 Quoted in A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light
of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman,
1934) 831.
4 In his Introduction to
Grammar of the Greek New
Testament
[
remark suggesting that the Greek tense system is the
"most wonderful development in
the history of language" was included in the
above quotation to provide me with an
opportunity to respond briefly to this unrealistic
adoration of the Greek language.
Greek
teachers have often described Greek as "more expressive," especially
in its
tenses, than other languages. But the fact that God
has revealed himself via this
language does not make it a holy language, or a
perfect language. God also revealed
himself, infallibly, by means of Hebrew and
Aramaic. Any well-developed modern
language such as English, French, German,
Spanish, etc., can express anything that
Greek
has expressed, though not by the same grammatical and semantic devices. Greek
should not be worshipped.
5 Chamberlain, Grammar, 67.
208
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Examples of inaccuracy
All Greek grammarians adequately warn against
viewing the
aorist as primarily tense-related, but it is not
uncommon to find
overstatements of this matter. Dana
and Mantey affirm, for example,
that "it has no essential temporal
significance, its time relations being
found only
in the indicative" (emphasis added).6 In the definition
given above it was clearly noted that it is in the
area of aspect that the
aorist adds nothing to the vocabulary concept. The
aorist does
commonly add time considerations in the
indicative and also in its
participial forms. Though aorist participles do not
indicate tense in
themselves, they do have special time relationships
with the leading
verb or the time of the context. The majority of
aorist participles
indicate time antecedent to the leading verb.
Biblical examples
Even in the indicative, time is not intrinsic to
the aorist tense.
The
following are examples of biblical texts which employ aorist
indicatives in ways that do not designate past
events--they are
essentially timeless.
"In you I am well pleased" (eu]do<khsa,
Mark
"Now is the Son of Man glorified" (e]doca<sqh, John
"In this is my Father glorified" (e]doca<sqh, John 15:8).
"Wisdom is justified by all her
children" (e]dikai<wqh,
Luke
"The grass withers" (e]chra<nqh, I Pet
All of these examples appear to be timeless in
their connotations
and they adequately demonstrate that the aorist,
even in its indicative
forms, need not refer to past time.
THE
AORIST DOES NOT INDICATE COMPLETED ACTION
The examples just cited under the previous
heading should also
adequately refute this misconception, but a few
additional comments
may prove helpful.
Examples of accuracy
Stagg has succinctly noted
that the aorist views the action
"without reference to duration, interruption, completion, or anything
else. . . . The aorist can be properly used to cover
any kind of action:
single or multiple, momentary or extended, broken or
unbroken,
completed or open-ended" (emphasis added).7
6 H. E. Dana and Julius
R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament (Toronto: Macmillan,
1927) 193.
7 Stagg,
"The Abused Aorist," 223.
SMITH: ERRANT AORIST INTERPRETERS 209
Dana and Mantey object
to Blass' identification of the aorist as
the tense "which denotes completion," and
observe that "the aorist
signifies nothing as to completeness."
Unfortunately they add the
unedifying comment that it "simply presents
the action as attained."8
incomplete action.9
Examples of inaccuracy
Summers states that "the aorist indicates
finished action in past
time."10 Though he is referring to
the aorist indicative, a point which
many grammarians are not always careful to note, it
is still not true that
the aorist indicates finished or complete action--not
even in the
indicative.
McKay provides helpful insight into the
significance of the tenses
but then proceeds to misrepresent and misuse the
aorist. With regard
to the statement that Judas sinned (h!marton, Matt 27:4), he asserts
that the "past time reference is unimportant:
that it is aorist aspect,
referring to the action as complete, is all
important.11 To the
contrary, the past time reference as indicated by
the augmented form
and the context is more important than any
nonexistent intimation
about the nature of the event.
Biblical examples
Only a few examples need be cited to demonstrate
that aorist
tenses (of any mood) need not designate completed
actions.
"Death reigned through one man" (e]basi<leusen, Rom
"Guard yourselves from idols" (fula<cate, 1 John
"That he might show in the coming ages the
exceeding riches of
his grace" (e]ndei<chtai, Eph 2:7).
See also the examples under the previous
heading. It should be
apparent that while an aorist may be used with
reference to a
completed action, the tense itself does not
indicate or imply this.
THE
AORIST NEITHER IDENTIFIES NOR VIEWS ACTION AS PUNCTILIAR
The term "punctiliar"
is not only one of the most misunderstood
of grammatical terms but also one of the most
inappropriate. No
grammatical feature can indicate a "punctiliar act," though vocabu-
lary and context can readily
do so.
8 Dana and Mantey,
Grammar, 193-94.
9
10 Ray Summers, Essentials Of New Testament Greek (
1950)
55-56.
11 K. L. McKay, "Syntax in
Exegesis," Tyndale Bulletin 23 (1972) 55-56.
