[B-Greek] Present imperative in Matt. 7:1

Blue Meeksbay bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 8 11:47:57 EST 2009


 
So it seems the present action is carried into the verbal idea and does not necessarily refer to the original setting in which the negative injunction is spoken. Robertson says, “In general MH is used with the present imper. to forbid what one is already doing.” But it seems what you are saying is that the present imperative also carries an imperfective aspect in the verbal idea itself, thus Matt. 7:1 would carry the force of “Don't be judgmental" or "Don't go around judging people". Consequently, if the aorist imperative was used in this situation it would carry the idea of “Don’t judge!” with the focus on the “act” rather than on the resultant “character” achieved through obedience to the injunction.
 
If this is so, I wonder (thinking back on the thought gleaned from Dr. Conrad’s post), if the saying in Matt. 7:1 was a type of Semitic idiom, (A popular saying of Hillel was, “Judge not your fellowman until you come into his place” Avot 2:5), could the present imperative be a technique to convey this type of idiomatic thinking? Therefore, the negative injunction would actually be thought of as a positive injunction. The thought of Matt. 7:1 would then be, “Be humble.” This would explain verse 5 where judgment may sometimes still have to occur, but it would only occur from one who is humble, and is therefore able to judge, not with self-righteousness, but with humility and fear.
 
If the present imperative can be used in this manner (with Semitic idiomatic sayings), perhaps, John 5:14, which says,   META TAUTA EUPISKEI AUTON O IHSOUS EN TW IERW KAI EIPEN AUTW IDE UGIHS GEGONAS MHKETI AMARTANE INA MH CEIRON TI SOI GENHTAI, could then be understood to also be a positive admonition to “Be righteous.” ???
 
It seems, if the aorist imperative was used with its perfective aspect, this nuance could not be shown. 
 
Sincerely,
B.Harris
 
 




________________________________
From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>
To: Blue Meeksbay <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>; Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 9:39:55 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Present imperative in Matt. 7:1

----- Original Message ----- From: "Blue Meeksbay" <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>
To: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 8. december 2009 03:57
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Present imperative in Matt. 7:1


> Thank you Dr. Conrad -
> 
> Your answer made me wonder if, perhaps, this was an idiomatic expression of which we are not aware, and, therefore, in this case, should not be open to such literal scrutiny. Therefore, your suggestion “Don’t be judgmental” would be spot on.
> 
> B.Harris

The basic distinction between the present and aorist imperative is a matter of aspect with the present indicating imperfective aspect and the aorist perfective aspect. So, if we study what these different aspects mean, we have come a long way.

Imperfective aspect can refer to several things, such as a continuing or prolonged action or a repeated action. Perfective aspect see the event as completed whole and often as a single action, not to be repeated.

So, in Matt 7:1 "Don't be judgmental" covers the imperfective aspect well. One might also say: "Don't go around judging people". It is questionable to translate with "Stop judging".

There is a correlation between imperfective and plurality of subjects or objects.

When I did a count of second person singular and plural imperatives in the NT, I got the following numbers (not counting some subjunctive aorists and futures functioning as imperatives):

2nd person singular:                            2nd person plural:
present imperatives: 262                                  468
aorist imperatives: 371                                      325

Why are present imperatives much more common in plural? My suggestion is that when several people are doing the same action, it often comes under the concept of repeated action.

But there might be other reasons. It could be because most of the general commands in the NT are directed to a group of people, and general commands are normally in the present tense. It would be interesting to do similar counts outside the NT.

A negated present tense command may indicate the stopping of a continuous, prolonged or repeated action, but it would be too simplistic to say that it always does. It can also mean "Do not continually or repeatedly do X". As always, it is the context that may clarify the intended nuance of meaning.

Iver Larsen


      


More information about the B-Greek mailing list