THE GREEK VERB SYSTEM
6.1. One of the most important yet complex features of Koine Greek is its verb system. Though Greek does not require a verb to construct a clause, most clauses do contain a verbal element. Like many other features of the Greek language, the verb is inflected to indicate important grammatical information: tense/aspect, voice, mood, person, and number. That is, the selection of a verb ending communicates a perspective on these features. The treatment of NT Greek verbs in this grammar will discuss these five features, but more attention will be given to the first three (tense, voice, and mood) since more issues surround their interpretation. A basic division to recognize is between finite and nonfinite verbs. Finite verbs are those that have endings to indicate person. Nonfinite verbs (participles and infinitives) do not. This chapter will focus on finite verb forms, verbs that are limited by a subject and take endings to indicate person. Nevertheless, much of what is said here applies to nonfinite forms as well.
Tense (Aspect)
6.2. The feature of the Greek verb system that has received the most attention lately is its tense system. For much of the twentieth century, grammarians of NT Greek understood Greek verb tenses to communicate two things: kind of action (known as Aktionsart)1 and the time of action (past, present, future) in the indicative mood (even those who think Greek verb tenses indicate time agree that time is not a factor outside the indicative mood).2 In other words, the verb tenses were thought to tell us both how an action actually took place (i.e., the kind of action) and when it took place (i.e., the time of action). For example, a common conception of the aorist tense was that it indicates punctiliar action (kind) in the past (time). The present tense was seen as conveying continuous action (kind) in the present (time). In some cases this is still the basic model for teaching Greek tense usage.
However, this approach has been challenged recently and is being replaced by a different model known as verbal aspect theory.3 According to aspect theory, the Greek verb tenses do not indicate the kind or even the time of action, but how the author chooses to conceive of or view the action. Aspect concerns the author’s perspective on an action. Here is a definition of verbal aspect from Stanley Porter, one of the most important advocates of this view: “Verbal aspect is defined as a semantic (meaning) category by which a speaker or writer grammaticalizes (i.e., represents a meaning by choice of a word-form) a perspective on an action by the selection of a particular tense-form in the verbal system.”4 According to another proponent, Buist Fanning, aspect is “that category in grammar of the verb which reflects the focus or viewpoint of the speaker in regard to the action or condition which the verb describes.”5 Another way of looking at aspect is that it is “perspectival.”6 By choosing a specific tense-form, the author chooses to view the action in a specific way, irrespective of when or how it actually took place. This conclusion is confirmed by noticing the variety of temporal and kind-of-action contexts in which Greek verb tenses occur (see the examples below). Time and kind of action are indicated not by the verb tense-forms but by the broader context (clauses, sentences, paragraphs). Though there is still some disagreement on the issue of whether Greek indicative verb tenses indicate time, our grammar will side with advocates of verbal aspect in the treatment of the Greek tense system.7 But one must at least agree with Robertson (824–25) that time is but a subordinate element in Greek verb tenses.
By way of contrast, the English tense system primarily indicates time (past, present, future). However, in a more limited way even English can indicate aspect. What is the difference between these two statements?
I studied Greek last night.
I was studying Greek last night.
Both refer to the same event, the act of studying Greek, and the same time, last night. The difference is one of aspect, how the speaker chooses to portray the action: as a simple whole (“studied”) or as in progress (“was studying”). The following comments are meant to further explain the theory of verbal aspect as utilized in this grammar.
6.3. There are three fundamental aspects in Greek: perfective, imperfective, and stative. As mentioned above, these three aspects are indicated by the inflected endings attached to verbs. By the choice of a tense-form, the author indicates a particular aspect, or way of viewing an action. The perfective aspect looks at an action as a complete whole, in its entirety, without reference to its makeup or development. It has sometimes been referred to as the “external viewpoint,”8 a view from outside of the action. The tense-form used to communicate this aspect is the aorist.9 The imperfective aspect looks at an action as in progress, as developing or unfolding. It has sometimes been referred to as the “internal viewpoint.”10 It is a more close-up view of the action seen from the perspective of its internal makeup. The verb tense-forms used to indicate this aspect are the present and imperfect. The stative aspect looks at an action as an existing state of affairs. The tense-forms used to communicate this aspect are the perfect and the pluperfect.
| Aspect | Meaning | Tense-Form |
|---|---|---|
| Perfective | Action viewed as a whole, in its entirety | Aorist |
| Imperfective | Action viewed as in progress, as developing or unfolding | Present and Imperfect |
| Stative | Action viewed as an existing state | Perfect and Pluperfect |
Notice the absence of the future tense. The future tense is not fully aspectual. That is, it has a unique place within the Greek tense system and does not function along with the other tense-forms as part of Greek’s system of aspect. It is better treated separately from the other aspects (see below).
6.4. It is crucial to distinguish between kind of action (Aktionsart) and aspect. The former refers more to the objective nature of an action as determined where possible by the context, while aspect refers more subjectively to how the author chooses to view an action, irrespective of how it actually took place. Many misconceptions of the Greek tense-forms are due to a failure to distinguish aspect from Aktionsart (e.g., the aorist = punctiliar action; the present = continuous action). What this means is that most actions can be portrayed by most aspects; it all depends on how the author wants to view an action. In Rom. 6:4 Jesus’ resurrection is referred to with the aorist tense (ἠγέρθη, was raised). However, in 1 Cor. 15:4 the same verb is used to refer to his resurrection with the perfect tense (ἐγήγερται). The same objective event, Christ’s resurrection (not two different resurrections), is referred to with two different aspects that serve to provide different perspectives of the author on the action: an action viewed in its entirety versus as a state of affairs.
