Imperatives in Ethical Instruction — Form, Aspect, and Pastoral Force

Why this lesson matters

When you open a New Testament paraenesis section—Romans 12–15, Ephesians 4–6, Colossians 3–4, 1 Thessalonians 4–5—you meet a torrent of imperatives. These are not random orders; they are carefully shaped pastoral speech-acts that form communities. If you learn to read imperatives with sensitivity to form, aspect, politeness, negation, and discourse function, you will (1) translate with nuance (not woodenly), (2) trace the logic of Christian formation in each letter, and (3) preach/teach the text with sharper ethical clarity.

This chapter is long by design. We will go deep on morphology and aspect, explain positive and negative commands (including the debated present vs. aorist distinction), look at third-person imperatives, imperatival participles, imperatival future, and periphrastic commands, and then walk through guided exegesis labs in key passages. You will finish with intensive practice and graded assignments to lock the skills in.

As always, when you see a list, keep reading: I will expand each item with the why, how to detect it quickly, and the pastoral/exegetical payoff (Wallace, 1996; Porter, 1992; Fanning, 1990; Runge, 2010).

1) Orientation: what an imperative does in Koine

An imperative is a directive—it aims to get someone to act (or stop acting). In Greek, it spans 2nd and 3rd persons (English lacks a true 1st-person imperative). The 3rd-person imperative (“let him/her/them…”) is not weaker; it is a pragmatic way to address someone indirectly or to regulate the group’s norms.

Because the imperative is non-indicative, aspect, not time, is primary. A present imperative presents the action as ongoing/progressive (imperfective profile), whereas an aorist imperative presents the action as a single whole (perfective profile). This is about how the command construes the action, not when (Fanning, 1990; Porter, 1992; Wallace, 1996). We will use that carefully—never mechanically.

Negation in commands uses μή (not οὐ). That instantly tells you you’re looking at prohibition rather than statement of fact.

2) Morphology at a glance (recognize on sight)

We’ll use λύω as a model, then note patterns you’ll see constantly in the NT. Don’t try to memorize all forms at once; focus on endings that pop.

2.1 Second-person imperatives

Present Active Imperative (imperfective)

• 2 sg: λύε — “keep on loosing / be loosing” (habit/process)

• 2 pl: λύετε — “keep on loosing / be loosing (you all)”

Aorist Active Imperative (perfective)

• 2 sg: λῦσον — “loose!” (single/whole act)

• 2 pl: λύσατε — “loose (at once)!”

Present Middle/Passive Imperative

• 2 sg: λύου — “be loosing for yourself / be loosed”

• 2 pl: λύεσθε

Aorist Middle/Passive Imperative

• 2 sg: λύσαι (mid.) / λύθητι (pass.)

• 2 pl: λύσασθε (mid.) / λύθητε (pass.)

2.2 Third-person imperatives (indirect directives)

Present Active

• 3 sg: λυέτω — “let him/her be loosing / let him keep on loosing”

• 3 pl: λυόντων — “let them keep on loosing”

Aorist Active

• 3 sg: λυσάτω — “let him/her loose (once)”

• 3 pl: λυσάντων — “let them loose (once)”

Passive

• 3 sg: λυθήτω — “let him/her be loosed”

• 3 pl: λυθήτωσαν — “let them be loosed”

How to spot them fast. The -τω / -τωσαν / -σάτω / -θήτω family screams 3rd-person imperative. The -ου 2 sg mid/pass (e.g., γίνου) is ubiquitous in the Gospels and letters.

3) Aspect in imperatives: what you can—and can’t—say

3.1 The classic “present = keep doing / aorist = do once” guideline

• Present imperatives often aim at habit/ongoing pattern (“keep walking by the Spirit,” Gal 5:16 περιπατεῖτε).

• Aorist imperatives often aim at a decisive/whole action (“forgive [grant forgiveness],” Matt 6:12 ἄφες; “make disciples,” Matt 28:19 μαθητεύσατε).

This guideline is useful but not absolute. Context, verb semantics, and discourse structure decide whether the aspectual contrast is semantically weighty or stylistic (Porter, 1992; Wallace, 1996). For punctiliar actions by nature (“remember,” “consider”), a present may still be chosen for iterative/habitual sense.

3.2 Prohibitions and the debated distinction

You’ll often hear:

• μή + present imperative = “Stop doing X” (interrupt an ongoing action).