210
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Scholars are quick to point out that the term
"punctiliar" must
be "properly understood." Stagg, for example, notes that "Careful
grammarians make it clear that the punctiliar idea belongs to the
writer's manner of presentation and not
necessarily to the action
itself.12
He proceeds to defend Moulton's and Robertson's use of the
term "punctiliar"
as describing the way the action is viewed and not
the action itself,13 and explains that
the aorist is "punctiliar only in
the sense that the action is viewed without
reference to duration,
interruption, completion, or
anything else.14 If language means
anything, this says that the aorist is not punctiliar at all--especially
not in the way it views (or states, or regards) the action! This
terminology mars Stagg's
otherwise excellent discussion. The aorist
neither designates nor even "views"
the action as punctiliar. It does
not view it in any
way! It merely labels (names, titles) the action. For
Robertson
to state that "the 'constative' aorist treats an
act as
punctiliar which is not in itself
point-action," is to deny what he
earlier affirms in identifying the aorist as
meaning "un-defined"
(emphasis added).15 The aorist does not
"treat," "view," "regard," or
"state" the action as punctiliar
or anything else. Its very purpose is to
refrain from doing so.
Examples of accuracy
According to Dana and Mantey,
the aorist "states the fact of
the
action or event without regard to its duration.16
it "represents the action denoted by it
indefinitely, i.e., simply as an
event, neither on the one hand picturing it in
progress, nor on the
other affirming the existence of its result. The name
indefinite as thus
understood is therefore applicable to the tense in
all of its uses.17
Machen demonstrates admirable restraint in avoiding
the term "punc-
tiliar" and identifies
the imperfect as pointing to continued or re-
peated action whereas the
aorist is a "simple assertion of the act.18
Wenham,
unfortunately immediately after an invalid identification of
the aorist as "a punctiliar (or point)
tense," clearly states that "the
12 Stagg,
"The Abused Aorist," 222.
13 Ibid., 225,
229.
14 Ibid., 223.
15 Robertson, Grammar, 824, 31-32.
16 Dana and Mantey,
Grammar, 193.
17 Ernest DeWitt
Greek (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1900) 16.
18 J. Gresham Machen,
New Testament Greek for Beginners (
1923) 81.
SMITH: ERRANT AORIST INTERPRETERS 211
action of the verb is thought of as simply happening,
without any
regard to its continuance or frequency.19
Examples of inaccuracy
Quotations here must of necessity be selective
since almost every
standard grammar may be faulted at this point--even
those which in
other contexts clearly state the matter. For example,
in his next
sentence after saying that the aorist regards
action as undefined,
Chamberlain
unfortunately adds, "The common
term for this is
punctiliar action.20
Whether or not it is the common term is not the
point. The action need not be punctiliar
and an aorist does not even
view it as such--it merely names the act involved.
Conversation with Greek teachers will generally
indicate a high
degree of defensiveness with regard to any objections
to such tradi-
tional terminology as "punctiliar." It is regularly insisted that the
grammarians rightly distinguished between the nature
of the event
and the fact that an aorist is merely looking at an
event ''as a
whole"--the latter being identified as a "punctiliar view." The re-
sponse is threefold: (1) It is
not being argued that all grammarians
have misunderstood the aorist (Note the quotations,
throughout this
article, under the headings "Examples of
accuracy"); (2) It is asserted
that the term "punctiliar"
is a misleading and inappropriate term to
describe the fact that an aorist merely names an
act without reference
to its duration; and (3) Nearly all the grammars
may be validly
charged, at least with inconsistency, in that in
their illustrations they
interpret aorists as
indicating "single acts," "particular occasions,"
and "fixed," "momentary," or
even "instantaneous" events. If this be
defended as a kind of "grammatical
shorthand," meaning that the
aorist in a particular context may point to such
actions, it is re-
sponded that it is not the
tense which indicates these matters and it is
inexcusable to confuse students by such inaccurate
"shorthand."
Dana and Mantey state
that the aorist "presents the action or
event as a 'point,' and hence is called
'punctiliar"21 and "the play is
entirely upon whether the action is punctiliar--viewed as a single
whole--or whether it is the opposite, continuous or
repeated.22 On
this basis they affirm that the aorist clause in 1
John 2:1, i!na
mh>
a[ma<rthte,
means "in order that you won't ever commit an act of
19 J. W. Wenham, The Elements of New Testament Greek (
University, 1965) 96.
20 Chamberlain, Grammar, 67.
21 Dana and Mantey, Grammar,
194.
22 Ibid 195.
212
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
sin.23
This error has been perpetuated in scores of commentaries and
sermons, in spite of the fact that all that John
did was tell his readers
what he wanted them to avoid, namely, sin. The
number of acts of sin
should not enter the picture merely on the basis of an
aorist tense.
Hale states that "the chief emphasis is on
the point-like quality of
the action.24 Godet
wrote that the aorist e@lq^, "shall have
come,"
in I Cor
moment, which can be no other than that of the Advent.25
Moule
goes so far as to state that the chief function of
an aorist "is to
indicate an action viewed as instantaneous"
(emphasis added).26
Dodd
says that "the aorist forms express momentary or occasional
action.27
With regard to the verb "entered" in Rom 5:12, Mickelsen
remarks that "the tense of the verb
indicates a distinct historic
entrance.28
One must respond that this concept comes from the
meaning of the verb itself since it is difficult
to have an entrance
which is not distinct and not historical.