6.5. An important linguistic principle is that meaning implies choice. There are several verbs that do not offer a choice between perfective and imperfective aspects in Greek. The most obvious example is εἰμί, which exhibits only imperfective tense-forms (present and imperfect).11 Other common verbs that do not provide a choice between aorist and present/imperfective tense-forms are κάθημαι (I sit), κεῖμαι (I lie), and φημί (I say). These verbs are what Porter (24–25) calls “aspectually vague.” Also, sometimes an author may prefer a certain aspect with certain verbs. For example, in Revelation the verb ἔχω occurs exclusively in the imperfective aspect (i.e., present and imperfect tense-forms), so the reader should not make too much of the present tense-form of ἔχω in Revelation. Therefore, the interpreter should not give weight or exegetical significance to the aspect of such verbs, since vague verbs (or an author defaulting to one aspect) do not reflect a full range of tense/aspect choices.
6.6. One of the functions of the Greek aspects is to structure the discourse12 or lend prominence to parts of a text. No discourse is flat; discourses have certain parts that “stick out” or are more important than others. One important way that Greek can indicate levels of prominence in a discourse is through the use of verbal aspect (see chap. 13, on discourse considerations). It must be emphasized that showing prominence is not the meaning of the tenses. And verbal aspect does not always show prominence. The aspects primarily indicate the author’s perspective on an action. But it is at least worth considering whether the use of aspect signals prominence (Porter 23).
How do the aspects structure a discourse? The following scheme represents a possible model for how aspect can function in the two major literary types in the NT.13
Narrative
| Aorist | Used to summarize and narrate the main events on the main story line. | |
| Imperfect | Used to narrate events that are remote from the main story line, often supplementary or supporting material; it can also function to draw attention to a main action. | |
| Present | Used to draw attention to (i.e., to “foreground”) significant events (the so-called historical present) or to signal the importance of an upcoming event. | |
| Perfect | Used as another way of expressing prominence, due to the fact that the perfect tense is rare in narrative and seems to carry more meaning. |
Exposition
For example, John 20:1–10 mixes aorist, present, imperfect, and pluperfect indicative tense-forms. The narrative begins with a string of present tenses (the so-called historical present): ἔρχεται, βλέπει, τρέχει, ἔρχεται, λέγει (vv. 1–2). The present tense-forms highlight and provide a transition to a new scene. One imperfect is found in verse 2, ἐφίλει, indicating supplementary material. Verses 3–4 switch to an aorist, ἐξῆλθεν, followed by two imperfects, ἤρχοντο and ἔτρεχον, and then more aorists: προέδραμεν, ἦλθεν. The aorists carry the story along, and the imperfects indicate supplementary material. Verse 5 begins with a present tense-form βλέπει to refer to looking into the tomb but switches to an aorist to refer to entering it (εἰσῆλθεν). Verse 6 then contains two present tense-forms: ἔρχεται brings Peter to the tomb, and θεωρεῖ is used along with the aorist of entering (εἰσῆλθεν). A pattern emerges: the aorists summarize the entering into the tomb, while the presents draw attention to what is more important: seeing what is in the tomb. Verses 8–10 end with a string of aorist forms, εἰσῆλθεν, εἶδεν, ἐπίστευσεν, ἀπῆλθον, which move the story forward by resuming the main story line. The one pluperfect form (ᾔδεισαν, v. 9) may add further supplementary material or close out this section.
In 1 John 2:12–14 the author, in repeating his threefold purpose for writing, switches from the present-tense γράφω in verses 12, 13 to the aorist of the same verb, ἔγραψα, in verse 14. Under a traditional view of Greek verb tenses, one would have to account for why the author switches from a present to a past tense: is the author referring to an earlier part of his letter or to a previous letter or writing? Some think the change is merely stylistic.14 However, verbal aspect can make sense of the shift. Both tenses refer to the writing of the same letter in its entirety. The present tense γράφω marks the material in verses 12 and 13 as significant and makes emphatic statements as to the author’s main intention in writing. Then the aorist tense in verse 14 simply summarizes the repeated assertions of his purpose for writing. According to Porter, the author “introduces a set of assertions [vv. 12, 13] with Present verbs to his three-fold audience. . . . Rather than using the more heavily marked Present to re-introduce his repeated assertions the author uses the less heavily marked Aorist in the second set [v. 14] so as not to detract emphasis from the message itself.”15
Again, this is not to suggest that the aspects always function this way or that this is the meaning of the aspects. But since they sometimes do function in this manner, it is worth asking whether changes in tense-forms in a passage are for the purpose of structuring the discourse or establishing prominence.
6.7. An aspectual view of verb tenses does not mean that the Greek language does not or cannot indicate time. Rather, time is primarily signaled by other elements, such as temporal adverbs or deictic (pointing) indicators (e.g., νῦν, σήμερον, πότε, ὅτε). Literary genre itself may also function to indicate time (e.g., narrative indicates past-time events). Even for those who still want to see some temporal element in the Greek verb system, it remains advisable to look at the broader context to determine the time of an action. Any given aspect can be used in past, present, future, and timeless contexts.16
6.8. One unique feature of this book is that it will avoid the labels that are commonly attached to verb tenses in most grammars. For example, one often finds such descriptive labels as progressive present, iterative present, inceptive imperfect, conative imperfect, constative aorist, ingressive aorist, and consummative perfect.17 However, these labels are more appropriate for contextual information that gives evidence for the kind of action than for the aspects themselves. Furthermore, they fail to distinguish between semantics (the meaning of the tense-forms) and pragmatics (the various contexts in which the aspects are used) or between aspect (the author’s viewpoint) and Aktionsart (the kind of action). It is illegitimate to make the verb tenses bear all of the information from the surrounding context (in the same way that all the meaning from the context should not be loaded onto a single word, a word-study fallacy). There are no such things as iterative presents, conative imperfects, or ingressive aorists. These labels are at most only descriptions, which may or may not be accurate, of actions based on broader contextual information; they are not the meanings of the tenses/aspects themselves. Verbal aspect simply indicates the author’s perspective on the action, irrespective of the objective nature of the action. At most, it can be said that “an aorist tense-form is used in an ingressive context” when there is enough clear information in the context to indicate the beginning of an action. But the aspects of the verbs themselves do not “mean” these things or emphasize them. Often these labels reflect more the necessity of English translation. As Martin M. Culy says, “Simply put, Greek verb tenses do not denote semantic features such as ingressive, iterative, or conative; they certainly do not emphasize such notions; at best they allow for ingressive, iterative, or conative translations.”18 Therefore, these labels are better set aside; this grammar will not use them.
