The Abused Present · Mathewson: The Abused Present 345 meaning by choice of a word form) a perspective on an action by the selection of a particular tense-form in the verbal system

Bulletin for Biblical Research 23 3 (2013) 343–363

The Abused Present

david l mathewsondenver seminary

Forty years after the publication of Frank Stagg’s warning against abuse of the aorist tense, it is time that we examine whether similar warnings need to be sounded regarding the other major tense form—the present tense. Scholars and commentators have frequently understood the present tense form as indicating action that is continuous, durative, or habitual. However, recent research into verbal aspect has suggested that the Greek tense system is an aspectual one, that is, it pertains to how the author chooses to view the action, rather than how the action actually took place. In light of this, the present tense should be understood semantically as the internal viewpoint, looking at the action as in progress, as developing or unfolding. This can be seen from the numerous examples of pres-ent tenses in the NT that do not indicate action that is continuous, habitual, or ongoing. The article then surveys representative grammars and commentaries, demonstrating that this notion of continuous and durative action is widespread, but inadequate. It is suggested that commentators and students of the NT rely on the more recent grammatical tools that implement insights from verbal aspect. The article concludes with a summary of implications for interpreting the present tense form. One of the possible functions is to indicate prominence in discourse, to foreground various characters, scenes, or events. Outside of this, the interpreter should be cautious of the conclusions that he/she draws from the present tense form and should avoid reading into it notions of “continuous,” “durative,” “ongo-ing,” or “habitual” action.

Key Words: verbal aspect, present tense, tense, linguistics

Forty years ago, Frank Stagg produced a pioneering article entitled “The Abused Aorist” for the Journal of Biblical Literature (1972) In this article, Stagg sounded an important warning against common abuses of the aorist tense in the NT by grammarians and commentators 1 He argued that the aorist tense had been misunderstood (as punctiliar, instantaneous, once-for-all, past action) by students of the NT and was being used (abused!) to draw all kinds of illegitimate exegetical and theological conclusions Though there are still plenty of exceptions and much room for improve-ment, we are finally learning to avoid the abuses pointed out by Stagg 2

1 Frank Stagg, “The Abused Aorist,” JBL 91 (1972) 222–31 2 See Daniel B Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1996) 557; Richard A Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek (Nashville: Broadman & Holman,

Bulletin for Biblical Research 23.3344

However, it seems that the time is ripe to ask whether similar warnings need to be sounded regarding the other major Greek tense form in the NT: the present tense 3 Grammarians, commentators, and students of the NT, at both the scholarly and more popular level, continue to draw exegetical conclusions from the use of the present tense that need to be reexamined In addition, recent linguistic advancements in the way we understand the Greek tense system offer renewed potential for understanding the mean-ing of the present tense in NT texts The ensuing discussion will examine the meaning of the present tense form, provide examples from grammars and commentaries of abuses of the present tense, and then conclude with brief suggestions for responsible use of the present tense in NT exegesis

The Meaning of the Present Tense

The present tense form has been variously described by grammars as “con-tinuous,” “durative,” “ongoing,” and “habitual ” That is, when an NT au-thor used the present tense, this ostensibly indicates action that continues over a period of time Thus, we are often told that the use of the present tense by an NT author means that the action takes place continually, ha-bitually, or is ongoing This view of the present tense is well-entrenched in our grammars and commentaries However, recent linguistic research into the notion of verbal aspect enables us to refine our understanding of the present tense Much attention has been given recently to verbal as-pect theory and its application to the NT Greek verbal system since the pioneering works of Stanley Porter and Buist Fanning; I will not trace the history of its development here 4 Verbal aspect can be defined as “a semantic (meaning) category by which a speaker or writer grammaticalizes (i.e. represents a

1994) 121; David Alan Black, It’s Still Greek to Me: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to Intermediate Greek (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 96–97; Charles R Smith, “Errant Aorist Interpreters,” Grace Theological Journal 2 (1981) 205–26; D A Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (2nd ed ; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996) 68–73 Commentaries seem to be slower in catching on to the abuses warned about by Stagg (and now others)

3 Unfortunately, the revised version of D A Carson’s work on exegetical fallacies does not treat potential abuses in any other tense forms beyond the aorist tense treated in the first edition (Exegetical Fallacies, 68–73)

4 See Stanley E Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood (New York: Peter Lang, 1989); Buist M Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990); Cf K L McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach (New York: Peter Lang, 1994); Rodney J Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect (New York: Peter Lang, 2001); Con Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament (New York: Peter Lang, 2007); idem, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament (New York: Peter Lang, 2008) Cf Mari B Olsen, A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect (Outstanding Disserta-tions in Linguistics; New York: Garland, 1997) For a helpful summary of verbal aspect and its development, along with a prospectus, see Robert E Picirilli, “The Meaning of the Tenses in New Testament Greek: Where Are We?” JETS 48 (2005) 533–55 For an adequate introduction to verbal aspect, see Constantine R Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008)

Mathewson: The Abused Present 345

meaning by choice of a word form) a perspective on an action by the selection of a particular tense-form in the verbal system ” 5 That is, verbal aspect is primarily concerned not with the time at which the action took place, nor with the manner in which it took place, but the author’s perspective on the action, or how he or she intended to portray the action Aspect is “perspectival ” 6

Therefore, the present tense should be understood from the perspec-tive of verbal aspect According to Porter, with the author’s choice of the present tense form, “the action is conceived of by the language user as being in progress In other words, its internal structure is seen as unfolding ” 7 Buist Fanning and Constantine Campbell agree that the present tense indicates an internal viewpoint and looks at the action as in progress 8 The implica-tion of this definition is significant Aspectually, the present tense form’s viewpoint is internal: it looks at the action from the perspective of its devel-opment and unfolding, irrespective of the actual duration or time of the action being portrayed 9 The present tense form provides more of a close-up per-spective on the action, as if the author looks at the action from “inside ” 10 The present tense describes the action, while the aorist summarizes it The effect of this is that the present tense often slows down the discourse, dwelling on the action by looking at it in more detail Over against the more “default” aorist tense form, as the more marked tense the present is often used to highlight or foreground certain activities in the discourse

What this means is that the above labels typically assigned to the pres-ent tense (continuous, durative, and so on) are not the semantic property of the present tense form itself; rather they represent information or pos-sible realizations of the tense form that pragmatically comes from broader contextual features Therefore, any such meanings, if they are present at all, can only be arrived at by the presence of clear contextual indicators (such as lexis, modifiers, and so on) and do not belong to the present tense itself Thus, the meaning of the present tense form (semantics) must be distinguished from these other features (Aktionsart) 11 This distinction between aspect (the author’s portrayal of the action) and Aktionsart (the

5 Stanley E Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Biblical Languages, Greek 2; Shef-field: JSOT Press, 1992) 21, emphasis original

