The Present and the Imperfect

The last lesson argued that the Greek tense-forms chiefly express aspect, the writer's way of presenting an action, and that the present and the imperfect share the same aspect. Both are imperfective: they present an action from inside, as something going on, without bringing its beginning and end into view. On that point Porter, Fanning and Campbell all agree. Where they differ is on what separates the two forms. On the older view and Fanning's, the imperfect is the past-time form of the imperfective and the present is the present-time form. On Porter's view, time comes from context, and the imperfect is the more remote of the two. On Campbell's, the imperfect is imperfective with remoteness and the present imperfective with proximity. In practice, in narrative, all of these accounts describe the same thing: the imperfect is the form a writer uses to give the inside view of past action.

You can tell them apart by their shape. The imperfect is built on the present stem, with the augment on the front and a different set of endings. Here is the imperfect active indicative of πιστεύω (pisteuō, I believe): ἐπίστευον (episteuon), I was believing; ἐπίστευες (episteues), you were believing; ἐπίστευε or ἐπίστευεν (episteue, episteuen), he was believing; ἐπιστεύομεν (episteuomen), we were believing; ἐπιστεύετε (episteuete), you were believing; ἐπίστευον (episteuon), they were believing. Put it beside the present you learned in lesson 1 and you will see the same stem, πιστευ-, with an ἐ in front and different endings behind.

Notice that ἐπίστευον appears twice in that list: the first person singular and the third person plural are spelled the same. This is one of the commonest ambiguous forms in the language. The tool will tell you which it has chosen, and in nearly every case the context decides it at once, because a narrative about a crowd is not going to switch suddenly to 'I'. But it is worth knowing, because it is the kind of thing you will see in a tool and wonder about.

Two other facts about the imperfect matter for reading. First, it exists only in the indicative mood. There is no imperfect imperative or imperfect participle, because outside the indicative the present form covers the whole imperfective aspect. So when your tool says present imperative, present participle or present infinitive, it is naming the aspect, not the time. A present participle can describe an action in the past, and often does. Second, some very common verbs have no aorist at all. The most important is εἰμί (eimi, I am), whose only past indicative is the imperfect ἦν (ēn, he was). That has consequences, as section 2 shows.

In a narrative, the aorist carries the main line: he went, he said, they answered. The imperfect slows the camera down and shows something as it was happening, or as it kept happening, or as it was attempted. The grammars give these uses names, and the names are worth learning, provided you remember what they are. They are not different meanings of the imperfect. They are what one imperfective aspect produces when it meets different verbs and different situations. The labels are descriptions of the context, and you can only apply one after reading the context.

The progressive imperfect shows an action in progress. In Mark 12:41 Jesus sat opposite the treasury and ἐθεώρει (etheōrei, he was watching) how the crowd put in money, and many rich people ἔβαλλον (eballon, they were putting in) large amounts. The BSB has 'He watched the crowd putting money into it'; the imperfects set the scene for the aorist that follows when the widow puts in her two small coins. The iterative imperfect shows an action repeated. In Luke 18:3 the widow ἤρχετο (ērcheto, she was coming) to the judge, and the BSB rightly renders it 'kept appealing to him', because the parable is about persistence and the coming happened again and again.

The ingressive imperfect stresses the beginning of an action. In Mark 1:21 Jesus entered the synagogue and ἐδίδασκεν (edidasken, he was teaching), which the BSB renders 'began to teach'. The conative imperfect presents an action attempted but not completed. In Matthew 3:14 John διεκώλυεν (diekōlyen) Jesus, which the BSB renders 'John tried to prevent Him', because John did not in fact prevent the baptism. In Mark 15:23 the soldiers ἐδίδουν (edidoun, they were giving) him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it; the BSB has 'they offered Him'. The customary imperfect describes what someone used to do as a regular practice. Mark 15:6 says that at the feast Pilate ἀπέλυεν (apelyen, he would release) one prisoner, and the BSB renders the whole idea 'Now it was Pilate's custom at the feast to release to the people a prisoner'. Here the time phrase at the feast, that is, at each feast, works with the imperfect to produce a custom. In each case the English has done something the Greek form alone did not do: it has chosen began, kept, tried or offered, because the context showed which kind of action the imperfective presentation was describing here.

Not every imperfect is significant. Luke in particular often introduces speech with the imperfect of λέγω (legō, I say), and the anchor verse begins exactly that way: Ἔλεγεν δὲ πρὸς πάντας (elegen de pros pantas, and he was saying to all). The BSB renders it 'Then Jesus said to all of them', and that is right. You could argue that Luke presents the saying as part of ongoing teaching, and some do, but in Luke's style this is ordinary narration, and a sermon on 'Jesus kept on saying' would be building on sand.