Robertson states that "the tense of itself
always means point-
action.29
Summers says bluntly that "the kind of action is punc-
tiliar.30 One should note that
these last statements refer to the action
as punctiliar. It is an improvement
to refer to the action as only being
viewed in a punctiliar
sense, but even this is a misrepresentation of
the aorist. It should be added that attempts to
represent the aorist as
a "dot," in contrast to the
representation of the linear tenses by a line
or series of dots, are misleading at best.
Biblical examples
Literally hundreds of examples could be listed
to show that the
aorist does not indicate, or even necessarily view,
the action as
punctiliar. Of course it may be
used of a "punctiliar" event, but the
use of the aorist does not prove this fact.
23 Ibid.
24 Clarence B. Hale, Lets Study Greek (Chicago: Moody, 1957) 32.
25 Frederic Louis Godet,
Commentary on First Corinthians
(reprinted;
Rapids: Kregel, 1977)
680.
26 C. F. D. Moule,
An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (
27 C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles (The Moffat New
Testament Commentary;
28 A. Berkeley Mickelsen,
"The Epistle to the Romans," The
Wyclfffe Bible
Commentary (ed:
Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison;
1962) 1197.
29 Robertson, Grammar, 835.
30 Summers, Essentials, 66.
SMITH: ERRANT AORIST INTERPRETERS 213
"So then, my beloved, just as you have
always obeyed"
(u[phkou<sate, Phil
"Look at the birds of heaven" (e]mble<yate, Matt
"He remained a whole two years" (e]ne<meinen, Acts 28:30).
"Do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we
eat?'" (merimnh<shte
and fa<gwmen,
Matt
"If we forgive men their trespasses" (a]fh?te, Matt
"But you, whenever you pray" (proseu<x^, Matt 6:6).
"The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses'
seat" (e]ka<qisan,
Matt
23:2).
Again it should be noted that all the examples
cited under the
preceding heading are also applicable here.
Contrary to Moulton and Robertson, the aorist is
not "punctiliar
in statement" (nor in fact, as they admit).31
It is noncommittal in
statement. It refrains from viewing action as
either linear or punc-
tiliar. It abstains.
THE
AORIST DOES NOT INDICATE ONCE-FOR-ALL ACTION
This aspect of "theology in the aorist
tense32 has been criticized
so often that one almost feels like he is
"beating a dead horse" by
even bringing up the subject. But the
"horse" refuses to stay dead!
Examples of accuracy
All the statements which were quoted in
objecting to the aorist as
indicating completed or punctiliar
action would also be appropriate
here. Indeed, the once-for-all theory is just a
"hyper-punctiliar" view
and very few of the standard grammars deal directly
with the
terminology. (Of those examined for this study, only
Turner misused
it. See below.) After objecting to Law's assertion
that the aorists in
I
John 1:1 must refer to "a definite occasion",33
Stagg responds, "It is
fallacious to argue from the grammatical aorist to
a historical singu-
larity.34
Likewise he notes that "Turner misleads when he finds
necessarily a 'once and for all' in the aorist
imperative.35
Examples of inaccuracy
In his commentary on Revelation, Charles states
that the aorists
e@ktisaj ("created ")
in
31 Moulton, quoted
and approved in Robertson, Grammar,
832.
32 Stagg,
"The Abused Aorist," 222.
33 Robert Law, The Tests of Life (3d ed.;
34 Stagg,
"The Abused Aorist," 226.
35 Ibid., 230-31.
214
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
indicate "one definite act" which was
"once-for-all.36 This statement
is probably true except that this is not shown by
the aorist tense, but
by word meaning, context, and other revelation.
Ryrie builds a theological point on the aorists of Rom 6:13b
and 12:1. Because the aorist "does not present
the action as a series of
repeated events. . . , the presentation of body
is a single, irrevocable
act of surrender rather than a series of repeated
acts of dedication.37
Walvoord makes the same error by stating that the
aorist in 6:13b
means, "Present yourself to God once and for
all.38 But neither
grammar nor theology suggests any such
limitation on these verbs.
One
might just as well argue that just as the Jews presented morning
and evening sacrifices, so the believer should
present himself to God
both morning and evening. Is it dishonoring for a
Christian who has
failed (as all do) to present himself anew? (In
reality, as long as men
are sinners, no presentation can be a once-for-all
presentation!) But
frequency is not the point. Only the fact of
presentation is at issue.
In his commentary on Revelation, Morris often
refers to aorists
as indicating once-for-all action. One example is metano<hson
("re-
pent") in 3:19.39 But as Stagg notes, Morris fails to explain how the
word poi<hson
("do the first works," 2:5) may be taken as a once-for-
all aorist.40
In commenting on the aorist e]tu<qh in 1 Cor 5:7, which refers
to the fact that Christ was sacrificed for us,
Johnson states that
the aorist tense is "looking at the event as a
once-for-all thing.41 It is
true that the verse is looking at a once-for-all
event, but even with an
imperfect tense the same would be true! (To say
that Christ "was
dying" for us would still point to the once-for-all
event at the cross.)