• μή + aorist subjunctive (or aorist imperative in some styles) = “Don’t start / don’t ever do X” (prevent an event).

This is a useful reading heuristic, but modern aspect studies caution against over-rigidity. Many prohibitions are general bans where aspect simply profiles the action rather than encoding a strict “stop vs. don’t start” semantic. Use the guideline when context supports it; don’t force it when the discourse does not (Fanning, 1990; Porter, 1992; Wallace, 1996).

Examples to feel the spectrum:

• Present imperative with μή (interrupt/ban ongoing pattern):
  Μὴ θησαυρίζετε ὑμῖν θησαυροὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (Matt 6:19) — “Do not keep storing up treasures on earth.”
  The context is habitual accumulation; the present fits pastoral aim: alter the pattern.

• Aorist subjunctive with μή (event ban, many NT prohibitions):
  Μὴ γένησθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις (2 Cor 6:14) — “Do not become mismatched with unbelievers.”
  The becoming is framed as an event to be prevented.

• Present imperative with μηκέτι (“no longer”):
  ὁ κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω (Eph 4:28) — “The one stealing, let him no longer steal.”
  Here the present with μηκέτι clearly targets the cessation of an existing habit.

Reading strategy. Mark prohibitions with μή; ask: is the writer addressing an established pattern (present) or banning a kind of event (aorist)? Then validate with the local argument.

4) Varieties of commands you will actually meet

4.1 Positive imperatives in pastoral lists (paraenesis)

Letters often group imperatives into mini-clumps that define a Christlike pattern. These are formation units (Runge, 2010).

• Romans 12:9–13 (sample): ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος· ἀποστυγοῦντες τὸ πονηρόν, κολλώμενοι τῷ ἀγαθῷ· τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ… τῇ τιμῇ ἀλλήλους προηγούμενοι…
  Note: many are participles with imperatival force (see 4.4 below). The rhetorical effect is staccato shaping of a communal ethos.

• 1 Thess 5:16–22: χαίρετε πάντοτε, ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθε, ἐν παντὶ εὐχαριστεῖτε… πάντα δοκιμάζετε, τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε, ἀπὸ παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ ἀπέχεσθε.
  Hear the cadence: three present imperatives (ongoing habits), then a triad of aorists/presents shaping discernment.

Exegetical payoff. Aspect tells you whether the author envisions a standing practice (present) or a decisive response (aorist). You can preach/teach the difference.

4.2 Third-person imperatives: regulating the group

• ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ… σιγάτω (1 Cor 14:28) — “Let each one… be silent.”

• ὁ κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω (Eph 4:28) — “Let the thief no longer steal.”

• γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου (Matt 6:10) — “Let your will be done.” (3 sg aor pass. impv)

These are not hedged commands. They formalize norms in a communal space or petition God in prayer with appropriate deference.

4.3 Imperatives in prayer and lament: bold reverence

• ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου· ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου· γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου (Matt 6:9–10).
  Aorist passives present each petition as a whole desired event: may it be hallowed / come / be done. The imperative here is not bossy; it is covenantal boldness before God.

• ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν (Matt 6:12) — aorist: “grant forgiveness.”
  The perfective profile matches the forensic granting of pardon.

Pastoral note. Showing students that imperatives can be reverent petitions guards them from hearing commands as only harsh; Scripture teaches us to ask God to act.

4.4 Imperatival participles: when a participle functions as a command

Koine often uses participle strings where English expects imperatives; the participles carry imperatival force because they are paratactically coordinated with explicit commands or sit under an overarching exhortation.

• Romans 12:9–13 (noted above) — many participles (“abhorring,” “clinging,” “contributing,” “pursuing”) function as commands within the hortatory flow.

• Hebrews 13:5: ἀφιλάργυρος ὁ τρόπος· ἀρκούμενοι τοῖς παροῦσιν (“keep your life free from the love of money, be content with what you have”).

How to detect. Ask: is there an explicit imperative nearby setting the mood? Is the participle string functioning as cohortative instruction? If yes, translate as imperative in English, noting the participle in your grammar notes (Wallace, 1996; Runge, 2010).

4.5 Imperatival future (rare but real)

Legal or prophetic tone sometimes uses a future indicative with imperatival force (especially LXX style bleeding into NT).

• ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου (Matt 22:39; LXX Lev 19:18) — “You shall love…” = imperative force.
  Treat it as normative directive in context.

4.6 Periphrastic or mitigated commands

Greek can mitigate direct imperatives with hortatory subjunctive (“let us…,” 1st plural) or with verbs of obligation/will:

• ἄγωμεν ἵνα ἀποθάνωμεν μετ’ αὐτοῦ (John 11:16) — hortatory “let us go…”

• δεῖ ἡμᾶς ἐργάζεσθαι (John 9:4) — “we must work” (obligation).

• παρακαλῶ (Rom 12:1) introduces a softened command; what follows is no less binding, but the rhetoric is pastoral.

Exegetical payoff. Recognizing mitigation helps you hear tone—apostolic authority shaped by love.

5) Guided exegesis labs

We will walk slowly through five key texts. Annotate forms, aspect, negation, and discourse function; then articulate the ethical logic each passage encodes.

Lab A — The Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9–13): reverent imperatives

Text (selected):
Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου· ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου· γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς· τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν… δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον· καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν…

Walkthrough:

• ἁγιασθήτω / ἐλθέτω / γενηθήτω = 3 sg aor pass. imperatives → whole desired events in God’s governance.

• δὸς / ἄφες = 2 sg aor act. imperatives → decisive grants (provision/forgiveness).

• No present imperatives here; the prayer aims at decisive divine acts, not human habits.
  Exegetical payoff: This shapes Christian petition as bold requests for God’s decisive reign and forgiveness, while daily bread is framed as specific provision.

Lab B — Ephesians 4:25–32: stop X / start Y (habit and decisive renunciation)

Text (selected):
Διὸ ἀποθέμενοι τὸ ψεῦδος λαλεῖτε ἀλήθειαν… ὁ κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω, μᾶλλον κοπιάτω ἐργαζόμενος… πᾶς λόγος σαπρὸς ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκπορευέσθω, ἀλλὰ εἴ τις ἀγαθὸς πρὸς οἰκοδομήν…

Walkthrough:

• ἀποθέμενοι (aor mid part.) has imperatival force: a decisive putting off (like changing clothes).

• λαλεῖτε (pres impv): ongoing truth-telling as the new habit.

• ὁ κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω: present impv + μηκέτι = “no longer keep stealing” (halt a habit).

• κοπιάτω (3 sg aor act. impv) → decisive start to honest labor.

• μὴ ἐκπορευέσθω: present 3 sg pass. impv, “let no rotten speech be going out” = ban the pattern.
  Exegetical payoff: Paul’s ethic is renounce + replace: cease the old pattern and inaugurate decisive new practices that build up.

Lab C — Romans 12:1–2 and 12:9–21: shaping a community’s ethos

Text (selected):
Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς… παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν… καὶ μὴ συσχηματίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθε… ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος· ἀποστυγοῦντες τὸ πονηρόν, κολλώμενοι τῷ ἀγαθῷ…

Walkthrough:

• παραστῆσαι (aor inf.) depends on παρακαλῶ—a decisive presentation.

• μὴ συσχηματίζεσθε (pres mid/pass impv): stop conforming as a pattern.

• μεταμορφοῦσθε (pres impv): keep being transformed—an ongoing communal process.

• Participles in 12:9–21 operate imperativally under the hortatory frame.
  Exegetical payoff: The grammar encodes once-for-all dedication plus continuous non-conformity and transformation, then expresses this in practices that embody love.

Lab D — Mark 1:15: kingdom summons

Text:
πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ· μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ.

Walkthrough:

• Two present imperatives: keep repenting and keep believing.

• The present fits Mark’s ongoing response ethos to a standing kingdom reality.
  Exegetical payoff: This is not a one-off decision only; it is a continuous posture toward the in-breaking reign of God.

Lab E — John 20:27: tender correction with aspect

Text:
… μὴ γίνου ἄπιστος ἀλλὰ πιστός.

Walkthrough:

• μὴ γίνου (pres mid impv 2 sg): “stop becoming/do not be (as a pattern) unbelieving, but believing.”

• The present with μή addresses Thomas’s state/posture, not a single slip.
  Exegetical payoff: Jesus corrects trajectory (“don’t keep on in unbelief”) and invites a stable posture of faith.