Kind of Action (Aktionsart)
6.9. We have argued above that it is important to distinguish between kind of action (Aktionsart) and aspect (viewpoint). Kind of action is usually the focus of grammars that use the terminology of iterative, continuous, punctiliar, consummative, ingressive, and such. As suggested above, these notions are not encoded in the verb tense endings. As Decker concludes, Aktionsart “is neither synonymous with aspect nor based on the tense-form of the verb.”19 The kind of action is determined by such factors as the meaning of the verb (its lexis), modifiers or adjuncts, and broader contextual features.
Lexis
6.10. In Mark 5:22 the act of Jairus falling (πίπτει) at Jesus’ feet is an instantaneous act, but this is a matter of the meaning of the word “to fall” in this context. When Jesus tells his followers to “remain” in him (John 15:4), he may imply a continuing activity based on the meaning of μείνατε (remain), even though the tense-form of μείνατε is aorist. Other verbs such as εὑρίσκω (I find) or ἀνοίγω (I open) may suggest actions of short duration. The verb ἄρχομαι (I begin) often indicates the beginning of an action (ingressive; see Matt. 4:17).
Modifiers and Adjuncts
6.11. In Rom. 1:9 Paul makes continuous, unceasing prayer for his readers, which is indicated not by the present-tense ποιοῦμαι (I make) but by the adverb ἀδιαλείπτως (unceasingly). Likewise, Jesus’ death is “once for all” in Heb. 9:28, based not on the aorist-tense προσενεχθείς (having been offered) but on the adverb ἅπαξ (once). At most the aorist allows for this understanding. In Mark 9:22 the demon-possessed man threw (ἔβαλεν, aorist) himself into the fire and into water πολλάκις (many times), a clearly repetitive action.
Context
6.12. Other contextual features can contribute to our understanding of the kind of action. The resurrection of the saints in Rev. 20:4 might be ingressive (ἔζησαν, they came to life), but this conclusion is based not on the aorist ἔζησαν but rather on the contrast between two states: being beheaded and being alive (moreover an ingressive notion is not certain). In Matt. 4:25 the plural subject ὄχλοι πολλοί (further described as people from Galilee, Decapolis, Jerusalem, and Judea) makes the act of following (ἠκολούθησαν) a repeated one over a period of time.
To summarize, in order to determine the kind of action for any given verb, the interpreter must carefully weigh a number of factors, including the lexical meaning of the verb, modifiers such as adverbs, and the broader context.
The Aspects
6.13. Following the description of each aspect below, we will give some examples of the different kinds of contexts, temporal and “kinds of action” (Aktionsarten), in which the aspects can be used. These are not to be confused with labels for various “kinds” of presents, or aorists, or perfects found in other grammars. What follows the description of each aspect is only a sampling of the kinds of contexts in which the tenses can be used. We will not attempt to be exhaustive, but only representative and illustrative.
Perfective Aspect: The Aorist Tense
6.14. Our treatment of the Greek tense-forms begins with the aorist since it is often regarded as the “default” tense, the tense used “unless there was special reason for using some other tense” (Robertson 831). The aorist tense views action in its entirety or as a complete whole,20 irrespective of the duration of action or of the time of its occurrence. It is the primary tense used in narrative to summarize past events that compose the main story line. In expositional (e.g., epistolary) literature it is used of past action or of action that forms the background for more prominent material. The aorist tense can be used in a variety of temporal contexts and to refer to a variety of kinds of action (Aktionsarten). The following descriptions should not be confused with the labels used in most grammars. The meaning of the aorist is the same: the action is conceived of as perfective.
1. Aorist used of past-time action. A common use of the aorist is to refer to action that is temporally past, viewing the event as complete. This view of action as a complete whole lent itself naturally and logically to being used of past-time events.21 Such use of the aorist is the staple of narrative.
| ἰδοὺ μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν παρεγένοντο εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (Matt. 2:1) | Look, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem. |
| ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν. (Rom. 5:8) | While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. |
| Καὶ εἶδον ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιὰν τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου βιβλίον (Rev. 5:1) | And I saw upon the right hand of the one seated upon the throne a scroll. |
2. Aorist used of present-time action. Particularly with verbs of emotion, or verbs indicating short duration (such as throwing, βάλλω), the aorist can be used of events that occur in the present or at least extend into the present from the standpoint of the author.
| ἐγὼ ἐβάπτισα ὑμᾶς ὕδατι, αὐτὸς δὲ βαπτίσει ὑμᾶς ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. (Mark 1:8) | I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with/in the Holy Spirit. |
| ἔγνων τί ποιήσω (Luke 16:4) | I know what I will do. |
This is the classic example of a present-referring aorist. Here the aorist refers to a present knowledge from the standpoint of the speaker, not to something that happened in the recent past.
| ὃν ἔπεμψα πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο (Col. 4:8) | Whom I send to you for this very thing. |
Grammarians often label this an “epistolary aorist.” The so-called epistolary aorist is usually understood to refer to the writing or sending of the letter from the standpoint of its readers, for whom it is a past event (Brooks and Winbery 102). Yet this assumes that the aorist must always carry past-time implication. Rather, from the author’s perspective the aorist refers to the writing of the entire letter (Porter 36–37).