But
the statement implies that this significance is because of the aorist
tense and is therefore misleading at best. Such lack
of precision has
fostered the confusion which has led scholars
like Francis Schaeffer
to affirm that "the Greek aorist is a
once-for-all past tense.42
36 R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St.
John (ICC; 2 vols; New York: Scribner's, 1920),
37 Charles Caldwell Ryrie,
Balancing the Christian Life (Chicago:
Moody, 1969) 79.
38 John F. Walvoord,
The Holy Spirit (3d ed.;
1954) 197.
39 Leon Morris, The Revelation of
mentaries;
40 Stagg, "The Abused
Aorist," 227.
41 S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., "The First
Epistle to the Corinthians," The
Wycliffe Bible
Commentary (ed. Charles F.
Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison; Chicago: Moody,
1962) 1237.
42 Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time (
1972) 165.
SMITH: ERRANT AORIST INTERPRETERS 215
A friend recently argued that the aorist
imperative in the plural,
"Greet
one another with a holy kiss" (I Cor
the three earlier present tense forms of the same
verb), proves that
Paul
was not commanding a general practice but only a conveyance
of his personal greetings. My friend's
interpretation may be correct,
but it cannot be proved by the aorist tense!
Biblical examples
Again, all the biblical examples previously
cited are also appli-
cable under this heading. In addition, none of the
following refer to
once-for-all actions.
"They loved not their lives unto
death" (h]ga<phsen,
"What you heard from the beginning" (h]kou<sate, I John
"Trade until I come" (pragmateu<sasqe,
Luke
"Jesus. . . went
about doing good" (dih?lqen, Acts
"The promise which He promised us [many
times], life eternal"
(e]phggei<lato, I John
"Five times I received thirty-nine
stripes" (e@labon) . . . three
times I was beaten with rods (e]rrabdi<sqhn) . . . three times I
was
shipwrecked" (e]naua<ghsa, 2 Cor
"For all [seven]
had her" (e@sxon, Matt
"Holy Father, keep them, in your name"
(th<rhson, John
"They lived and reigned a thousand years (e@zhsan and e]basi<leu-
sen, Rev 20:4).
"All the time in which Jesus went in and
went out among us"
(ei]sh?lqen and e]ch?lqen, Acts
"Wherefore that field is called 'Field of
Blood' until this day"
(e]klh<qh, Matt 27:8).
"For all have sinned and fall short" (h!marton, Rom
THE
AORIST DOES NOT DESIGNATE THE KIND OF ACTION
The truthfulness of this assertion should be
adequately demon-
strated by the very fact that
the grammar books have divided the
aorist into various "kinds" or categories
(e.g., constative or indefi-
nite; ingressive or
inceptive; culminative, effective or resultative;
gnomic; epistolary; dramatic; etc.). But, amazingly,
it is necesary to
fight an uphill battle against the grammarians at
this point. Even
though it contradicts what they say elsewhere, almost
with one voice
they proclaim that the "fundamental idea of the
kind of action
involved" is the "one essential
idea" in the Greek system of tenses.43
43 Davis and Robertson. Grammar, 293.
216
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Examples of accuracy
Near the turn of the century Moulton popularized
the German
term "aktionsart"
in describing the fundamental concept in the Greek
tenses. The term is normally translated "kind of
action," and as such
it has produced all kinds of interpretive errors.
As noted under the
previous heading, even when "kind of
action" is understood as
meaning "way in which action is being
viewed," the term misrepre-
sents the aorist. McKay
writes, "In common with most English-
speaking classical scholars, I prefer to use
another label, 'aspect,' for
what is referred to is not the kind of action, but the way in which
the
writer or speaker regards the action in its context--as
a whole act, as
a process, or as a state" (emphasis added).44
The term "aspect" is
certainly an advance over "aktionsart" (or "kind of action") in refer-
ring to the aorist. But to define the aorist aspect
as looking at the
action in any way is to deny its basic noncommittal
significance. As
McKay
himself later notes, the proper aspect of the aorist is "un-
defined",45 It does not
"look at" the action as any particular kind of
action. His three aspects would better be named a
"labeling" aspect, a
"process" aspect, and a "state" aspect.
As Stagg has stated,
"the presence of the aorist does not in itself
give any hint as to the nature of the action behind
it.46
Examples
of inaccuracy
the 'kind of action.'47 Chamberlain
makes an essentially identical
statement but then contradicts it by correctly
stating that the aorist
regards the action as undefined, as "a-oristoj, from a]ori<zw,
'I do not
define.'48
The most extreme statements are those made by Moule. Under
the heading "Aktionsart,"
he states that the primary consideration to
the Greek mind was "the nature of the
event," "the kind of action.49
Here
there is not even a pretext about how the action is viewed, but
an explicit connection with the actual nature of
the act!
Summers says of the aorist that "The kind
of action is punc-
tiliar.50
But as everyone should know by now, the aorist does not tell
anything about the kind of action.
44 McKay, "Syntax in
Exegesis," 44.