6 J W Voelz, “Present and Aorist Verbal Aspect: A New Proposal,” Neotestamentica 27 (1993) 157

7 Porter, Idioms, 21 8 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 103; Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, 35–36 9 This assumes two important features of the Greek aspectual system that have been

argued for elsewhere: (1) the aspectual meanings are tied to the tense forms themselves, that is, verbal aspect is grammaticalized by the morphological endings of the different tenses; (2) aspect is an invariable feature of the tense endings, and is therefore uncancellable, that is, the semantics (aspects) of the tense form as grammaticalized in the tense endings are always pres-ent, however different the pragmatic effects might be of the tense as it interacts with various contextual features See Porter, Verbal Aspect, 114; Decker, Temporal Deixis, 45–8; Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, 26–7; Olsen, Semantic, 17

10 This is opposed to the aorist, which looks at the action from a perspective “outside” the action

11 Fanning refers to this as “procedural characteristics” (Verbal Aspect, ch 3)


manner in which the action took place) is becoming commonplace in dis-cussions of Greek tense forms and is important for interpreting the present tense As Trevor Evans concludes, “The days of explaining the present and aorist tense forms in terms of durative and punctiliar aspect values are numbered ” 12 But it is not clear that this distinction has been sufficiently grasped, and characterizations of the present tense such as durative, con-tinuous, or ongoing still persist, often resulting in questionable exegetical conclusions 13

Nondurative Uses of the Present Tense

The purpose of this section is to show that there are numerous ex-amples of present tenses in the NT used in nondurative or noncontinuous contexts, which create difficulties for the common view that the present tense indicates continuous, durative action, only a few of which can be surveyed here Some of the best examples are in the nonindicative forms, or the use of present indicatives in past-time narrative, because the present tense in those instances could not have been selected for temporal (pres-ent time) reasons Some of the clearest examples are certain occurrences of the so-called historical present 14 (the present tense in past-time narrative contexts) Matthew 2 contains several present-tense forms whose mean-ing cannot be “continual,” “ongoing,” or the like In 2:13, an angel φαίνεται (“appeared”) to Joseph in a dream Certainly, it would be illegitimate to read this as the continual or habitual appearance of the angel to Joseph Likewise, the angel’s speech to Joseph is introduced with the present tense participle λέγων (“saying”) in the same verse Yet should we conclude that the angel said this repeatedly, or continually, to Joseph? Moreover, the speech itself, at least as recorded in the Greek text, is of short duration 15 The same event as 2:13 with exactly the same present tense verb (φαίνεται) is repeated in v 19, where it is also clear that this is a one-time event In 3:1, John the Baptist παραγίνεται (“arrives”); this too refers to a one-time event

Later, when Jesus arrives at the Jordan in 3:13, his arrival is marked with the present παραγίνεται, which can hardly mean he was continually or habitually arriving, but only that his arrival is viewed from the stand-point of its internal makeup 16 And when John first speaks with Jesus in

12 Trevor V Evans, “Future Directions for Aspect Studies in Ancient Greek,” in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker (ed B A Taylor et al ; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) 206

13 In this article, I will not specifically address the issue of “time” in the present indica-tive tense form There is an ongoing debate as to whether the present tense in the indicative mood does not grammaticalize present time at all (Porter, Decker, Campbell), or whether it does at least in the indicative mood (Fanning, Wallace) At the very least, grammarians have long recognized that the present tense can be and is used outside present-time contexts—the so-called historical present, gnomic present, and futuristic present And all agree that time is not a factor outside the indicative mood (subjunctives, imperatives, participles, infinitives)

14 On the historical present, see pp 351–352 below 15 It is 28 words, including the articles 16 On the present tense used to mark important transitions to new scenes see p 360

below


v 14, it is introduced with a present participle λέγων But the speech as recorded in the Greek text consists of only 11 words 17 There is no hint that John is continually or habitually saying these things In Jesus’ temptation in Matt 4:1–11, the last two temptations are introduced with the present παραλαμβάνει (vv 5, 8) But these are not continuous, ongoing temptations Likewise, the exchange between Jesus and Satan in the temptation narra-tive is introduced with the present-tense λέγει in vv 6, 10 But the speeches reported are brief and are not repeated The alternation between the aorist and present in vv 1–11 to introduce speeches of roughly the same length indicates that the present tense does not indicate the continuous or ongoing nature of the speech (cf John 2:8; 19:28)

In Mark 5:22, Jairus sees Jesus and πίπτει (“fell”) at his feet This action is as instantaneous as can be, and it would certainly be illegitimate to sug-gest that this was going on continuously or repeatedly, based solely on the present tense By contrast, the present tense παρακαλεῖ in v 23 does refer to continual or repeated action, but only because of the adjunct πολλά (nrsv, “repeatedly”) In v 31, the disciples respond to Jesus, “you say (λέγεις), ‘Who touched me?’” with the present tense referring to action of very brief duration John 4:47 says of the official’s son that he is ἤμελλεν ἀποθνῄσκειν with a present infinitive Should this be understood as the son being about to die continually? In a speech in Acts 16:18, the author uses a present tense form Παραγγέλλω of Paul commanding a demon to leave a tormented woman But it appears that Paul only addresses the woman this one time, with the result that the demon immediately leaves her It would be illegitimate here to insist on continuous or durative action based merely on the present tense form

Paul’s command to his readers to not let sin reign (βασιλευέτω) in Rom 6:12 and to not present their members (παριστάνετε) in v 13 are often seen as durative or ongoing 18 But it would be incorrect to conclude that the pres-ent indicates a continuous avoidance of these activities or that the read-ers are exhorted to stop an action already going on, 19 especially because the aorist imperative παραστήσατε is also used Rather, they appear to be general exhortations 20 When Paul says that Eubulus “greets” (Ἀσπάζεταί)

17 The very next speech, which comes from Jesus, is of almost identical length, but it is introduced with an aorist εἶπεν (v 15)

18 C E B Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (vol 1; ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975) 317

19 This understanding of the present imperative with μή, has a long pedigree For an expression of this so-called rule for interpreting present prohibitions, based on the assumed durative or continuous notion of the present tense, see, e g , H E Dana and Julius Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: MacMillan, 1957) 301–3; Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol 3: Syntax (ed J H Moulton; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963) 74–75; F Blass, A Debrunner and Robert Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961) §§336–38 For corrections, see Wallace, Greek Grammar, 714–17; Dave Mathewson, “Verbal Aspect in Impera-tival Constructions in Pauline Ethical Injunctions,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 17 (1996) 21–35

20 Correctly Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 382


Timothy in 2 Tim 4:21, are we to understand the present tense as an on-going, continuous greeting? And in Gal 3:15, does the present tense λέγω mean that Paul continuously or repeatedly speaks like a human being? The context makes it clear that in this one instance he is using an illustration from everyday life