3. Aorist used of future-time action. Though a rare usage, the aorist can refer to a future action. This use of the aorist is usually understood to mean that the writer is presenting a future event as so certain that it is portrayed as if it has already happened.22 Again, such an interpretation assumes that the aorist must always carry past-time implications. But when used of future time, is the aorist any more certain than the future tense or than the present? Instead, we argue that this is simply a future-referring use of the perfective aspect: a future action is viewed as a complete whole.
| Ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ (Jude 14) | Look, the Lord is going to come with myriads of his holy ones. |
| ἀλλʼ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ ἑβδόμου ἀγγέλου, ὅταν μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν, καὶ ἐτελέσθη τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ (Rev. 10:7) | But in the days of the sound [of the trumpet] of the seventh angel, whenever he is about to sound the trumpet, and the mystery of God will be completed. |
The reference to ὅταν μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν suggests the future-time context for ἐτελέσθη.
| Καὶ εἶδον . . . ἀγγέλους ἑπτὰ ἔχοντας πληγὰς ἑπτὰ τὰς ἐσχάτας, ὅτι ἐν αὐταῖς ἐτελέσθη ὁ θυμὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. (Rev. 15:1) | And I saw . . . the seven angels holding the seven last plagues, for in them the wrath of God will be completed. (since the bowls have not yet been poured out at this point) |
4. Aorist used of timeless or omnitemporal action. The aorist can refer to an action that can occur at any time (not at any one specific time) or to make timeless statements (Young 124). Some have attempted to argue that the aorist tense refers to a specific event in the past that becomes an example for subsequent occurrences (BDF §333). Instead, the aorist is used to present the timeless or regular occurrence of an action in its entirety. It is often used in proverbial contexts or in other universal statements. This use of the aorist can often be translated into English with the present tense.
| Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα. (Mark 1:11) | You are my beloved Son; in you I am pleased. |
It is fruitless to postulate a past event at which time the Father was pleased with the Son (e.g., baptism). The implication is that the Father is always pleased with his Son, a clearly timeless use of the aorist.
| οὐδεὶς γάρ ποτε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα ἐμίσησεν, ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφει καὶ θάλπει αὐτήν (Eph. 5:29) | For no one ever hates his/her own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it. | |
| ἀνέτειλεν γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος . . . καὶ ἐξήρανεν τὸν χόρτον, καὶ τὸ ἄνθος αὐτοῦ ἐξέπεσεν καὶ ἡ εὐπρέπεια τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἀπώλετο· (James 1:11) | For the sun rises . . . and the grass withers and its flower falls off and the beauty of its appearance passes away. |
See also 1 Pet. 1:24.
5. Aorist used of extended action. The aorist can be used of action that takes place over a more or less extended period of time but is still viewed in its entirety. This is one of the more common usages of the aorist. Grammarians often label this the constative or global aorist.23
| Ἐνέμεινεν δὲ διετίαν ὅλην ἐν ἰδίῳ μισθώματι, καὶ ἀπεδέχετο πάντας τοὺς εἰσπορευομένους πρὸς αὐτόν (Acts 28:30) | He [i.e., Paul] remained there for two entire years in his own rented house, and he welcomed all who came to him. |
The time frame is established by the temporal indicator διετίαν ὅλην.
Whether one takes “a thousand years” literally or symbolically, at the visionary level the aorist ἐβασίλευσαν encompasses a period of “one thousand years.” This creates difficulties for views of the aorist as “punctiliar.”
6. Aorist used of instantaneous, onetime, or punctiliar action. In the past this was often thought (incorrectly) to be the primary semantic force or meaning of the aorist. However, grammars now largely avoid this misunderstanding.24 Still, the aorist can be used of this kind of action when the context warrants it. Often the lexical meaning of the verb indicates this type of action (see ἔπεσαν below).
| οὐδὲ διʼ αἵματος τράγων καὶ μόσχων διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, εἰσῆλθεν ἐφάπαξ εἰς τὰ ἅγια (Heb. 9:12) | Neither through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood he entered once and for all into the holy place. |
The nature of the action is established on the basis of ἐφάπαξ, not the aorist tense-form.
| καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἔπεσαν καὶ προσεκύνησαν. (Rev. 5:14) | And the elders fell and worshiped. |
Notice that the aorist προσεκύνησαν (worshiped) is not punctiliar.
7. Aorist used of repeated action. A series of actions that occur over a period of time can be gathered up into a single whole with the aorist tense.
Here the aorist refers to a series of deaths (πάντες) in verses 1–12 that span a lengthy period of time; the aorist gathers them all up in summary fashion.
8. Aorist used of ingressive or entry-point action. When there are clear contextual indicators, the aorist may be said to refer to the beginning of an action, though many of the examples often considered ingressive by other grammars should be understood otherwise. For example, some grammars claim that verbs referring to states (live, know, be angry, rule)25 indicate entry into those states when in the aorist tense. However, an aorist could just as easily refer to the entire state, not just entry into it. There must be clear clues in the context for an ingressive notion, such as a change from one state to another (though this is not always ingressive) or a meaning inherent in the lexis (ἄρχομαι). Apart from such clues, appeals to ingressive action should be avoided. The author is not emphasizing ingressive action with the aorist, and this may depend more on the necessity of English translation.
| Καὶ πάλιν ἤρξατο διδάσκειν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν. (Mark 4:1) | And again he began to teach by the sea. |
An ingressive notion is clearly established by the lexical meaning of ἤρξατο.
| ὅτι διʼ ὑμᾶς ἐπτώχευσεν πλούσιος ὤν (2 Cor. 8:9) | That though being rich, he became poor for your sake. |
There is a contrast of two states, but this could still be understood in terms of Christ living in a state of poverty (“he was poor”) rather than his entrance into that state.
| καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ χίλια ἔτη. (Rev. 20:4) | And they came to life / lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. |
The ingressive notion is possible based on the contrast between having been beheaded (v. 3) and now living, but it is not implied by the aorist, and the context does not focus on an ingressive notion.