45 Ibid., 47.
46 Stagg,
"The Abused Aorist," 231.
47
48 Chamberlain, Grammar, 67.
49 Moule,
Idiom-Book, 5.
50 Summers, Essentials, 66.
AORIST INTERPRETERS 217
Perhaps this is the most appropriate place to
note that some
grammarians have used the term "aktionsart" with reference to the
stem (verb root) idea rather than, or in addition
to, any reference to
the tense idea. Chamberlain,51
Davis and Robertson,52 and Moule53
furnish examples of this. This approach has more
to commend it than
the attempts to link aktionsart
with the aorist tense itself, but as
Moule is forced to conclude, "Many fascinating
exceptions and
modifications. . . present
themselves."54
Biblical examples
Probably the best way to establish the point at
issue is simply to
cite several aorists which
describe distinctly different kinds of action.
Heb 11:5 refers to the action of many
individuals over many years:
"These
all died in faith" (a]pe<qanon).
Acts
fell at his feet" (e@peson).
Eph 2:2 refers to a "continuous past
action: "In which you
used to walk according to the way of this
world" (periepath<sate).
A number of references indicate indefinite
future repetitions:
"whenever you see a cloud rising. . ." (i@dhte, Luke
another with a holy kiss" (a]spa<sasqe,
Rom
latter illustration with the single occasion greetings
employing the
identical verb, e.g., "Greet Rufus" (Rom
Other passages present what may be called
general "policy"
statements: "If you greet only your brothers.
. ." (a]spa<shsqe, Matt
THE
AORIST IS NOT THE OPPOSITE OF THE PRESENT,
IMPERFECT; OR PERFECT
With the possible exception of the once-for-all
mistakes, this is
probably the area of most confusion with regard
to the aorist. It is
commonly assumed that aorist tense verbs appear
in a context for the
purpose of establishing a contrast with, or even
denying, what is
affirmed by the other tenses. But, as should be
evident from the
foregoing discussion, this is plainly not the
case. The aorist tense is
never in contrast with the other tenses. It cannot
be, for it does not
assert anything! It merely refrains from affirming
what they may
imply. It is thus general and all-inclusive, rather
than specific and
exclusive or contrasting.
51 Chamberlain, Grammar, 69.
52
53 Moule, Idiom-Book, 5-6.
54 Ibid., 6.
218
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Examples of accuracy
It is embarrassing to admit the difficulty in
finding accurate
statements comparing the Greek tenses. The standard
grammars
almost all, at one time or another, succumb to the
tendency to draw
unnecessary contrasts. The most nearly consistent
discussion available
to this writer is that by Stagg.
In properly responding to Dodd's
differentiation between the imperfect
and the aorist he notes that the
common distinction "holds almost always for the
imperfect but not for
the aorist.55 Later he remarks that
"The aorist may cover a specific
act, but it may also cover repeated or extended
acts; and other tenses
also may cover specific acts.56 He also
points out that the aorist is
used
with the phrase a]p ] a]rxh?j;
("from the beginning") in 1 John
(h]kou<sate), and the present is
used with the same phrase in 3:8
(a[marta<nei).57
Examples of inaccuracy
Dana and Mantey state
that Greek writers were instinctively and
"acutely conscious of the distinctive force of each tense in
expressing
the state of an action. The play is entirely upon
whether the action is
punctiliar--viewed as a single
whole--or whether it is the opposite,
continuous or repeated" (emphasis added).58 This is certainly an
overstatement. An aorist never affirms the fact of continuous or
repeated action, as a present may do in certain
contexts, but it is not
the "opposite"
of a present--it never denies or
stands in contrast with
.what
the present implies. The key proof cited by Dana and Mantey59 is
the variant reading in John 10:38 (i!na gnw?te
kai> ginw<skhte,
"that
you might know and keep on knowing." Jesus'
point, however, may
simply be paraphrased, "I want you to know, and
also to keep on
knowing." There is no contrast; the present
only elaborates--it adds
to what the aorist says.
It is absolutely invalid to affirm that
"The aorist infinitive denotes
that which is eventual or particular while the
present infinitive
indicates a condition or process.60
Dana and Mantey assert that "Thus
pisteu?sai is to exercise faith on
a given occasion, while pisteu<ein
is
to be a believer.61 This, of course,
contradicts their own statements
55 Stagg,
"The Abused Aorist," 224.
56 Ibid., 225. See
also Stagg's important correction of Law's misuse of
the aorist in
contrast with the perfect. Ibid.,
226-27.
57 Ibid., 226.
58 Dana and Mantey,
Grammar, 195.
59 Ibid.
60 Ibid., 199.
61 Ibid.
SMITH: ERRANT AORIST INTERPRETERS 219
that an aorist speaks "without reference to
progress",62 "or dura-
tion",63 "without implying that
the action was either durative or
perfective,64 and "without in any
sense defining the manner of its
occurrence.65
An aorist infinitive (such as pisteu<sai)
may designate
a single act of faith or a life of faith. It
definitely does not contrast
with the present; it merely does not affirm what the
present often
does affirm.
