The Greek Aorist Tense

The Greek Aorist Tense Is Misunderstood (No. 1) By Troy M. Cummings The true and inherent meaning of the Greek aorist tense is widely misunderstood and misused, even by some Greek students and Greek grammarians. Likewise, many gospel preachers also use erroneous arguments on Greek tense and other Greek points in their teaching, preaching, and writing. The preceding statement is made from a deep conviction and a sense of duty, based upon the following background: thirty- seven years of Greek studies, including B. A. and M. A. degrees (A. C. U.) in New Testament Greek and English Bible; a master’s degree thesis entitled “The Temporal Aspects of the Aorist Participle In the Greek New Testament”; and fourteen years of teaching Greek from elementary to advanced courses. This writer is constrained to discuss this matter, brethren, because very important doctrinal (spiritual) truths are directly involved. For some strange reason many brethren who have had only relatively brief and shallow experience in Greek studies boldly plunge into Greek arguments on doctrinal points and fall into many and serious errors. This is especially noticeable on Greek tenses as applied to the marriage and divorce controversy, and also to the subject of the Holy Spirit (for example, the book A Study of the Holy Spirit of God). The master’s thesis previously referred to required several years of intense concentration in Greek tenses, especially the aorist, and in the participle. This article is being prepared for publication, and must be relatively brief and condensed. Much evidence needs to be presented which cannot be included in this essay, but perhaps other writings will follow. At least some of the vital points are here given. One of the most important points to know and remember is this, which all real scholars have learned: Final authority in determining the exact meaning of language is not found in some grammar book (especially grammars written by foreigners), but rather in thorough inductive study of how the natives actually used the language, as seen in multiplied examples where the context of dozens or hundreds of statements clearly reveal the exact shades of meaning. NO GREEK GRAMMAR CAN OVERTHROW THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE ON GRAMMATICAL TRUTHS FOUND IN GOD’S GREEK NEW TESTAMENT WRITTEN BY DIVINE INSPIRATION! The facts are, many of the Greek grammar books are misleading and plainly wrong in some of their views on the meaning of the Greek tenses. Thorough inductive study of the Greek Testament itself proves that they are wrong. But only advanced Greek scholars are really competent to deal with these technical and complex matters. To be qualified one must spend years and years in advanced study, and on top of that, must specialize in the area of difficulty. A rather comprehensive general knowledge of Greek does not mean that one is necessarily right on some specific point, for example, the aorist tense. Not one of the noted Greek scholars can be appealed to blindly, gullibly, and unqualifiedly, on every single statement on every grammatical point, as if each one is infallible. Neither can one appeal in that manner to any lexicon, translation, or commentary; they all are imperfect, with some flaws and errors. The scholars disagree with one another in some areas; there is plenty of room for each scholar to do his own digging into the Greek Testament, the final authority, and to come up with conclusions which harmonize with the overwhelming contextual meanings of dozens of passages. It is now in order to support the preceding line of argument by a few statements from notable scholars: A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1947), p. 31: “The scientific grammar is at bottom a grammatical history, and not a linguistic law-book. The seat of authority in language is therefore not the books about language, but the people who use the language. The majority of well-educated people determine correct usage.... Even modern dictionaries merely record from time to time the changing phenomena of language.” W. D. Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, 1979), p. 3: “The student must remember at all times that the function of grammar is not to determine the laws of language, but explain them. That is, language first developed as a means of expressing the thoughts of mankind, and then grammars were written to explain the laws and principles of language as it functions to express ideas. In one’s native tongue, one senses the meaning of these constructions almost subconsciously, but in a strange tongue one must, by diligent toil, acquire the viewpoint of the language and follow its idioms closely to get the meaning.” Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto: The MacMillan Co., 1955), pp. 59,60: “The idea that syntax is a formulation of rules for correct speech is an erroneous notion. Syntax is the process of analyzing and classifying the modes of expression presented by a language. It does not govern language; it deals with the facts of language as they are found....” From the preceding you can see why this writer does not hesitate to differ from various Greek grammars or grammarians when they claim that the present tense in Greek often enough has an “aoristic” meaning, and then proceed to try to prove this by various examples which do not actually prove the point. This writer has never yet seen any example of an “aoristic” meaning for the Greek present tense that really proves the point. Even the prestigious Blass-Debrunner-Funk Greek Grammar (supposedly the best advanced grammar), in Section 320, page 167, discusses the “Aoristic Present” and offers Acts 9:34 as one of the proofs (Peter to Aeneas): iatai se Iesous Christos, “Jesus Christ heals (is healing) you.” B-D-F comments: “He heals you in this moment in which I proclaim it to you,” or more briefly “he herewith heals you” (iatai otherwise equals ‘he treats the sickness’). —Rob. 864 ff.” This writer rejects this “proof” because it does not prove. To say that the present middle indicative iatai, if taken in its normal meaning of describing the duration of the verbal action, “is healing,” makes it mean “he treats the sickness,” is wrong, and betrays a lack of knowledge of all the uses of the present tense. The present and imperfect tenses in Greek describe the verbal action in its process or duration, but that has nothing to do with how long or how short that verbal action is in reality; it is rather a matter of the mental picture that the Greek writer or speaker has at the moment he uses a particular tense. He can and often does switch from one tense to another in describing the identical verbal action, depending upon what aspect of that action he wishes to set forth. (Many N. T. examples could be given right here.) Dr. W. D. Chamberlain, in the work already cited, page 67, confirms the point just made: In discussing tense, and how the verbal action “may be regarded,” he says: “Remember that the same act may be looked at from any of these three viewpoints.” This is a very important linguistic truth. Many Greek students think that the aorist verbal action is necessarily “momentary,” “punctiliar,” or “point”; that is, short-duration action; and that imperfect tense necessarily means long-duration action. Not so. More will be said on this later. Prof. A. T. Robertson agrees with this crucial point: “One needs a vivid historical imagination to reproduce the ideas in the Greek tenses.... But with proper elasticity of mind one follows the mood of the speaker or writer as he jumps from tense to tense like a song-bird. It depends wholly on the speaker or writer how he will picture a given action whether as punctiliar (“summarized,” T.M.C.), linear, or state of completion....” pp. 302,03. (Robertson and Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament (New York: Harper & Bros., 1933). Robertson in his large grammar, p. 1380: “Perhaps a word more should be said as to the point of view of the speaker or writer. The same action can be viewed as punctiliar or linear. The same writer may look at it now one way, now the other. Different writers often vary in the presentation of the same action.” This writer knows by prolonged inductive study of the Greek Testament that Robertson and Chamberlain are right in these statements. And these vital truths completely upset many shallow Greek “arguments” about the meanings of the tenses as applied to the marriage and divorce controversy, the Holy Spirit issue, and so on. But more: No less an authority in Greek grammar than Herbert Weir Smyth, late Eliot professor of Greek literature in Harvard University, confirms this point in a striking manner — expressed in a way that this writer does not remember seeing anywhere else in Greek studies. In Dr. Smyth’s 800-page Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1959, rev. by Messing), pp. 417,427: “Observe that verbs denoting continuance (as meno, ‘remain,’) often appear in the aorist, while verbs of transitory action (as hienai, ‘send, hurl,’) often appear in the present.... The imperfect ‘continuance’ or ‘duration’ implies nothing as to the absolute length of the action.... The imperfect does not indicate ‘prolonged’ action in contrast to ‘momentary’ action of the aorist. This writer in his own master’s thesis cited Dr. Smyth’s statement, and defended it; he knows that inductive study of the Greek Testament reveals dozens of such illustrations and proves Smyth’s statements. BUT THE FACTS WHICH PROF. SMYTH HERE STATES ARE CONTRADICTORY TO THE CONCEPTS OF GREEK TENSES HELD BY MANY GREEK STUDENTS AND EVEN GREEK TEACHERS. AND REMEMBER THAT PROF. CHAMBERLAIN AND PROF. A. T. ROBERTSON AGREE WITH PROF. SMYTH. So the writer of this essay is in good company when he agrees with these scholars. But he would NOT agree with them if study of the Greek Testament itself did not confirm them. Some Greek teachers have not studied long enough, deeply enough, and widely enough, to discover these facts of the Greek language. (It took this writer years of graduate study before these facts soaked in.) TENSE IN GREEK DOES NOT DETERMINE (CONTROL) HOW SHORT OR HOW LONG THE VERBAL ACTION IS; THE LENGTH MAKES NO DIFFERENCE; THE DIFFERENT TENSES MERELY GIVE A DIFFERENT MENTAL CONCEPT AT THE MOMENT OF HOW THE GREEK WANTS TO PICTURE THE THOUGHT — WHETHER HE WANTS TO SUMMARIZE THE ACTION IN ITS ENTIRETY (AORIST), OR STRING OUT THE ACT IN ITS DURATION (NO MATTER HOW SHORT OR LONG) (PRESENT AND IMPERFECT TENSES). The preceding fact shows how false many arguments are that have been made in various writings on the marriage and divorce issue, using the words “punctiliar: and “durative” in erroneous concepts. (Further discussion later.) ONE OF THE MAIN SOURCES OF TROUBLE IN UNDERSTANDING