Imperfective Aspect: The Present Tense
6.15. The present tense-form is the one chosen by the author to portray an action as in progress, as developing or unfolding, irrespective of the time or the nature of the action itself. Grammars have frequently described the present tense as indicating action that is continuous, habitual, or repeated.26 However, this is a misunderstanding of the semantics of the present tense that fits only some of the contexts in which the present is used, and it confuses aspect with Aktionsart (kind of action). In contrast to the aorist tense, which can be understood as the “external” perspective (action viewed in its entirety, as a complete whole), the present tense represents the “internal” perspective, a more close-up view of the action, seeing it as a process in progress or unfolding. This perspective explains its common use to refer to present-time actions, but the present tense can be used in a variety of temporal contexts and of more than one kind of action. Again, the following is only representative and should not be confused with the labels used in most grammars.
1. Present used of action in the present time. A very common function of the present tense is to indicate action taking place in the present from the standpoint of the speaker. This usage needs little illustration.
2. Present used of action in the past (the so-called historical present or narrative present). The present tense can be used of past-time action from the standpoint of the speaker, typically in narrative contexts: a past action is viewed as in progress. In English this will normally be translated with a past tense.
| Ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις παραγίνεται Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστὴς κηρύσσων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τῆς Ἰουδαίας (Matt. 3:1) | And in those days John the Baptist arrived, preaching in the desert of Judea. |
| καὶ ἔρχονται φέροντες πρὸς αὐτὸν παραλυτικὸν αἰρόμενον ὑπὸ τεσσάρων. (Mark 2:3) | And they came bringing to him a paralyzed man, being carried by four [people]. |
| λέγει ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν· Οἶνον οὐκ ἔχουσιν. (John 2:3) | The mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” |
| καὶ ἡ οὐρὰ αὐτοῦ σύρει τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀστέρων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἔβαλεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν γῆν. (Rev. 12:4) | And his tail dragged a third of the stars of heaven, and he threw them onto the earth. |
3. Present used of action in the future. It has long been recognized that the present tense can be used of action that will occur in the future from the standpoint of the speaker. This often occurs with verbs of motion, such as verbs of coming and going.27
4. Present used of action that is omnitemporal or timeless. The present tense can be used to refer to action that is unrestricted temporally; such action can occur at any time. Here the present tense is often found in proverbial or universal contexts. The difference between this and the aorist used of timeless action is verbal aspect. Regularly occurring actions can be seen from the standpoint of their development, as a process in progress, rather than as a complete whole (Porter 33).
| ἱλαρὸν γὰρ δότην ἀγαπᾷ ὁ θεός. (2 Cor. 9:7) | For God loves a cheerful giver. |
| ἡ γὰρ κρίσις ἀνέλεος τῷ μὴ ποιήσαντι ἔλεος· κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεος κρίσεως. (James 2:13) | For judgment without mercy [will be] for the one who does not show mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. |
| καὶ ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ὥσπερ λέων μυκᾶται. (Rev. 10:3) | And he cried out with a great voice, as a lion roars. (a proverbial-type statement) |
5. Present used of action that is durative, ongoing, or repeated. The present tense can be used of action that continues over a period of time. Many grammars incorrectly associate this with the basic meaning of the present tense (continuous action). But once again, continuity can be communicated only by the context.
| Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως, ὅτι παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς παρʼ ἡμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐδέξασθε οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων ἀλλὰ καθὼς ἀληθῶς ἐστὶν λόγον θεοῦ (1 Thess. 2:13) | And for this reason we also give thanks to God continuously, for having received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a word from humans but just as it is truly, a word from God. |
It is the adverb ἀδιαλείπτως, not the present tense itself, that establishes this as a durative, ongoing action.
Both ὁσάκις and ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ signal the repeated nature of the action.
| Εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ πατρὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πάντοτε (Col. 1:3) | We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, always. |
The adverb πάντοτε contributes the sense of continuation.
6. Present used of action of short duration. The present tense can sometimes be used of an action that is of relatively short duration or is a specific action (e.g., λέγω can be used of things said quickly). This often depends on the lexical meaning of the verb (see πίπτει below).
| καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν πίπτει πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ (Mark 5:22) | And seeing him, he fell at his feet. |
| Παραγγέλλω σοι ἐν ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐξελθεῖν ἀπʼ αὐτῆς· (Acts 16:18) | I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out from her. (a single, not a repeated, command) |
| Ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς Ἀρίσταρχος ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου (Col. 4:10) | Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, greets you. |
7. Present used of general action. The present tense can be used of action that is only general and whose duration is not specified.
This verse has evoked much discussion, since it appears to conflict with John’s earlier statement that to claim we have no sin makes God out to be a liar (1:10)! To alleviate the difficulty of the author claiming the possibility of perfection in this life in 3:9, some have concluded that the present tense should be seen as indicating continuous, habitual, or repeated (iterative) action: Christians do not “continue to sin” or “habitually sin.”28 The NIV reflects this interpretation: “No one who is born of God will continue to sin.” See also the NIV’s translation of 3:6b (“No one who continues to sin . . .”). However, this is a misunderstanding of the present tense and illegitimately attributes a continuous notion or repetition to the present without clear contextual clues. The present tense only looks at the action as a process in progress.29 More likely, 1 John 3:9 is just a general reference (that person “does not sin”), with no indication of duration or repetition. The present tense is the more marked form, used to foreground and draw attention to what should not have any place in the life of Christians since they are “born of God”: they should not sin!