Davis and Robertson claim that the aorist a[marth<swmen in
Rom
6:15 means, "Shall we commit a sin?66 But this is patently
fallacious. It no more focuses on a single act than
on a score of acts.
It
simply means, "Should we sin?"
One of the most common errors in this
classification is the oft-
repeated claim that the aorist subjunctive in
prohibitions forbids one
to begin an act, whereas the present imperative
commands one to
cease doing an act.67 While these
differences may often fit the context,
they are by no means indicated by the tenses in
either case. To insist
that the aorists in the
clause, "Do not give (dw?te) that which, is holy
to the dogs, nor cast (ba<lhte)
your pearls before swine," must mean
"do not begin" to do these things,68 is
purely arbitrary. Whether they
had been done before, or not, is wholly beside the
point.
Wenham gives a beautiful statement to the effect
that a present
imperative is used for "a command to continue
an action or do it
habitually" whereas the aorist imperative
denotes "a command simply
to do an action without regard to its continuance
or frequency.69
But
almost unbelievably he proceeds to deny his own clear statement!
He
refers to the parallel accounts of the Lord's prayer
in Matthew
(
tive of di<dwmi ("give "),
whereas Matthew uses the aorist. His conclu-
sion is that the present
"denotes a continuous act of giving, day after
day" while the aorist indicates "a single
act of giving: 'for today.'70
On
the same basis, Jeremias argued that Luke's version
requests the
daily giving of "earthly bread" while
Matthew's version requests the
eschatological "bread of
life" for "the great Tomorrow.71 The correct
approach is to realize that the present adds an
emphasis which the
62 Ibid., 193.
63 Ibid.
64 Ibid., 194.
65 Ibid.
66
implies such a distinction!
67
68 Ibid.
69 Wenham, Elements, 98.
70 Ibid.
71 Joachim Jeremias,
The Lords Prayer (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1964) 24-25.
220
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
aorist does not include but does not deny. They refer
to the same
action without any "contrast."
One of the most amazing examples of overly
contrasting the
tenses is McKay's contrast between the perfect, toi?j gegamhko<sin
("the married men") in 1 Cor
("the married man"), in
newly committed to marriage," because the aorist
refers to "a decisive
event as a whole.72
Biblical examples
The examples listed under the previous heading
show that the
aorist can be used of all kinds of actions, including
repeated and
continuous ones. This should adequately demonstrate
that the aorist
is not the opposite of the so-called durative
tenses. Only a few
additional references need be cited.
In Gal 4:9 there is an interesting textual
variant between
the aorist douleu<sai
and the present douleu<ein.
But is there a
significant difference between, "Do you wish to
serve as a slave to
them again (aorist)?" and, "Do you wish to
be in a condition of
slavery to them again (present)?"
Likewise, is there a significant difference
between, "To which
of the angels did he ever say. . . ?" (ei]pe<n, aorist, Heb 1:5) and,
"To
which of the angels has he ever said. . . ?" (ei@rhken, perfect,
Heb
1:13)?
The gospel statement includes the fact that
Christ "has been
raised" (perfect tense, e]gh<gertai, 1 Cor
15:4). But continuance is not
denied by the normal use of the aorist, "he was
raised" (or "he arose,"
h]ge<rqh, Matt 28:7, Mark 16:6,
Luke 24:34).
Aorist participles do not, of themselves,
indicate momentary or
temporary action in contrast with present
participles. The aorist
participle, a]kou<saj in Luke
and ineffectual hearing in contrast with the
present participle,
a]kou<wn, in
lasting results.73 Otherwise, as Stagg
has noted, Joseph's "hearing"
(a]kou<saj) would have to be a
momentary and ineffectual hearing,
even though it caused him to obey in every detail (Matt
context, not the tense, tells which of the
hearings was effective.
Aorists deny neither results nor
process.
72 McKay, "Syntax in
Exegesis," 56.
73 Stagg
("The Abused Aorist," 231) rightly objects to this error of Zerwick and
Turner.
74 Ibid.
SMITH: ERRANT AORIST INTERPRETERS 221
THE
AORIST DOES NOT OCCUR IN CLASSES OR KINDS
Though the labels vary extensively, Greek
grammars and com-
mentaries use a fairly
standardized system of classification for what
they call the various kinds, or uses, of the aorist
tense. The most
common labels for the six generally recognized
classifications are as
follows: constative,
ingressive, culminative, gnomic, epistolary, and
dramatic. It is hereby affirmed that these labels
are wholly unrelated
to the concept or function of the aorist tense.
Most of them are
equally applicable to other tenses. There may be
constative, in-
gressive, or culminative
(and etc.) expressions, but not constative,
ingressive, or culminative
aorists. This is not mere nit-picking. The
distinction is essential to avoid misrepresentations
of God's Word.