THE GREEK AORIST TENSE IS THE WIDESPREAD USE OF MISLEADING AND ERRONEOUS TERMS LIKE “PUNCTILIAR,” “POINT,” AND” MOMENTARY.” Now this writer is thoroughly familiar with the fact that many Greek grammarians use these terms; he has concentrated his Greek studies in the tense area. “Momentary” cannot be correctly used to define or to show the inherent meaning of the aorist tense. “Momentary” is a pure temporal (time) word; and Greek tense (except the future) is NOT inherently time; rather, Greek tense is the mental picture of the nature or aspect of the verbal action (regardless of time) which the Greek wants to set forth, at any given moment. Even Funk’s translation of Blass-Debrunner’s Greek Grammar (and Funk made changes in what Dr. Blass actually said) uses “momentary” as a parenthetical description or synonym of “punctiliar,” Section 318, page 166. The addition of “momentary” is simply wrong as a basic definition or inherent meaning of the aorist tense. This writer can find literally several hundred examples in the Greek Testament to prove this point. “Punctiliar” has been made popular among Greek students by the famous James H. Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. I, Prolegomena (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 3rd ed., 1930), p. 109. Moulton himself accepted “from a correspondent this new-coined word (“punctiliar”) to represent the German punktuell....” The English word “punctiliar” is based on the Latin word punctus, a “point.” It is possible to use the word “point” to describe aorist action, if the meaning is carefully defined; but history shows that it is carelessly and often used to mean “momentary,” which cannot be right. “Point” and “punctiliar” are strongly misleading and should not be used at all as definition of the inherent meaning of the Greek aorist tense. There are several English words that are much more accurate, including “summary (summarized),” “completeness (completion; completed),” “totality,” “entirety,” “single whole,” “concluded (conclusion),” “consummated,” “finished,” “accomplished,” etc. (For documentation — authors, works, pages — see this writer’s master’s thesis (previously cited) in Abilene Christian University library.) To represent the aorist tense symbolically, a circle is far better than a point. A circle indicates totality, completeness, single whole, etc., and exactly symbolizes the nature of aoristic verbal action. Too, the space within the circle makes room for any number of individual actions which may be summarized by the aorist, or, it also fits the concept of only one action that is being summarized. Again, the circle is similar to a bag or a sack, which can be made as large as one wishes, to symbolize any length of time, short or long (as well as any number of actions) — all of which are sacked up (summarized) in the bag or circle. Everything in the circle or sack is mentally conceived of as being concluded, completed, summarized, consummated, finished, constituting one single whole, the verbal action(s) thought of in their totality or entirety. THIS IS EXACTLY THE CONCEPT OF THE GREEK AORIST TENSE AS DEMONSTRATED IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH CONTAINS AN ESTIMATED FOURTEEN TO EIGHTEEN THOUSAND AORIST TENSE VERBS AND VERBALS (PARTICIPLES AND INFINITIVES). In contrast, the ideas of “point” or “punctiliar” thought of as something “ momentary” or “instantaneous,” as being the very definition and inherent (inseparable) meaning of the aorist tense — these ideas are false and contradictory to the Greek Testament. To be sure, the aorist tense can be used to refer to a single momentary action, but such usage is not its definition or inherent meaning. This is proved by the fact that literally hundreds of times in the Greek Testament the aorist is used to cover extended (long-duration) verbal actions, even up to at least 2,5000 years (Romans 5:14)! And many times the aorist covers (summarizes) not jut one verbal action, but many. For just a few samples (out of hundreds) of long-duration aorists, study the Greek verbs and verbals in these passages: John 2:20; 1:14; Matt. 28:19; Acts 1:21,22; Romans 5:14; 1 Tim. 5:10; James 5:7,8; 1 Tim. 1:13; 1 Pet. 5:8; Romans 3:23; 2:12; Acts 28:30; Rev. 20:4; 2 Tim. 3:10,11,14,15; 2 Tim. 4:2; Eph. 2:10 peripatesomen; 1 John 5:21; 2 John 6 ekousate; Mark 1:3 hetoimasate; Eph. 2:3 anestraphemen; Acts 21:4 epemeinamen; Acts 21:19 epoiesen; Acts 22:4 edioxa; Luke 1:56 emeinen; etc. Dr. B. L. Gildersleeve, noted professor in Johns Hopkins University (Syntax of Classical Greek, p. 105) writes concerning the aorist tense: “No matter how long the action, it may be represented by the aorist, and it must be represented by the aorist when it is summed up.” Dr. James H. Moulton (Grammar of N. T. Greek, Prolegomena, pp. 128, 186; and Introduction to the Study of N. T. Greek, p. 190) speaks of “the summary given by the aorist,” and that it “describes an event as a single whole without regarding the time taken in its accomplishment.” Noted Greek professor Dr. Friedrich Blass (Grammar of N. T. Greek, Eng. trans., p. 193): “The aorist, which denotes completion...need not by any means have been a momentary action, but may have actually extended, and even be expressly stated to have extended, over any length of time, provided that it is the completion and the conclusion of it which is emphasized, this being just the force of the aorist.” But this particular essay must stop now; watch for later installments. This writer beseeches you, brethren, those of you who are advanced Greek scholars and able to handle these matters, to study, study, study, with an open mind. Troy M. Cummings Southern California School of Evangelism 7201 Walnut Ave. Buena Park, California 90620 