Imperfective Aspect and Remoteness: The Imperfect Tense
6.16. Since both the present and imperfect tense-forms communicate imperfective aspect (action viewed as in progress, as developing or unfolding), the question naturally arises, What is the difference between the two? The imperfect tense-form, in addition to communicating imperfective aspect, also carries the notion of remoteness.30 Remoteness is a spatial notion that is applied nonspatially to this tense-form. By “remote” we mean “remote from the author’s perspective.” The author’s perspective on the action is not quite as immediate as it is when the present tense is used. To use the illustration of a parade, the imperfect has observers standing back and watching the parade as it passes a block away. By contrast, the present tense has observers standing on the street corner and watching it unfold right in front of them. This accounts for why the imperfect tense-form is frequently (though not exclusively) used in past-time contexts. Remote action translates easily into remote time. The concept of remoteness accounts for the various ways that the imperfect tense-form is used.
1. Imperfect used of action in the past. The imperfect tense is often used of past-time action viewed as in progress by the author. It is commonly employed this way in narrative.
| καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελοι προσῆλθον καὶ διηκόνουν αὐτῷ. (Matt. 4:11) | And look, angels came and ministered to him. |
| ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς. (Gal. 2:12) | But when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision. |
| καὶ ἐγὼ ἔκλαιον πολὺ ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἄξιος εὑρέθη (Rev. 5:4) | And I wept greatly, for no one was found worthy. |
2. Imperfect used of nonpast action. Though commonly used in past-time contexts, the imperfect tense-form can be used in contexts that do not refer to past time.31
a. The imperfect of δεῖ (it is necessary)
| ταῦτα ἔδει ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα μὴ ἀφιέναι. (Matt. 23:23) | It is necessary to do these things without also neglecting the others. |
Jesus is clearly not referring to an event in the past.
b. The imperfect in some class 2 conditional (contrary-to-fact) sentences
| Εἰ ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἦν ἠγαπᾶτε ἂν ἐμέ, ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον (John 8:42) | If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come from God. |
c. The imperfect in excluded wishes (desired action that is unrealized)
| ηὐχόμην γὰρ ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Rom. 9:3) | For I myself could wish to be cursed and cut off from Christ. |
3. Imperfect used of action that is attempted (so-called conative imperfect). This is the use of the imperfect in contexts where the action is only attempted or contemplated and not fully carried out. Again, indicating that the action is not achieved is solely a feature of the context, not part of the meaning of the imperfect tense, and it is more of an issue of English translation.
| ὁ δὲ Ἰωάννης διεκώλυεν αὐτὸν λέγων· (Matt. 3:14) | But John tried to prevent him, saying. |
| καθʼ ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν (Gal. 1:13) | Beyond measure I was persecuting the church of God and was attempting to destroy it. |
4. Imperfect used of action that is durative or repeated. The imperfect can be used, like the present, of action that is continuing, repeated, or customary in certain contexts.
| Καὶ ἐπορεύοντο οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ κατʼ ἔτος εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ τῇ ἑορτῇ τοῦ πάσχα. (Luke 2:41) | And his parents would go [or “went”] each year into Jerusalem on the feast of Passover. |
The notion of ongoing action or repetition comes from the adjunct κατʼ ἔτος (each year).
| καί τις ἀνήρ . . . , ὃν ἐτίθουν καθʼ ἡμέραν πρὸς τὴν θύραν τοῦ ἱεροῦ (Acts 3:2) | And a certain man . . . , whom they set down each day at the gate of the temple. |
Repetition is indicated by καθʼ ἡμέραν.
| καὶ προέκοπτον ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ ὑπὲρ πολλοὺς συνηλικιώτας ἐν τῷ γένει μου (Gal. 1:14) | And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my people. |
5. Imperfect used of inceptive (ingressive) action. The imperfect may be used of the beginning point of an action. However, this description must be used with caution. The context must be explicit; the imperfect itself does not indicate inception and certainly does not focus on it. Refer to the aorist used in ingressive contexts above.
| εὐθὺς τοῖς σάββασιν ἐδίδασκεν εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν. (Mark 1:21) | Immediately on the Sabbath he began/was teaching in the synagogue. |
The context may suggest that Jesus began teaching since he was not doing it before. However, this is not being emphasized by or inherent in the imperfect. Mark may be referring to Jesus’ entire teaching in the synagogue. When the author wants to emphasize ingression, he uses ἄρχομαι (cf. Mark 1:45).32
Stative Aspect: The Perfect Tense
6.17. There has been quite a bit of debate over the meaning of the perfect tense-form. The older, popular understanding of the perfect was that it depicted a past, completed action with results continuing into the present.33 However, this understanding of the perfect does not fit numerous examples of the tense-form in the NT. Many contexts do not have a clear reference to a past action that produced the result. And many contexts cannot be understood to have results continuing into the present. Often categories of usage are created to try to deal with the problems inherent in this older approach: consummative perfects, aoristic perfects, and intensive perfects. More helpfully, McKay and Porter have argued that the meaning of the perfect tense-form is stative aspect.34 That is, it looks at an action as an existing state of affairs. More specifically, the perfect expresses the state of the subject.35 For example, the perfect γέγραπται suggests the idea “it is in the state of being written”; ἔγνωκαν suggests “they are in a state of knowing.” Christ was “in the state of being raised” (ἐγήγερται). Furthermore, any notion of a past action that produces the state must be derived from the context and should not be seen as part of the meaning of the perfect tense itself. The perfect tense sometimes is used to lend prominence to particular actions in a discourse.