Examples of accuracy
Though they have misstatements, Davis and
Robertson properly
note that the classifications are closely related to
the meaning of the
words involved.75 McKay states that there
was "no problem about
using the aorist of the same verb twice in quick
succession with. . .
apparently different meanings. . . ," since
"the aorist was simply the
aorist, the 'undefined,'" and adds that
"context is always important in
deciding the precise significance of a particular
form.76
Though he mixes it with error, Robertson states
that the "in-
gressive" (or inceptive, or
inchoative) aorist is not "a tense notion at
all. . . , it is purely a matter with the individual
verb.77 By this he
means that it is determined by word meaning and is
not a tense
function. He later notes that the "culminative" concept is shown "by
the verb itself78--not by any aspect of
the tense. His best statement,
stripped of its invalid accoutrements, is that
"there is at bottom only
one kind of aorist . . . .79
Stagg's statement is perfect
when he declares that the aorist is
"a-oristic,
undefined as to action," and that "Only contextual factors
permit one to go beyond that to ascertain whether the
action alluded
to is singular or not."80
A statement may affirm such
distinctions, but
the tense does not. This is why Dana and Mantey add, after intro-
ducing their classifications,
"However, the verbal idea as well as the
context usually affects very decidedly the significance
of the aorist."81
75
76 McKay, "Syntax in
Exegesis," 47, 56.
77 Robertson, Grammar, 834.
78 Ibid., 835.
79 Ibid.
80 Stagg,
"The Abused Aorist," 224.
81 Dana and Mantey,
Grammar, 196.
222
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Examples of inaccuracy
uses" (emphasis added), but then contradicts
himself by using the
standard classifications which, he says, are
determined by the differ-
ing points of view and functions of the tense!82
Likewise, Dana and
Mantey assert that the point of the aorist is to speak
of an event
"without in any sense defining the manner of its
occurrence," but then
proceed to classify its uses based on the
"modifications of the
fundamental idea.83 These
"modifications," they say, result from the
"different angles" from which the action is
contemplated.84 But as has
been seen, the purpose of the aorist is to refrain
from viewing the
action in any
way!
It should be noted here that just as one would
not choose to
employ an aorist to emphasize process, he would not
employ an
aorist to emphasize a state. It is therefore not
surprising to find that
verbs with meanings which usually point to a state of
being may be
used in the aorist tense to describe entrance into
that state. This is to
be expected since the aorist is employed in naming
an act, not a state.
If
this usage is labeled as "'ingressive," it should be made clear that
any "ingressive" concept is derived from
the meaning of the words,
regardless of what tense is employed. An earlier
statement is worth
repeating: There may be constative,
ingressive, culminative (and etc.)
expressions, but not constative, ingressive, or culminative
aorists. If
one defends such labels as "ingressive aorist"
as merely another
example of "grammatical shorthand,"
the response is that any "short-
hand" should express reality and should not
mislead. Other tenses
may also be employed in constative,
ingressive, or culminative expres-
sions. These distinctions are
not shown by the tense and the terminol-
ogy employed should not
imply that they are.
Hale claims that "The aorist may put the
spotlight on the
beginning of the action, on the effect of the
action, or on the action as
a whole, but
not on its progress or its repetition.85 The emphasized
words (his emphasis) are valid but the earlier
phrases deny the fact
that the aorist does not identify or view the action
in any way. The
meaning of the words and the context may point
to these things, but
the tense does not. The statement by Summers that "There are several
shades of meaning in the use of the aorist tense"
is simply not true.
82
83 Dana and Mantey,
Grammar, 195-96.
84 Ibid., 195.
85 Hale, Lets Study Greek, 33.
SMITH: ERRANT AORIST INTERPRETERS 223
Biblical examples
There is no way to illustrate this point except
by showing
examples of arbitrary classifications and
insisting that the classifica-
tions are not derived from
any tense function but from word meaning
and context.
The most commonly cited example of an
"ingressive" aorist is in
the clause, "for your sake he became
poor" (e]ptw<xeusen, 2 Cor 8:9).
But
the aorist simply labels the act; he "abdicated" or
"renounced" his
riches; he impoverished himself. Nothing focuses on the
beginning of
the act. Attention is focused only on the fact.
Is the aorist in the statement "The lion
prevailed" (e]ni<khsen,
Rev
5:5) ingressive, constative, or culminative?
The answer is, It is
aorist! Any classification comes from an
interpretation of the context
and could be true (or false!) regardless of the
tense employed.
John's
command, "Produce fruit worthy of repentance" (poih<-
sate, Matt 3:8), clearly
refers to a process, though the aorist is used
only for the purpose of naming the action.
The word "received"(cf. e@labon in John
ingressive aorist. But the aorist does not point to
the beginning of an
act--only to the fact of the act. Anything else is derived from the
meaning of the word and sentence.
The KJV translated e]si<ghsen in Acts
the NIV translates, "became silent" (constative versus ingressive).
Which
does the text affirm? Neither, though both are true statements!
The
best translation would be the most noncommittal (like the aorist),
"the multitude was silent."
To translate e@klausen in Luke
Robertson
does,86 is absolutely arbitrary. All we are
told is that "he
wept. "
THE
AORIST MAY DESCRIBE ANY ACTION OR EVENT
This is simply the converse of all the negative
statements of the
preceding headings. Further, the very fact of the various classifica-
tions such as ingressive, culminative, etc., proves the point.