The present participle κατανοοῦντι in Jas 1:23 does not refer to a con-tinuous looking in the mirror 21 but only describes an illustration of one who looks in a mirror and then leaves Likewise, when the one who claims to have faith commands the poor to depart (Ὑπάγετε) in 2:16, this is not a command to be departing continually but in this context refers to a specific example of indifference 22 In 1 John 4:17, the reference to having (ἔχωμεν) confidence is deictically limited to “the day of judgment,” not an ongoing, continuous activity

Revelation turns up a number of examples of present tense forms that only with great difficulty can be made to bear a durative or continuous sense In 3:18, Jesus counsels (συμβουλεύω) the wealthy church in Laodi-cea to purchase gold refined with fire The present tense συμβουλεύω does not indicate a continuous or habitual activity of counseling but refers to a specific instance, the advice that Jesus gives the church here in v 18 The repeated command of four living creatures as each of the first four seals are opened in ch 6 is Ἔρχου But, because this refers to the call of the horses to come in the narrative, it is hardly continuous (the horses are not continu-ously commanded to come) 23 Like narrative literature, Revelation has a number of examples of present tense forms that introduce the speeches of various persons or groups (the so-called historical present) For example, in 5:5, the Elder’s response to John is introduced with the present λέγει, which is clearly a specific response, not a continuous or durative response In 12:4, the dragon sweeps a third of the stars to earth, with the present σύρει, a one-time event that takes place at the dragon’s expulsion from heaven, not something that he continuously or habitually does 24

Instances of nondurative uses of the present could be multiplied Con-versely, it must be said that continuous, ongoing action can sometimes be referred to with the aorist tense (e g , Luke 19:13; Acts 28:30; Rev 20:4), further suggesting that this is not the meaning of the present tense I have tried to give only a brief sampling of noncontinuous presents across the

21 See Edmond D Hiebert, The Epistle of James (Chicago: Moody, 1979) 134 22 Most commentaries suggest that this is similar to a Jewish blessing, a farewell Cf

Scot McKnight, The Letter of James (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011) 231 McKnight thinks that the present tense carries a sense of vividness here, though he is not clear why this is the case

23 Commentators that often find a continuous notion in the present tense elsewhere in Revelation ignore the present tense Ἔρχου here See Robert H Mounce, The Book of Revelation (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 152; Stephen S Smalley, The Revelation to John (Down-ers Grover: InterVarsity, 2005) 147

24 As most commentators recognize, σύρει functions as a “historical” present See Smal-ley, Revelation, 318; David E Aune, Revelation 6–16 (WBC 52B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998) 652


different corpora of the NT Some of these examples may be taken in a dif-ferent way But the above should provide enough evidence that the present tense is often used of action that is clearly not durative or continuous in nature These create difficulty for the view that the present tense indicates action that is continuous or durative Rather, as suggested above, verbal aspect provides a more comprehensive description of the present tense which encompasses all the above examples: the action is viewed internally, as developing or unfolding irrespective of the length of time it takes place

Treatment of the Present Tense In Grammars

The Abused Present in Grammars

The following survey is only meant to be illustrative and representative of the treatment of the present tense in some of our grammatical tools Most older grammars reflect this (mis)understanding of the present tense form as continuous and durative At an introductory level, James M Efird states that the present tense “denotes linear or durative action, action that is con-tinuing or repetitive ” 25 Likewise, James Voelz concludes that the present tense indicates action that is closely associated to the actor Therefore, λύω should be translated “I am loosing,” to show that he/she “is thoroughly involved in it [the action] or continuously doing it ” 26 The present tense is linear, advocates James Hewett, so that in John 15:12a Jesus’ call to love is in the present tense and evokes “an ongoing lifestyle characterized by loving one another ” 27 Dependent on the equation of the present tense with kinds of action or on different ways of translating it into English, several grammarians suggest that the present tense indicates both simple (aoristic) and continuous action, though they usually point to continuous action as the “normal” use of the present Thus, Clayton Croy states that the present tense can be used of both simple and continuing action, though it is unclear whether he thinks these are both the meanings of the present tense 28 Bet-ter is David Alan Black, who sees the present tense as an aspect that focuses on the process or duration of the action, though his use of “duration” to describe the present could be questioned 29

More recently, in the wake of the works of Porter and Fanning on verbal aspect, one of the most popular introductory grammars by William

25 James M Efird, A Grammar for New Testament Greek (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990) 9, emphasis original

26 James Voelz, Fundamental Greek Grammar (St Louis: Concordia, 1986) 60, emphasis added

27 James A Hewett, New Testament Greek: A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar (Pea-body, MA: Hendrickson, 1986) 13

28 Clayton Croy, A Primer of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 9 See also the older grammar by J Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners (New York: Macmil-lan, 1952) 21–22, who says that in Greek there is no difference between the present “I loose” for simple action in the present, and “I am loosing” for action that is continued

29 David Alan Black, Learn to Read New Testament Greek (3rd ed ; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2009) 14


D Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, suggests that the “present tense indi-cates either continuous or undefined action ” 30 But semantically it cannot be both, and Mounce’s explanation seems to be more dependent on the English translation he suggests for the present tense: “I am studying” or “I study ” 31 But it is clear later throughout his grammar that the significance of the present for Mounce is to communicate continuous action Thus, his chapter on present participles is labeled “Present (Continuous) Adverbial Participles,” and he concludes that the present participle “describes an action that is continuous,” 32 and Mounce advocates that the “translation should be continuous if possible ” 33 Likewise, the present tense of the sub-junctive mood is labeled “Present (Continuous) Subjunctive ” 34 Mounce also tells us that the present infinitive indicates a continuous action and should be translated “to continually _______ ,” though he realizes that this is often difficult to bring out in English translation 35 Similarly, with pres-ent imperatives Mounce adopts the terminology “continuous imperative” and if possible “to get at the significance of the aspect into English, you could use the key word ‘continually’ in your translation of the present imperative ” 36 There may be some pedagogical merit in translating the present tense form in a certain way to enable the beginning student to distinguish it from other tenses (aspects), but to suggest that the present tense form itself means “continuous action” fails to distinguish aspect and Aktionsart, or the meaning of the tense form with information that might be found in the broader context The present tense itself does not indicate continuous action, but only that the author chooses to view the action internally, from the perspective of being in progress, irrespective of the nature of the action to which it refers

For more intermediate and advanced grammars, the older work of H E Dana and Julius Mantey understands the Greek tenses as communicat-ing kind of action, and interprets the present tense as the tense that indicates continuous or “linear” action, though they think that it can sometimes indicate punctiliar action in the present 37 Dana and Mantey call these (lin-ear and punctiliar) two ways of viewing the action, 38 so that it is not clear whether they think both linear and punctiliar are part of the semantics of