1. The perfect used of past time. Though not common, sometimes the perfect tense refers to a past action, envisioning a past state of affairs.
| Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων· (John 1:15) | John witnessed concerning him and cried out, saying. |
| καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς (1 Cor. 15:4) | And that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. |
Preachers and commentators frequently appeal to the perfect tense here for theological capital. Thus the fact that in 1 Cor. 15:4 Jesus was raised (ἐγήγερται, perfect tense) is taken to mean that Jesus was raised in the past with consequences that continue into the present and even further.36 He is still the risen Lord! But the tense here in itself says nothing about that fact—the context actually restricts the state indicated by the perfect ἐγήγερται to a point in the past: “the third day” (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ). The broader context is abundantly clear that Jesus remains the risen Lord (an extremely important theological point that Paul goes to great pains to emphasize), but the perfect tense does not indicate it grammatically. It says only that on the third day Christ was in the state of being raised. Paul chooses the perfect tense to signal and highlight the main theme of the rest of the chapter: the resurrection.
| καὶ εἴρηκα αὐτῷ· Κύριέ μου, σὺ οἶδας. (Rev. 7:14) | And I said to him, “My Lord, you know.” |
2. The perfect used of present time. The perfect tense can refer to a state of affairs in the present. Many grammars label this the “intensive perfect.”
3. The perfect used of temporally unrestricted action. The perfect tense can also be used of an action that can occur at any time, in gnomic or proverbial contexts.
| ἡ γὰρ ὕπανδρος γυνὴ τῷ ζῶντι ἀνδρὶ δέδεται νόμῳ· ἐὰν δὲ ἀποθάνῃ ὁ ἀνήρ, κατήργηται ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός. (Rom. 7:2) | For the wife is bound to her husband by the law while he is living. But if the husband dies, she is freed from the law of the husband. |
| κατενόησεν γὰρ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀπελήλυθεν καὶ εὐθέως ἐπελάθετο ὁποῖος ἦν. (James 1:24) | For he/she looks at himself/herself and he/she goes away and immediately forgets what sort [of person] he/she was. |
4. The “aoristic” perfect? Many grammars suggest that in some cases the perfect tense has been reduced to the sense of an aorist. Especially in narrative, when the perfect is found alongside other aorists, the “existing results” or “state” do not seem to be present.37 This suggestion is also combined by grammarians with the view that the perfect tense was becoming more confused with the aorist and starting to die out in Koine Greek.
However, this category of the perfect often appears to depend more on the fact that an existing state in the present is not reflected in English translation. The presence of the perfect and aorist in the same context does not require that they carry identical aspectual value. The fact that the perfect occurs alongside other aorists may suggest instead an intentional choice on the part of the author and a distinction in meaning. This is particularly true when the same verb occurs in both the aorist and perfect within the same context (as with Rev. 5:7 in the example below). While there probably are times where the perfect tense has been reduced in meaning to an aorist, this category should not be applied uncritically. Some of these so-called aoristic perfects should be given their full stative force. They are just perfects used in past-time contexts.
| τοῦτον ὁ θεὸς καὶ ἄρχοντα καὶ λυτρωτὴν ἀπέσταλκεν σὺν χειρὶ ἀγγέλου (Acts 7:35) | This one [i.e., Moses] God sent as a ruler and deliverer together with the hand of the angel. |
| καὶ ἦλθεν καὶ εἴληφεν ἐκ τῆς δεξιᾶς τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου. (Rev. 5:7) | And he came and took [the scroll] from the right hand of the one seated on the throne. |
But notice that the very next verb in the following verse (v. 8) is the aorist ἔλαβεν of the same verb (λαμβάνω), which suggests that the choice of the perfect in verse 7 is intentional (see a similar use of εἴληφεν in Rev. 8:5).
Stative Aspect and Remoteness: The Pluperfect Tense
6.18. As Porter (42) says, the “use of the pluperfect is restricted in the NT.” It was being replaced by a periphrastic construction (see chap. 10, on participles): the imperfect of εἰμί + a perfect participle. Like the perfect, the pluperfect communicates stative aspect. In addition to this, like the imperfect tense, it also shares the feature of remoteness. The pluperfect stands in relationship to the perfect as the imperfect does to the present. Because of its remote perspective, the pluperfect is found predominantly in past-time contexts.
| οἱ γὰρ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπεληλύθεισαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν, ἵνα τροφὰς ἀγοράσωσιν. (John 4:8) | For his disciples had gone into the city in order to buy food. | |
| παρέθεντο αὐτοὺς τῷ κυρίῳ εἰς ὃν πεπιστεύκεισαν. (Acts 14:23) | They commended them to the Lord, in whom they had believed. | |
| καὶ πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι εἱστήκεισαν κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων (Rev. 7:11) | And all the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures. |
The remote pluperfect form may be used so as not to distract attention from the throne or in order to portray the group of angels as more “remote” from the throne, that is, as the outer circle of those who surround the throne.38
The Future Tense (Intention or Expectation)
6.19. The future tense-form seems fairly straightforward. However, there is some disagreement as to its origins and its exact meaning. Scholars have long recognized the similarity in form and function with the aorist subjunctive. Therefore, some treat it as a modal (related to a mood) similar to the subjunctive. Others treat it as a pure tense that refers to future time.39 McKay treats it as an aspect expressing “intention,”40 though virtually no one has followed him. Some think that it conveys future time and perfective (aorist) aspect.41 Part of the problem is that the future does not behave like the other aspectual forms. There is no future subjunctive, imperative, or optative, and the future infinitive and participle are infrequent. Due to this, McKay concludes that the future tense-form “is something of an enigma in the ancient Greek verb system.”42 Similarly, Wallace (566n1) says that “this tense is still something of an enigma, rendering any statements less than iron-clad.” And Porter (43) concludes that it “has a special and unique place in the Greek verbal system.”43 Consequently, we will tentatively treat the future as a form that expresses expectation—action that can be expected to take place.44 The feature of expectation should usually be understood to refer to future time. It is probably the closest thing that Greek has to a true tense. Though related to the subjunctive mood, as mentioned above, the main difference is that the future tense is stronger and more certain than the subjunctive. The future can be used in at least the contexts that follow.