Examples of accuracy
After introducing the Greek tenses, Chamberlain
urges students
to "Remember that the same act may be looked
at from any of the
86 Robertson, Grammar, 834.
87 Chamberlain, Grammar, 67.
224
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
three viewpoints." According to McKay, "The
action referred to by
the aorist may be single and punctiliar
or it may be repeated, or
spread continuously over a long period of time.88
Though he mis-
takenly identifies the aorist
as indicating action viewed as instan-
taneous, Moule
correctly states that it can refer to either past,
present, or future.89 This agrees
with Stagg's statement that "the
aorist can properly be used to convey any kind of
action.90
Turner's
remark is quite pertinent: "Sometimes the change of
tense is prompted by no other motive than avoidance
of monotony.91
Stagg wisely notes that "it is sometimes far
from apparent why the
writer switches his tenses.92
Examples of inaccuracy
A recent student paper explained that the verb
"was confirmed"
(e]bebaiw<qh) in Heb 2:3
"expresses point action" and is therefore
rightly translated in amplified form with the
addition, "once-for-all."
Of
course, it does not refer to point action at all, but to the sign
miracles of the apostles which were accomplished
over a period of
almost forty years.
Another student paper, in explaining the verb
"sinned" in
Rom
sin." Davis and Robertson argue the opposite
view and say that it
refers to "the whole history of the race.93
Neither approach can be
proved by the tense. The immediate context and the larger
context
(theology) must be involved in one's decision.
A well-known pastor recently distributed a paper
arguing that
the aorists in 1 John 2:1
were for the purpose of prohibiting even
"one act of sin." He added, "the tense could not be
present because
John
is addressing believers, and a true believer will not keep on
sinning." This statement misrepresents the
aorist, which may prohibit
many acts as easily as one, and also misrepresents
the present tense,
which is often used of sinning Christians (cf. 1 John
Hughes argues that "in favor of
interpreting the present passage
[Heb
6:4-6] in the light of the baptismal event is the series of
88 McKay, "Syntax in
Exegesis," 47.
89 Moule,
Idiom-Book, 10.
90 Stagg,
"The Abused Aorist," 223.
91 Nigel Turner, Syntax (vol. 3, A Grammar of New
Testament Greek, ed. James
Hope Moulton; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1963) 66.
92 Stagg,
"The Abused Aorist," 226.
93
SMITH: ERRANT AORIST INTERPRETERS 225
participles in the aorist tense. . . which would
appropriately point
back to the moment of initiation through a rite. . .
. 94 But the same
logic would require "having fallen away" (v
6) to refer to baptism!
There
is nothing about the tenses that even suggests that they all refer
to the same event--much less that of baptism.
Biblical
examples
It is hardly necessary to provide examples under
this heading.
The
great variety of examples listed under the previous headings all
demonstrate that any time or kind of action can be
described or
viewed by an aorist. Furthermore, the grammars never
dispute the
point, though their statements and their practice are
riddled with
inconsistencies. Merely for the sake of
completeness a few additional
examples will be cited.
Matthias was selected from among "those who
had accom-
panied" Jesus during his
entire ministry (sunelqo<ntwn,
Acts
Here
again the aorist describes a "durative" event. Similarly, Jesus
said, "I always taught" (e]di<daca, John
gathered together.
The same verse states that Jesus "went in
and went out" among
the Jews (ei]sh?lqen, e]ch?lqen), yet
ring to past time) to describe the same "going
in and going out"
(ei]sporeuo<menoj, e]kporeu<omenoj).
In
had seen, and the things which are, and the things
about to occur
(gene<sqai). Both of these aorists refer to future events (for John) that
would cover extensive periods of time.
CONCLUSION
Dana and Mantey wrote:
"Probably in no point have translators
made more blunders than they have in rendering the
aorist." Whether
or not this is true of translators, it is
certainly true of grammarians
(including Dana and Mantey), commentators,
teachers, preachers,
and students. As McKay has stated, however, the
aorist was simply
the aspect used "when the speaker or writer
had no special reason to
use any other.96 Robertson's
terminology is almost identical: "The
aorist is the tense used as a matter of course, unless
there was special
94 Philip Edgecombe Hughes, "Hebrews
6:4-6 and the Peril to Apostasy," WTJ
35
(1973) 152.
95 Dana and Mantey,
Grammar, 200.
96 McKay, "Syntax in
Exegesis," 46.
226
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
reason for using some other tense.97
Writing with
fies by stating that
"If one desires to emphasize the
notion of linear
action on the one hand or the state of completion on
the other, it is
not the tense to use" (emphasis added).98
The sum of the matter is simply that with regard
to the kind of
action, and the way in which action is viewed, the
aorist says no more
than the analogous simple preterite
and non-durational participial,
infinitive, imperative, and subjunctive forms in
English. Departure
from the aorist is therefore far more exegetically
significant than its
use.
97 Robertson. Grammar. 831.
98
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
Grace Theological Seminary
200 Seminary Dr.
www.grace.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: thildebrandt@gordon.edu