30 William D Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar (3rd ed ; Grand Rapids: Zon-dervan, 2009) 135

31 Ibid 32 Ibid , 245 33 Ibid , 250, by which he means translating the participle with an –ing form (e g , “study-

ing”) Without justification, Mounce concludes that the “continuous” aspect of the participle is lessened in attributive participles and even weaker in substantival participles One wonders if this is not more of a reflection of his (in)ability to bring the notion of “continuous” out in English translation rather than a matter of the semantics of the present tense of the participles

34 Ibid , 289 35 Ibid , 299, 301 36 Ibid , 311 Though he realizes this will often sound stilted in English Later on he

recommends using “keep on” for English translations of the present imperative when first translating them

37 Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, 178–79, 181 38 Ibid., 179


the present tense The present tense can indeed be used of both durative and punctiliar action, but this does not mean that these belong to the semantics of the tense form Dana and Mantey fail to distinguish the way an author chooses to view the action with the kind of action portrayed (Aktionsart)

In his An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, C F D Moule says that the “Greek Present Indicative normally denotes ‘linear’ action in present time, and it is therefore wise, in any given instance, to start by seeing whether it can be translated by the English periphrastic Present” 39 (with -ing) The present tense, then, looks at the action as protracted in nature But Moule, like many others, understands the Greek verb tenses as indicat-ing Aktionsart or kind of action and confuses “types of action” with ways of conceiving of the action 40 Nigel Turner draws on this distinction between linear and punctiliar action and assigns the present tense to linear actions 41 Turner postulates, then, that the present tense normally expresses linear action, though it can be used of punctiliar action as well, leaving us again to question what the meaning of the present tense form is Later in his treat-ment of imperatives, he says that “present imperatives give a command to do something constantly, to continue to do it; or else a prohibition against its continuance, an interruption of an action already begun ” 42 This concep-tion is clearly dependent on his understanding that the present tense by and large indicates linear or continuous action (Aktionsart)

More recently, James A Brooks and Carlton L Winbery remark that that present tense expresses “linear action” and could be graphically repre-sented as ( _______ ) 43 They also think that some presents indicated punc-tiliar action, which is problematic for an understanding of the present as continuous or durative Like many others, the root understanding of the present indicating linear, durative, or continuous action creates difficulty with examples of the present tense, which are not used of this kind of ac-tion At the same time, the primary function of the present for them is tied to linear and continuous action

David Alan Black describes the present tense as the imperfective as-pect, but then sees it as the tense used in Greek to “regard an action as a process or as habitual,” 44 though it is not clear whether these two notions are equivalent If the aorist tense represents a “snapshot,” the “present tense would be a motion picture ” 45 Though it can be used of punctiliar action in the present, Black concludes that “it generally corresponds more clearly to the English continuous present (‘I am teaching’) ” 46

39 C F D Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (2nd ed ; Cambridge: University Press, 1959) 7

40 Ibid , 5 41 Turner, Syntax, 59–60 42 Ibid , 74–75 43 James A Brooks and Carlton L Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham:

University Press of America, 1979) 82–83 44 Black, Still Greek to Me, 96 45 Ibid 46 Ibid , 107


Though more nuanced in his discussion of tense, A T Robertson, in his magisterial grammar, discerns three different kinds of action (punctiliar, linear, or durative, continuance of a perfected action) and that these are largely represented by the corresponding tenses (aorist, present, perfect) 47 Therefore, though he recognizes this is not its only sense, the present tense “more frequently denotes durative action ” 48 Ultimately, he says the verb itself and the context must decide What he calls the descriptive present, then, which can be graphically illustrated as ( _______ ), is its most frequent usage A present participle indicates action that is durative 49The long-time standard grammar by Blass, Debrunner, and Funk links the tense forms with various kinds of action (Aktionsart) They even confusingly equate aspect (point of view) with Aktionsart (kind of action) 50 Thus, the present tense expresses action that is “durative (linear or progressive) ” 51 Iterative action is also represented by the present stem of verbs 52

Clearly, for the majority of Greek grammars, introductory, interme-diate, and advanced, the notion of the present tense as indicating con-tinuous, durative, ongoing, or linear action is widespread Especially in introductory grammars, there is some recognition that the present tense can be used of action that is not only continuous or durative, but also punctiliar Yet this merely raises the question of what the meaning of the present tense is, equates the way of looking at the action and the nature of the action itself (Aktionsart), and relies too much on English translation (“I am reading” vs “I read”) Earlier grammars (for example, Robertson, Dana and Mantey, Moule) obviously are “preaspectual,” being written well in advance of the works of Porter and Fanning Still, in virtually all of the grammars surveyed, which both predate and postdate Porter and Fanning’s works on verbal aspect, the continuous or ongoing notion for the present tense is asserted Most of the abuses considered in the com-mentaries below probably stem from their reliance on grammatical tools which perpetuate the notion that the present tense = continual, durative, ongoing, linear action

Advances in the Treatment of the Present Tense

In his information-packed grammar, Daniel B Wallace understands the present tense after the manner of Buist Fanning’s description: it is the as-pect that focuses on the development or progress of the action It looks at

47 A T Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934) 822, 828

48 Ibid , 879 49 Ibid , 891 50 Blass, Debrunner, Funk, Greek Grammar, §318 They conclude that the original func-

tion of the tense forms in Indo-European languages was not time but “that of Aktionsarten (kinds of action) and aspects (points of view” (ibid) They are correct that aspect has to do with points of view, but they go on in their treatment of tense to clearly equate aspect with different kinds of action

51 Ibid 52 Ibid


the action with regard to its internal makeup 53 But Wallace thinks that this aspectual meaning of the present can be suppressed (so-called aor-istic presents) or affected by contextual factors (progressive [continuous] action) 54 Furthermore, Wallace follows the standard grammatical practice of extensive classification of usages of the present tense that are problem-atically based on kind of action or Aktionsart, rather than aspect 55

In his intermediate level grammar, Richard Young avoids many of the earlier conceptions and labels the present as “progressive,” but says that this should be distinguished from calling it durative 56 Stanley E Porter, in his Idioms of the Greek New Testament, implements insights from modern linguistics and his conclusions from his groundbreaking research on verbal aspect into an intermediate level grammar In it, he concludes that the pres-ent tense “occurs in contexts where the user of Greek wishes to depict the action as in progress, regardless of whether this is an objective characterization.” 57That “in progress” does not mean “continuous” or “durative” is made more clearly when Porter describes the present tense in terms of “its internal structure is seen as unfolding ” 58 In an entry-level grammar, Gary A Long defines the present tense as an imperfective aspect that “views a situation’s insides. It considers the internal temporal structure of a situation ” 59 The recent introductory grammar by Stanley E Porter, Jeffrey T Reed, and Matthew Brook O’Donnell describes the present tense in terms of aspect The present tense form “conveys a description of the action as in progress or unfolding.” 60