1. The future tense used in future-time contexts (predictive or prospective). This is the function that is usually associated with the future. It can be used prospectively, to predict or expect future events, and needs little illustration.
2. The future used in gnomic, or timeless, contexts. The future seems to be used of what can (or cannot) be expected to take place under certain circumstances (BDF §349).
| Οὐκ ἐπʼ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος (Matt. 4:4) | A person will not live on bread alone. |
| ἄρα οὖν ζῶντος τοῦ ἀνδρὸς μοιχαλὶς χρηματίσει ἐὰν γένηται ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ· (Rom. 7:3) | Therefore, while her husband is living she will be called an adulteress if she becomes [joined] to another man. |
3. The future used as a command. The future form can be used to express a command. Though some grammarians attribute this to Semitic influence, Porter (44) says that this usage is not unknown in secular Greek. The imperatival future should be viewed as more semantically marked than the imperative mood since it grammaticalizes expectation rather than mere direction.45
| τέξεται δὲ υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν (Matt. 1:21) | She will give birth to a son and you shall call his name Jesus. (following the predictive use of the future τέξεται) |
| Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν (James 2:8) | You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (in an OT quotation, Lev. 19:18) |
4. The deliberative use of the future. The future can be used in questions that express some uncertainty as to the answer.
Traditional and Aspectual Views Compared
6.20. Now that we have discussed all the tense-forms in Greek, the following two charts compare and contrast the more traditional view of verb tenses based on time and kind of action, and the more recent verbal aspect view being advocated here.
What Is Communicated by the Greek Tenses?
| Traditional | Aspectual |
| Refers to the kind of action taking place and to the time of the action (in the indicative mood) | Refers to how the author represents or conceives of the action (in all moods) |
What Is the Meaning of the Greek Tenses?
| Traditional | Aspectual | |
|---|---|---|
| Aorist | Punctiliar action in the past | Action viewed as a complete whole |
| Present | Continuous, durative action in the present | Action viewed as in progress, developing, unfolding |
| Imperfect | Continuous, durative action in the past | Action viewed as in progress, developing, but more remote |
| Perfect | A past action with present results | Action viewed as a state of affairs |
| Pluperfect | A past action with existing results in the past | Action viewed as a state of affairs, but more remote |
| Future | Future action | Future action or action expected to occur |
6.21. In light of the above discussion, how should we analyze Greek verb tenses? First, we must identify the meaning of the aspect. What perspective on the action is being communicated by the author’s choice of a given aspect? Verbs that provide the author with no choice (e.g., εἰμί) should not be pressed. Second, we can determine from the context, if possible, the time and kind of action to which the aspect is referring. Are there clear clues from the context as to when the action takes place or the type of action being portrayed? If not, it is safer not to press these. Third, we must ask whether the author has chosen an aspect to indicate prominence. Here the exegete will usually pay less attention to the aorist and more attention to departures from it (e.g., the present or perfect). More important than examining verb tenses in isolation is examining them over stretches of discourse to determine possible patterns or functions (see the examples of John 20 and 1 John 2 in §6.6 above).
For Practice
6.22. In the following texts from the NT, analyze the aspects of the indicative verbs according to the discussion above. Pay particular attention to how they might function to indicate prominence:
16καὶ διηγήσαντο αὐτοῖς οἱ ἰδόντες πῶς ἐγένετο τῷ δαιμονιζομένῳ καὶ περὶ τῶν χοίρων. 17καὶ ἤρξαντο παρακαλεῖν αὐτὸν ἀπελθεῖν ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων αὐτῶν. 18καὶ ἐμβαίνοντος αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ πλοῖον παρεκάλει αὐτὸν ὁ δαιμονισθεὶς ἵνα μετʼ αὐτοῦ ᾖ. 19καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκεν αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ λέγει αὐτῷ· Ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου πρὸς τοὺς σούς, καὶ ἀπάγγειλον αὐτοῖς ὅσα ὁ κύριός σοι πεποίηκεν καὶ ἠλέησέν σε. 20καὶ ἀπῆλθεν καὶ ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν ἐν τῇ Δεκαπόλει ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ πάντες ἐθαύμαζον. 21Καὶ διαπεράσαντος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ πάλιν εἰς τὸ πέραν συνήχθη ὄχλος πολὺς ἐπʼ αὐτόν, καὶ ἦν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν. 22καὶ ἔρχεται εἷς τῶν ἀρχισυναγώγων, ὀνόματι Ἰάϊρος, καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν πίπτει πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ 23καὶ παρακαλεῖ αὐτὸν πολλὰ λέγων ὅτι Τὸ θυγάτριόν μου ἐσχάτως ἔχει, ἵνα ἐλθὼν ἐπιθῇς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῇ ἵνα σωθῇ καὶ ζήσῃ. 24καὶ ἀπῆλθεν μετʼ αὐτοῦ. Καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς, καὶ συνέθλιβον αὐτόν. (Mark 5:16–24)
1Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 2διʼ οὗ καὶ τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐσχήκαμεν τῇ πίστει εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην ἐν ᾗ ἑστήκαμεν, καὶ καυχώμεθα ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ· 3οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμεθα ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν, εἰδότες ὅτι ἡ θλῖψις ὑπομονὴν κατεργάζεται, 4ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ δοκιμήν, ἡ δὲ δοκιμὴ ἐλπίδα. 5ἡ δὲ ἐλπὶς οὐ καταισχύνει· ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκέχυται ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ δοθέντος ἡμῖν. (Rom. 5:1–5)