The Greek Aorist Tense is Misunderstood (No. 2) By Troy M. Cummings It is essential that one study the first article written on this subject in order to understand and feel the force of the cumulative evidences regarding the truths being set forth about the aorist tense in the Greek New Testament. These articles are not being written in order to play a game of grammatical hair-splitting on technical points; rather, these truths are important in getting the spiritual message of God in his Greek Testament, especially because there is widespread misuse of the aorist tense (and other tenses) in making doctrinal arguments on grave issues, such as marriage and divorce. A thorough, unbiased study by competent Greek scholars of the material presented in article number one is actually sufficient to sustain the positions being set forth by this writer. At the same time, since there is so much error in this field of study, the writer feels constrained to present additional material. This writer himself has already confessed that it took him years and years of Greek study, including several years on the graduate level, before he could dissolve all of the confusion of the misleading and erroneous discussions of Greek tense, especially the aorist. But studying thirty-five Greek grammars, plus many other scholarly discussions, plus prolonged inductive study of the Greek Testament itself, and the research involved in the writing of the master’s thesis “The Temporal Aspects of the Aorist Participle In the Greek New Testament,” finally cleared the debris of error so that he could fully see and appreciate the spiritual beauty of God’s truths in that most wonderful Book, the Greek New Testament. Certainly it is not strange that this writer wants to share some of the fruits of his thirty-seven years of Greek studies, before his life span runs out. He prayerfully beseeches his brethren in Christ not to be reckless and abusive with God’s Greek Testament by making false arguments on the Greek to try to uphold dangerous and souldestructive doctrines (for example, on marriage and divorce). Speaking of arguments on marriage and divorce, one of the most amazing errors that is repeated over the brotherhood is this one: “The Bible nowhere says that one can live in adultery, or fornication, or other sins, because sins are individual acts, and not a state of living.” I know one preacher who has been preaching a lifetime, but he is so blinded by his false doctrines on marriage and divorce that he cannot see the glaring error of the preceding quotation (which expresses the substance of his position). Has he never read Romans 6:1,2: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? May it never be (Greek). We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein?” Again, Eph. 2:1–3: “…trespasses and sins, wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world…among whom we also once lived in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind.” Again, Col. 3:5–7: “Put to death…fornication … covetousness … where ye also once walked, when ye lived in these things.” Brethren, please read the preceding passages, over and over, and see if you can both believe what they say, and then turn right around and say, “The Bible nowhere says that one can live in adultery, fornication, or other sins, because sins are individual acts, and not a state of living.” When Paul speaks of “continue in sin,” “live therein,” “lived in the lusts of our flesh,” “lived in these things,” and mentions “fornication,” was Paul saying that we cannot live in these sins, because they consist of individual acts of sin? That would simply be an irrational and absurd statement — and a flat rejection of the obvious meaning of what Paul said! And yet we have some preaching brethren who are that totally blind on the plainest statements of Scripture! That is what false doctrine will do to a person. Another one of the absurdities in the marriage and divorce controversy, allegedly supported by some Greek argument about the “aktionsart” (German word, “kind” or “nature” of the verbal action) of Greek verbs in the marriage texts, claims that the real definition of adultery is found in the legal stops of divorcing and remarrying — instead of the true meaning of adultery as unlawful sexual intercourse involving married people! Of course such a notion goes contrary to the standard Greek lexicons and English dictionaries; and it is another error that comes from reckless jumping into the complexities of Greek grammar by those who have not paid the price of real scholarship to know what they are doing in the Greek field. Another precaution in understanding Greek tenses: Rather often Greek scholars will describe the verbal action of the present and the imperfect tenses as meaning: “keep on” doing this or that. They are trying to bring out the duration or the continuation process of the tenses. (Brother Cummings wrote the first article on “The Greek Aorist Tense Is Misunderstood” for Spiritual Sword. He never finished part two, before his death.)