These recent studies are more nuanced in that they more-or-less consistently equate the present tense with aspect, that is, how the author chooses to view the action irrespective of when (past, present, future, time-less) or how (continuous, durative, iterative) it actually took place The present tense is seen as the aspect that views the action internally, as it develops and unfolds Modern-day commentators, exegetes, and preachers should rely on the most recent, informed grammatical tools

Examples of Abuse in Commentaries

Commentaries frequently cash in on the present tense in their exegesis, usually interpreting it in light of standard designations, such as “continu-ous,” “durative,” or “habitual ” 61 As seen above, this is the predominant

53 Wallace, Greek Grammar, 514; cf Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 103 54 Ibid , 515 55 E g , instantaneous present, progressive present, extending-from-past-to-present, it-

erative present, customary present, perfective present, etc See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 516–39 56 Young, Intermediate Greek, 170 57 Porter, Idioms, 29 58 Ibid , 21 59 Gary A Long, Grammatical Concepts 101 for Biblical Greek (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,

2006) 64 60 Stanley E Porter, Jeffrey T Reed, and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Fundamentals of

New Testament Greek (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010) 84 See their summary of verbal aspect on pp 39–40

61 Outside one or two exceptions, for reasons of length this survey will be limited to commentaries, though the examples could be multiplied by considering articles, monographs,


perspective in most grammars, particularly older ones, on which commen-taries depend The following collection of examples is merely selective and representative 62

In his recent commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Grant Osborne draws attention to the present tense form at numerous junctures 63 For example, in 9:9 Jesus calls Matthew to “follow him” (Ἀκολούθει) Osborne concludes from the use of the present imperative that Jesus “calls for a lifetime of discipleship ” 64 Osborne is no doubt correct that Jesus is call-ing for lifelong obedience; the problem is that the present tense itself here does not indicate this Interestingly, Matthew’s response in the next verse is recorded in the aorist ἠκολούθησεν Did Matthew respond in a way dif-ferently from what is required by Jesus? In Matt 7:7 David Turner calls attention to the present tense of verbs for prayer (Αἰτεῖτε, ζητεῖτε, κρούετε) to support the notion that these “three commands use present imperatives that should be viewed as enjoining habitual, iterative prayer ” 65 However, it is problematic to emphasize this based solely on the occurrence of the present tense form Any notion of persistent, habitual, or iterative prayer in Matt 7:7 must come from clear contextual indicators (if they are present at all), and not the present tense form of these imperatives

Commentaries have often been interested in the textual problem of John 20:31 as it relates to the overall purpose of the Fourth Gospel Is the purpose of John’s Gospel that the readers might believe with the present tense πιστεύητε, following some manuscripts, or that the readers might believe with the aorist tense πιστεύσητε, following other manuscripts? 66 My intention here is not to solve the textual issue or to draw conclusions regarding the purpose of the Fourth Gospel 67 Rather, my intention is to demonstrate how a misunderstanding of the present tense has provided an inadequate basis for understanding of the purpose of the Fourth Gospel The ostensible issue is summarized by Bruce Metzger: “The aorist tense, strictly interpreted, suggests that the Fourth Gospel was addressed to non-

and other specialized works Further, I have limited myself to more scholarly or semi-scholarly works Examples could be greatly multiplied from more popular works

62 It must also be said that the following comments are in no way reflections on the value of these works, but are only meant to illustrate fallacies regarding the interpretation of the present tense form in the NT

63 Grant R Osborne, Matthew: Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rap-ids: Zondervan, 2010)

64 Osborne, Matthew, 275 65 David L Turner, Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament;

Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008) 209 Turner cites Wallace, Greek Grammar, 722 for support Cf Os-borne, Matthew, 260 But cf R T France on these imperatives, who correctly observes that it would be an “overtranslation” to translate them “Keep on asking keep on seeking keep on knocking” (The Gospel of Matthew [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007] 280)

66 Cf Bruce M Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed ; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) 219–20

67 Most scholars think that the present tense πιστεύητε represents the original reading See for details Gordon D Fee, “On the Text and Meaning of John 20:30–31,” in The Four Gospels 1992 (ed F van Segbroeck et al ; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992) 2193–2205


Christians so that they might come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah; the present tense suggests that the aim of the writer was to strengthen the faith of those who already believe (“that you may continue to believe”) ” 68 This apparent insight has occasionally been perpetrated by commentaries Most recently, Frederick Dale Bruner argues that the present tense πιστεύητε, the reading that he prefers, could be interpreted “be believers” and means believing in Christ “day after day, Sunday after Sunday, until he comes again ” 69 Stephen Smalley also concludes that, if the present tense were the correct reading, it would suggest a continuing belief and hence be written for Christians 70 Usually, most commentaries think that the present tense in 20:31 under normal circumstances would mean “keep on believing,” so that the Gospel would be addressed to those already Christians But then they conclude that the “normal” rules of tense usage are apparently “suspended” here Thus, George Beasley-Murray concludes that “strictly speaking” the present tense πιστεύητε would indicate “continuing to hold the faith already reposed in Jesus ” 71 But he goes on to point out that a decision regarding the purpose of the Evangelist cannot rest on such a fine point of grammar and that the Evangelist “does not always keep the rules in his use of tenses ” 72

However, to read notions of continuance or the ongoing nature of be-lief into the present tense here is inconsistent with the distinction between aspect and Aktionsart and reads a meaning into the present tense that is not part of its semantics 73 Moreover, even the conclusion that John has contravened the “strict” or “normal” rules of the present tense usage here also stems from a construal of the present aspect that assumes a continu-ous meaning My conclusion is that the present-tense πιστεύητε in 20:31, if original, tells us little about the nature of the faith being described or the intention of the Fourth Gospel, whether written for evangelistic purposes or in order to strengthen already existing faith Those commentators who suggest that only the broader context can settle this are correct

68 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 219 69 Frederick Dale Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2012) 1196 70 Stephen S Smalley, John: Evangelist and Interpreter (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1978)

138–39, though he rightly concludes that other contextual indicators need to be taken into consideration See also Craig L Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels (Nashville: Broadman & Hol-man, 1997) 169, who takes the present tense to mean “continue to believe” so that the Gospel is apparently written to those who already believe

71 G M Beasley-Murray, John (2nd ed ; WBC 36; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999) 387 72 Ibid C K Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John (2nd ed ; Philadelphia: Westminster,

1978) 575; cf Raymond Brown, The Gospel according to John (2 vols ; New York: Doubleday, 1966, 1970) 2:1056 (“Since the present would mean ‘keep believing,’ it would imply that the readers of this Gospel are already Christian believers ”)

73 D A Carson concludes that to read the tense in John 20:31 in this way is a reduc-tionistic approach to the tenses (The Gospel according to John [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991] 662 For a similar refusal to read “continuing belief” into πιστεύητε here, see Ben Witherington III, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995) 30 (“The present subjunctive here should not be read as a present continual tense”)