Then there is ἦν. John 1:1 says Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος (en archē ēn ho logos, in the beginning was the Word). Preachers have sometimes said that the imperfect here means the Word always was, continuously, without beginning. The theology is orthodox and John means something like it. But the argument from the imperfect is weak, because εἰμί has no aorist; ἦν is simply the past of to be, the only one John could use. The real evidence lies elsewhere, and it is much stronger. In John 1:3, all things ἐγένετο (egeneto, came to be), an aorist of γίνομαι (ginomai, to become), through him. John has set the Word, who was, against all things, which came to be. That is a contrast of two different verbs, chosen deliberately, and it says what the preacher wanted the imperfect to say.

The present is the most flexible form in the language, because it appears in every mood and because, on any theory, the context has a great deal to do with how it is read. In the indicative it most often describes something going on at the time of speaking. The grammars list other uses too, and again they are descriptions of how the imperfective aspect works in particular settings. The customary present describes what someone habitually does, as in the reading of 1 John 3:9 in the last lesson. The gnomic present states a general truth: God loves a cheerful giver. The historical present tells a past event in the present, as in Mark 1:21, εἰσπορεύονται (eisporeuontai, they go in), rendered 'went' in the BSB. The futuristic present speaks of something certain to happen, as in John 14:3, ἔρχομαι (erchomai, I come), rendered 'I will come back'.

In the non-indicative moods the present is about aspect only. This is where the present meets commands, and where the most preaching is done on it. The usual teaching runs like this: an aorist imperative commands an action as a whole, often a specific action in a specific situation, while a present imperative commands an action as ongoing, often a general way of behaving. Matthew 7:7 has three present imperatives, Αἰτεῖτε (aiteite, ask), ζητεῖτε (zēteite, seek) and κρούετε (krouete, knock), and many teachers have rendered them 'keep on asking, keep on seeking, keep on knocking'. That is a defensible reading, and Luke, who sets the same saying straight after the parable of the friend at midnight (Luke 11:5-10), gives it support from the context.

But it needs care, and the Lord's Prayer shows why. In Matthew 6:11 the request for bread is δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον (dos hēmin sēmeron, give us today), with δός an aorist imperative and the time word today. In Luke 11:3 it is δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθ’ ἡμέραν (didou hēmin to kath’ hēmeran, give us each day), with δίδου a present imperative and the time word each day. Each Gospel has matched the aspect of the verb to the time word in its own sentence: one whole act for one day, an ongoing giving for every day. Neither evangelist thought a disciple prays for bread only once. The aspect is real, and it is working together with the rest of the sentence, which is the point. Module 5 has a full lesson on commands and prohibitions, including the popular teaching that a present prohibition always means stop doing what you are already doing, and the limits of that teaching.

One more caution, which applies to both forms. Before you make much of a present, ask whether the writer had a real choice. Some verbs are found almost entirely in one form for reasons of their meaning or of idiom. You met one in lesson 1: ἔχω (echō, I have) is overwhelmingly present. The next section will show you another. Where a writer had no practical alternative, the form he used tells you much less about his intention than where he could easily have used either.

Now read the anchor slowly with the tool. The SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT) begins the saying Εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἔρχεσθαι (ei tis thelei opisō mou erchesthai, if anyone wants to come after me). θέλει (thelei, he wants) is present active indicative, third person singular, of θέλω (thelō, I want). ἔρχεσθαι (erchesthai, to come) is a present infinitive of ἔρχομαι (erchomai, I come), a verb with middle forms and active meaning. Then come three commands. The first is ἀρνησάσθω ἑαυτόν (arnēsasthō heauton, let him deny himself), where ἀρνησάσθω is aorist middle imperative, third person singular, of ἀρνέομαι (arneomai, I deny). The second is ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καθ’ ἡμέραν (aratō ton stauron autou kath’ hēmeran, let him take up his cross daily), where ἀράτω is aorist active imperative, third person singular, of αἴρω (airō, I lift, take up). The third is ἀκολουθείτω μοι (akoloutheitō moi, let him follow me), where ἀκολουθείτω is present active imperative, third person singular, of ἀκολουθέω (akoloutheō, I follow).

Three small notes before the main point. First, these are third person imperatives, let him deny, let him take up, which English does not have in ordinary speech; the BSB's 'he must' is a fair way of carrying their force. Second, your tool may show a slightly different text. In the SBLGNT, Matthew 16:24 and Mark 8:34 have ἐλθεῖν (elthein, to come), an aorist infinitive, and ἀπαρνησάσθω (aparnēsasthō, let him deny), a slightly longer verb (some editions read ἀκολουθεῖν, to follow, in Mark). Many manuscripts of Luke have ἐλθεῖν and ἀπαρνησάσθω too, so a tool using the Textus Receptus or the Byzantine text will show them here. The SBLGNT's notes record the difference. Third, those notes also record that the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine text, which follows the majority of the later manuscripts, lacks καθ’ ἡμέραν altogether. The word is in the SBLGNT and the other critical editions, and it is in the Textus Receptus behind the KJV, which reads 'take up his cross daily'. So daily stands in the text behind nearly every modern translation and the KJV, but a reader using a Majority Text edition will not find it, and should know why.

Now the main point. A great many sermons on this verse make the following move: deny and take up are aorists, so they describe a decisive, once-for-all act at the start of discipleship, and follow is a present, so it describes the continuing life that follows. Look at what is in the sentence. The aorist ἀράτω is the very verb that daily is attached to. Taking up the cross is something done every day, and it is in the aorist. So whatever the aorist is doing here, it is not saying once. It is presenting each day's taking up as a whole act, and the phrase καθ’ ἡμέραν supplies the repetition. That is exactly what the aspect scholars would predict, and it is a clean demonstration in a single verse that the aorist does not mean once for all, which is the subject of the next lesson.

What of the present ἀκολουθείτω? Here the evidence you gathered in the inquiry matters. Every time Jesus calls someone to follow him with this verb in the Gospels, it is a present imperative: ἀκολούθει μοι (akolouthei moi, follow me) to Matthew at the tax booth (Matthew 9:9), to Levi (Mark 2:14), to Philip (John 1:43), to Peter (John 21:19, 22), and in this saying in all three Synoptic Gospels. The only aorist imperatives of the verb in the Gospels are in Mark 14:13 and Luke 22:10, where the disciples are told to follow a man carrying a jug of water to the house where the Passover will be eaten: one specific errand. So the present is the normal form for the call to follow Jesus. It fits the idea of following as an ongoing life very well, and that is surely part of why it became the normal form. But it is not a special emphasis that Luke has added to this verse. He is using the ordinary form of the call.

So where does Luke's distinctive point lie? Not in the tenses, which he shares with Matthew and Mark, but in the word they lack. Luke likes καθ’ ἡμέραν. He uses it in the prayer for bread each day (11:3), of Jesus teaching daily in the temple (19:47), and twice in Acts 2:46-47, where the believers met daily and the Lord added daily those who were being saved. In Luke's hands the saying about the cross is not only about the moment of martyrdom, though for the first hearers it was certainly about that, as 9:22 and 9:24 make plain. It is about a death to self that happens again every morning. Commentators differ on how far Luke has moved the saying towards the ordinary disciplines of daily life and how much it remains a call to be ready to die. The text holds both: the image is an execution, and the frequency is daily. A sermon on the verse should keep both, and it can do so without saying anything about aorists at all.

Gather what this lesson has shown into a short set of habits. You will use them every time a tool tells you that a verb is present or imperfect.

First, name the aspect, and only the aspect, from the form. A present or imperfect presents the action as in progress. That is the whole of what the form contributes. Second, look for what the context adds: time words such as daily, now or each day; the kind of verb, whether it names a state, a single act or an activity; the kind of passage, story, argument, command or proverb. It is the combination that tells you whether you are looking at a process, a habit, an attempt or a beginning. Third, ask whether the writer had a real choice. If the verb is εἰμί in the past, or ἔχω, or the call to follow Jesus, the form may be the ordinary one rather than a deliberate emphasis.

Fourth, compare translations. Where the BSB says kept, began, tried or offered, it has made the kind of action explicit. Look at how two or three other translations render the same verb. If they agree, the context is probably clear. If they differ, you have found a place where interpreters are weighing the evidence differently, and you should say so if you preach on it. Fifth, when you speak about it, describe rather than decree. 'Luke presents this as ongoing' or 'the widow kept coming, as the story shows' is accurate. 'The Greek present tense means continuously' is not, and anyone in your congregation who has read a little more than you will know it.

D. A. Carson, in Exegetical Fallacies, gathers a whole chapter of errors built on grammar, and many of them are of exactly this kind: a true fact about a form turned into a claim the form cannot support. The cure is not to stop noticing the forms. It is to notice everything else as well.

Return to the verb table for your passage. Add another column, headed What the context adds. For every present and imperfect in your passage, fill it in: write any time word in the same sentence, say whether the verb names a state, a single act or an activity, and if the BSB or your church's translation has used a word such as kept, began, tried, still or always, copy that word into the column.

Then, if your passage is a narrative, do this. On a fresh page, write the story's main line using only the aorist indicatives, in order, as short English sentences: he went, he saw, he said. Under it, in a second list, write the imperfects and what they describe. Read the two lists aloud. You will usually find that the first tells you what happened and the second tells you what it was like, which is the work the imperfect does. If your passage is from a letter, do the same with the commands: list the aorist imperatives in one column and the present imperatives in another, and for each present imperative, use your tool's search to find out whether the same verb ever appears as an aorist imperative elsewhere in the New Testament. Write yes or no beside it.

Last, choose one present or imperfect in your passage on which a preacher might be tempted to build a point. Write the point as he might say it. Then rewrite it so that it says only what the form and the context together can support. Keep both versions on the page. The second is the one you will preach.