In his commentary on Romans, James D G Dunn comments on the infinitive construction with the present tense δουλεύειν in Rom 6:6 and con-cludes from the present “that the possibility of the believer’s continuing to serve sin is very real ” 74 Theologically this may be true, but it cannot be derived from the present tense form Ben Witherington draws attention to the present tense form of the imperative in 6:13, “do not present” (μηδὲ παριστάνετε), and concludes that Paul is saying, “’do not any longer lend’ (ongoing or repeated action) ” 75 But the present tense says nothing about the nature of the action; it merely looks at the action internally, as unfold-ing In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, David Garland advocates that the present tense δίδοται in 12:7 “underscores the Spirit’s abiding presence,” 76 again a valid theological point, but one that does not come from the present tense Likewise, the present tense ἑορτάζωμεν in 5:8 supports interpreting this term “metaphorically in terms of a continuous celebration ” 77 But this again assumes a “continuous” meaning for the present tense Murray Har-ris says that the present tense παρακαλούμεθα in 2 Cor 1:4 “highlights the constancy and even the predictability of God’s comfort,” 78 again a valid theological point, but has nothing to do with the present tense form

In Paul’s instructions on the filling with the Spirit in Eph 5:18, Peter O’Brien notes that the present imperative πληροῦσθε should be interpreted to mean “be filled continually ” 79 Likewise, Andrew Lincoln says that the appearance of the present tense here in 5:18 indicates “that believers’ ex-perience of the Spirit’s fullness is to be a continuing one ” 80 But this is a theological rather than a grammatical judgment The present tense does not by its presence indicate a continual filling 81 The context here is inde-terminate as to the nature of the filling Rather, in choosing the present tense the author depicts the action as in progress, without saying anything about its duration or continuance

Douglas Moo also frequently analyzes the present tense in Colossians from this perspective In 2:6, Moo interprets the significance of the present

74 James D G Dunn, Romans 1–8 (WBC 38a; Dallas: Word, 1988) 320 75 Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) 163 Cf Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 317 Also problematic is Thomas Schreiner’s comment in his Romans commentary In his comments on 6:13, out of a desire to avoid reading too much into the tense forms, he suggests that the present παριστάνετε and the aorist παραστήσατε are synonymous tense forms (Thomas R Schreiner, Romans [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998] 324) However, just because the two verb forms occur in the same context, and do not seem to warrant the traditional descriptions of them, does not mean they are synonymous The two tenses indicate two different perspectives on the actions by the author This can be explained by aspect theory

76 David E Garland, 1 Corinthians (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 578 77 Ibid , 180 78 Murray J Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerd-

mans, 2005) 144–5 79 Peter T O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 391 80 Andrew T Lincoln, Ephesians (WBC 42; Dallas: Word, 1990) 344 81 Correctly, Frank Thielman, Ephesians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Tes-

tament; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010) 358


tense of the imperative περιπατεῖτε as “continue to live your lives in him,” 82 following the tniv with its addition of the word continue When Paul uses the present tense to exhort his readers to “seek” (ζητεῖτε) the things above in 3:1, “Paul indicates the believers should be constantly occupied in striving for this orientation ” 83 The point is not to question whether these insights might be true theologically; rather, it is to question whether the present tense indicates or requires any of these meanings They are probably just general exhortations to perform the action enjoined by Paul

The collection of essays in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews edited by Herbert Bateman refers to the present tense to draw a number of conclusions Grant Osborne draws attention to the present participles ἀνασταυροῦντας and παραδειγματίζοντας in Heb 6:6 and concludes that these participles indicate “the ongoing attitude they will have,” while the horta-tory προσερχώμεθα in 10:22 “calls for a continual ‘approach ’” 84 Likewise, Gareth Cockerill concludes that the present tense “whose house we are” (ἐσμεν) in 3:6 should be rendered “whose house we are and will continue to be ” 85 The present tense of the participles in 6:6 (“crucifying” and “exposing to public disgrace”) “indicates that the lives of those who have apostatized continue to expose Christ to disgrace ” 86 Commenting on Heb 4:16, William Lane notes that “the force of the present tense προσερχώμεθα is ‘let us again and again draw near to the throne of grace ’” 87 However, while these con-clusions may or may not be valid on other grounds, the assumed “continu-ous” nature of the present tense cannot be relied on to solve problematic passages or to determine the nature of the exhortations

In their commentary on James, Craig Blomberg and Mariam Kamell draw a number of similar types of conclusions from the occurrence of the present tense form Thus, they conclude that the present tense of the im-perative “ask” (αἰτείτω) in 1:5 “suggests possible ongoing action—repeated or continuous prayer ” 88 Though this may be true theologically, the pres-ent tense says nothing regarding whether the prayer is continuous, re-peated, or ongoing In 1:21, in contrast to the aorist tense forms (ἀποθέμενοι, δέξασθε), we are told that the present tense participle δυνάμενον is ongoing and suggests that the implanted work is continually able to save 89 More-over, we are told that the poor Christians in 2:15 are continually suffering due to the present tense of the participle λειπόμενοι 90 Once again, this is

82 Douglas J Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008) 179, emphasis original

83 Ibid , 246, emphasis added 84 Grant R Osborne, “A Classical Arminian View,” in Four Views on the Warning Pas-

sages in Hebrews (ed Herbert W Bateman; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007) 115, 118, respectively 85 Gareth L Cockerill, “Wesleyan Arminian Response,” in Four Views, 244 Cockerill also

overlooks the fact that εἰμί is “aspectually vague ” On this concept see p 359 below 86 Ibid , 276 n 45 87 William L Lane, Hebrews 1–8 (Dallas: Word, 1991) 115 88 Craig L Blomberg and Mariam J Kamell, James: Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008) 51 89 Ibid , 88 90 Ibid , 130


not to question the potential validity of these insights, which could or could not be established on other grounds The problem is drawing on a supposed “continuous” meaning of the present tense to establish them Semantically, the present indicates the author’s perspective on the action, not the nature of the action itself

The letter of 1 John is well known for its bold statements regarding the Christian and sin For example, 1 John 3:9 states that “Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God’s seed abides in them; they cannot sin because they have been born of God” (nrsv) This statement is especially problematic in light of John’s statements elsewhere that Christians do, in fact, sin (1:8, 10) Donald Burdick represents a common approach to this conundrum by appealing to the present tense of the verb to sin Thus, Burdick concludes that the solution to the above problem is to note the present tense verbs ποιεῖ and δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν in 3:9 (cf also 3:6) “It is the normal function of the present tense to express continuing action ” 91 Therefore, the author is not declaring “that the regenerated person does not commit sin, but that he does not continually engage in sin ” 92 Burdick appeals to the present tense on numerous other occasions throughout his commentary as indicating continuing, persistent action This explanation of the tenses is also apparently followed by Colin Kruse In his commen-tary on the letters of John, Kruse says that the present tense forms in 3:6 suggests that “both the ‘remaining’ and the ‘sinning’ in this statement are being viewed as ongoing acts ” 93 And in 3:9, “The author used the present tense form of the verb ‘to sin’ (hamartanō), indicating that it is sinning as an ongoing action that he has in mind here as impossible for those born of God ” 94 This approach is reflected in the niv: “No one who lives in him keeps on sinning No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him” (3:6) “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning ” (3:9) 95 Kruse does reject interpreting the present tense in these verses as habitual and ultimately seems to reject any solution to understanding these verses based on the present tense, though it is not clear how this fits with his insistence that the present tense still pictures the actions as ongoing My purpose here is not to provide a solution to interpreting 1 John 3:6, 9 in light of other state-ments in 1 John (e g 2:1) My purpose is to demonstrate that the present tense itself does not provide a solution, in terms of continuous, ongoing actions versus occasional actions (aorist) 96 This sort of approach places far too much weight on a misunderstanding (continuous) of the present tense

91 Donald W Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle: An In-Depth Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985) 246

92 Ibid , emphasis added 93 Colin F Kruse, The Letters of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 120 94 Ibid , 124 95 Emphasis added This manner of translating these verses is also followed by the 2011

revision of the niv See also the nlt 96 Cf Sakae Kubo, “1 John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual,” AUSS 7 (1969) 50, 55–56; cf more

recently Robert Yarbrough, 1–3 John (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008) 182–84


In Stephen Smalley’s commentary on the Greek text of the Apocalypse, he occasionally refers to the present tense to draw interpretive conclusions In the instruction to the church at Sardis, Christ instructs them to γίνου γρηγορῶν in 3:2 Smalley concludes from this that the present tense “implies continuity: ‘be constantly vigilant ’” 97 If this is based on the lexical meaning of γρηγορῶν, well and good But if he is suggesting that the present tense implies this, his comments are inconsistent if tense indicates aspect The present tense says nothing about the action being done constantly Like-wise, the present imperative μνημόνευε in 3:3 leads Smalley to conclude that the “recollection of the Sardians is to be constant ” 98 In the exhortation to the church of Laodicea, the depiction of Christ standing at the door and “knocking” in 3:20 has the present tense κρούω Once again, relying on traditional conceptions of the present tense form, Smalley interprets this to mean that “this implies a repeated and gentle request for entry ” 99 However, apart from this assumed understanding of the present tense, there are no clear clues that indicate repetition (or gentleness) 100

Similar examples of the present tense form reflecting notions of con-tinuation, repetition, or habitual action simply being “read off” the present tense in commentators could be multiplied Hopefully, the above examples illustrate that this way of treating the present tense is alive and well But if the present tense indicates how the author chooses to portray the action (aspect), it tells us nothing about the nature of the action itself (continuous or otherwise), and the above commentaries are remiss in drawing attention to this feature based solely on the usage of the present tense form Again, this is not necessarily to deny the validity of many of the insights of these scholars; rather, it is to draw attention to the fallacy of basing these on the present tense itself As already stated, many of the above works are dependent on outdated grammatical tools, and we should base analysis on more recent works that reflect verbal aspect

Some Implications for Interpretation

Given the above discussion, it is now time that we abandon such descrip-tions of the present tense as continuous, ongoing, durative, or habitual. The modern-day commentator and student should avoid such descriptions when it comes to interpreting the present tense form in the Greek NT Recent research into verbal aspect has suggested instead that the present tense looks at the action internally, as in progress or unfolding This can be supported by numerous examples in the NT of the present tense that are not durative or continuous Such instances must be accounted for, and verbal aspect provides a comprehensive model that can explain these in-stances Moreover, it is important to distinguish aspect from the kind of

97 Smalley, Revelation, 81 98 Ibid , 82, emphasis added 99 Ibid , 101

100 It is unclear to me why Smalley sees “gentleness” as one of the features indicated by κρούω in 3:20 Perhaps to him the aorist tense sounds harsher than the present


action, or Aktionsart, the latter indicated by things such as the context or the lexical meaning of the verb itself It is illegitimate to interpret any verb as referring to continuous, durative, or habitual action simply based on the occurrence of the Greek present tense form Conclusions of this sort are only justified when overt contextual indicators are present For example, in Rom 1:9, Paul mentions how unceasingly he prays for his readers The present tense ποιοῦμαι could be taken to refer to continuous action here, but only because of the presence of an overt indicator in the form of the adjunct ἀδιαλείπτως (constantly, unceasingly) 101 The primary reason for selection of the present tense form by NT authors was verbal aspect, or the author’s desire to view the action from the standpoint of its internal makeup and development In the absence of any clear contextual indicators, we should avoid the terms continuous, durative, and so on when interpreting the pres-ent tense form Some of the observations in the survey of commentaries above may indeed be valid at the broader theological or contextual level It is just that the present tense does not indicate these things 102

What, then, might be the significance of the present tense form for ex-egesis? As said above, first and foremost it functions to convey the author’s perspective on an action from an internal, unfolding viewpoint However, certain verbs in the NT always appear in the imperfective (present or im-perfect) aspect, and so it would be illegitimate to make anything of the appearance of the present tense with these verbs: εἰμί, κεῖμαι, καθημαί, φημί These verbs are what Porter calls “aspectually vague,” and no specific sig-nificance should be attached to the present tense in these instances because they do not offer a paradigmatic choice in terms of aorist/imperfective opposition 103 But the selection of the present tense in other verbs may have another important function Some scholars have shown interest in the discourse function of the Greek tense forms and the role that they can play in establishing emphasis or prominence within discourse That is, one of the ways writers could make certain sections of their discourse stand out was through selection of tense forms Scholars have frequently drawn attention to the fact that the aorist tense is the “default” or “unmarked” tense form unless there is reason to be more specific 104 By selection of the present tense form, then, the author wishes to say something more specific, to describe it, to draw attention to the action It is the foreground tense form over against the aorist 105

In narrative, the common tense form for moving the narrative along and establishing the backbone of the story is the aorist 106 The present

101 For other possible examples, see Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 205–8, though not all his examples are equally clear

102 This was one of the important conclusions regarding the aorist made by Stagg in his article (“Abused Aorist”)

103 Porter, Verbal Aspect, 441–7 104 Robertson, Grammar, 831; K L McKay, “Syntax in Exegesis,” TynB 23 (1972) 46 105 Porter, Idioms, 23 106 See Decker, Temporal Deixis, 98–9, who described the aorist as “the principal means

of structuring the narrative and sketching the background events that carry the storyline ”


tense form, then, is often used to select and highlight certain processes 107 As Fanning summarizes, it can be used “to highlight the beginning of a paragraph, to introduce new participants into an existing paragraph, to show participants moving to new locations, or to portray key events in a lively fashion ” 108 In Matt 2:13–23, the present tense is used twice (of a past action) to refer to the appearance of an angel to Joseph in order to draw attention to and introduce a crucial movement within the narrative Thus, the angel appears (φαίνεται) to Joseph in v 13, which introduces the movement of Jesus to Egypt, then again in v 19 (φαίνεται) to introduce the movement from Egypt back to Israel The present tense foregrounds these two important movements within the story Furthermore, another present tense appears in 3:1, 13 to introduce the next stage in Jesus’ movement and ministry Here, both John in 3:1, who prepares the way for the arrival of Jesus, and the arrival of Jesus in 3:13 are depicted with the same narrative present tense form, παραγίνεται In Matt 4:1–11, the last two temptations are introduced by the present form παραλαμβάνει, emphasizing the move-ment to different locations to set the stage for these temptations In Matt 8:18–22 Jesus addresses two would-be disciples The inadequate responses of the potential followers are introduced with the aorist εἶπεν (vv 19, 21) However, Jesus’ response to both of them is introduced with the present λέγει (vv 20, 22) to draw attention to the response of Jesus in each case over against the inadequate responses of the would-be followers

In the visionary narrative of Revelation, John envisions the dragon dragging (σύρει) a third of the stars with his tail in 12:4 The present tense here foregrounds this particularly defiant and powerful act of the dragon In chap 13, while the aorist tense dominates the description of the first beast in vv 1–10, when the second beast is introduced in vv 11–18 a num-ber of present tense forms emerge to describe its activities: ποιεῖ (vv 12,

107 Cf Porter, Verbal Aspect, 196; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 231–32; Stephen H Levinsohn, “Preliminary Observations on the Use of the Historical Present in Mark,” Notes on Translation 65 (1977) 13–28; Randall Buth, “Mark’s Use of the Historical Present,” Notes on Translation 65 (1977) 7–13; Steven E Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010) 125–43 There have been many explanations as to how the present tense in Greek can be used of past-time actions Most explanations begin with the assumption that the present tense refers to present time, and continuous, durative action Based on the former, some suggest that the present is used for the sake of vividness (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 526) That is, the present tense is used of past actions to portray them as if they are actually occurring to the reader Based on the latter perspective, the present tense is sometimes seen to experience “tense reduction” (ibid , 527) That is, they lose their “present” meaning Both of these perspectives can be avoided by seeing the present as indicating aspect If neither present time nor continuous, durative action is the meaning of the present tense, then the present tense form can retain its full force By using the tense form that is more marked in meaning (as opposed to the default aorist), the author can use the present tense form in past time contexts to draw attention to important speeches, new scenes, or actors

108 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 232 See also Stephanie L Black, “The Historic Present in Mat-thew: Beyond Speech Margins,” in Discourse Analysis and The New Testament: Approaches and Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed; JSNTSup 170; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 120–39


13, 16), ποιῇ (v 13), πλανᾷ (v 14) By employing the present tense ποιεῖ the author breaks up this section into subunits Further, the present tense also may draw attention to the activity of this second beast because it is pre-cisely through this beast (local imperial authorities?) that the authority of the first beast actually would have been felt and experienced among the first century readers 109

Outside of narrative, the present tense is often used to highlight im-portant thematic elements in the discourse In Rom 3:23, Paul uses the pres-ent tense to indicate new information and the main focus on the verse The aorist tense ἥμαρτον (“sinned”) summarizes what Paul has just argued in 1:18–3:20: Gentile and Jew alike stand condemned under sin Then he uses the present tense ὑστεροῦνται to describe more specifically what that entails: it is falling short of God’s glory The imperatives in Rom 6:12–13 are in the form of present prohibitions: μὴ βασιλευέτω μηδὲ παριστάνετε The present tense form, rather than indicating action to be ceased, may function to draw attention to these prohibitions, continuing the emphasis on freedom from sin’s reign in vv 1–11 In Col 3:12–17, after the summary command to “put on” various virtues in the aorist tense (Ἐνδύσασθε), the author then utilizes three present imperatives (βραβευέτω, γίνεσθε, ἐνοικείτω) to describe thematically in more detail what this putting on entails 110 To refer to an-other example treated above, the present tenses in 1 John 3:6 (ἁμαρτάνει) and 3:9 (ποιεῖ, δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν) are not to be construed as continuous or habitual sin; rather, the foreground present tenses function to draw atten-tion to a process that should have no place in the life of the Christian, for those who are “born of God” and “remain in him ” 111 To illustrate from a more extended example, in Ephesians the present tense dominates chs 4–6 (120 present-tense forms over against 59 aorists) This section of Ephesians is also dominated by imperative forms (40, in addition to other types of hortatory constructions, for example, Παρακαλῶ περιπατῆσαι in 4:1) The present tense is used to emphasize what is most central to the author’s purpose—exhortation and hortatory change in the readers

Thus, the present tense can often be used to structure a discourse and/or highlight certain information Though it would be incorrect to say that the present tense always is used to establish prominence within discourse, it does appear that this is one of its functions and is worth considering However, the primary function of aspects is to indicate the author’s per-spective on the action, the present tense (aspect) being used when the au-

109 See David L Mathewson, Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation: The Function of Greek Verb Tenses in John’s Apocalypse (Linguistic Biblical Studies 4; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 149–50 This would be true especially if the first beast represented Imperial Rome and/or the Roman em-peror, and the second beast represented the local authorities in Asia Minor responsible for promoting the imperial cult and commerce in the Roman provinces where the readers lived

110 For more details on both the Rom 6:12–13 and Col 3:12–17 texts, see Mathewson, “Verbal Aspect in Imperatival Constructions,” 25–34

111 For a similar conclusion, see Martin M Culy, I, II, III John: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004) 73


thor wants to portray that action as in process or developing Beyond this, the modern-day student would do well to refrain from drawing any more specific conclusions unless contextually warranted

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is time that we abandon notions such as “continuous,” “du-rative,” “ongoing,” or “habitual” in our descriptions and interpretations of the present tense Instead, the modern-day interpreter of the NT should in-terpret the present tense along the lines of verbal aspect, or how the author chooses to view the action: the present portrays the action as developing or unfolding, as though the author were viewing the action from its “insides ” Any notion of continuation or ongoing action can only be included if there are clear clues within the context that these meanings are in fact present But these notions do not belong to the present tense form itself In addition, the interpreter should ask whether the present tense functions to highlight or add discourse prominence, particularly in contrast with the aorist tense form Outside of this, it would be better if the interpreter avoided making any specific exegetical and theological claims based on the present tense And when looking for grammatical help for understanding the present tense, we should rely on the most recent grammatical tools

Documents

The Abused Present · Mathewson: The Abused Present 345 meaning by choice of a word form) a perspective on an action by the selection of a particular tense-form in the verbal system