6) Practice: your turn (guided prompts)

For each passage: (1) circle imperatives; (2) parse person/number/tense-form/voice; (3) mark negation; (4) label aspectual nuance (habit/decisive); (5) translate idiomatically; (6) write a two-sentence pastoral/exegetical note.

1. 1 Thessalonians 5:16–22 — χαίρετε… προσεύχεσθε… εὐχαριστεῖτε… τὸ πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε…
   Prompt: present chain of habits; where does Paul use μή and why might the present fit the pastoral concern?

2. Colossians 3:12–17 — ἐνδύσασθε… ἀνεχόμενοι… χαριζόμενοι… ἐπιβραβευέτω… εὐχαριστεῖτε…
   Prompt: aorist ἐνδύσασθε (decisive “put on”) with participles that sound like imperatives. How does that shape the “put on” metaphor?

3. Matthew 6:25–34 — μὴ μεριμνᾶτε… ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον…
   Prompt: present prohibition of anxious pattern vs. positive present imperative seek—how does Jesus reshape daily orientation?

4. James 4:7–10 — ὑποτάγητε… ἀντίστητε… ἐγγίσατε… ταλαιπωρήσατε… ταπεινώθητε…
   Prompt: many aorist imperatives—decisive response to God; why is the perfective presentation pastorally fitting here?

5. Philippians 4:6–9 — μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε… γνωριζέσθω… λογίζεσθε… πράσσετε…
   Prompt: present prohibition of anxiety, then ongoing disciplines (think/practice). How do the forms support Paul’s promise of peace?

7) Assigned readings and translations (this week)

Translate and annotate every imperative (and imperatival participle/future) in:

1. Romans 12:9–21 (ethic of love and enemy-care).

2. Ephesians 4:25–5:2 (renounce/replace; speech, work, forgiveness).

3. Colossians 3:12–17 (put-on virtues; word of Christ; worship).

4. 1 Thessalonians 5:12–24 (community boundaries; joy/prayer/thanks; discernment).

5. Matthew 6:19–34 (treasure; eye; master; do-not-worry / seek first).

Deliverable: An Imperative Log with columns
Ref | Greek form | Lemma | Person/Number | Tense-Form | Voice | Negation (if any) | Aspectual nuance | Function (positive/negative; third-person; imperatival part./future) | Translation | Exegetical/Pastoral note.

8) Suggested assignments (graded)

1. Parsing & aspect drill (40 items).
   Collect 40 imperatives across the above readings (≥10 negatives; ≥6 third-person; ≥6 middle/passive; mix of present/aorist). For each, provide full parsing and a one-line justification for the aspect you hear (habit vs. decisive) linked to context.
   Goal: instant recognition + context-tuned nuance (Wallace, 1996; Fanning, 1990).

2. Mini-commentary (6–8 pages): Ephesians 4:25–32.
   Argue how the forms (present vs. aorist; μηκέτι; 3rd-person; imperatival participles) shape Paul’s “put-off/put-on” ethic. Show how grammar underwrites the pastoral strategy (Porter, 1992; Runge, 2010).

3. Sermon/teaching outline from grammar (2–3 pages).
   Choose 1 Thess 5:16–22 or Phil 4:6–9. Build an outline that depends explicitly on the habitual present imperatives and the negated presents to frame spiritual disciplines. Include 2–3 sentences on how you’d explain Greek aspect to a congregation.

4. Creative composition (Greek).
   Write ten Greek commands to a fictional house-church, mixing: 4 positive presents, 2 positive aorists, 2 prohibitions with μή (one present, one aorist subj.), and 2 third-person imperatives. Under each, gloss and explain why you chose that form/aspect for that pastoral aim.

9) Study tips that work

• Color-code in your Greek text: green for present imperatives (habits), blue for aorist imperatives (decisive acts), red underline for μή prohibitions, purple for 3rd-person imperatives, orange for imperatival participles. After two weeks, you’ll see patterns at a glance.

• Write the speech-act above the line: “habit,” “ban event,” “stop habit,” “group norm,” “petition,” “mitigated (hort. subj.).” This keeps you anchored to function, not just form.

• Don’t over-claim aspect. If the context doesn’t foreground a habit/decisive contrast, translate naturally and mention the form briefly in your notes without hanging theology on it (Porter, 1992; Wallace, 1996).

• Hear the tone. Is the writer urging, regulating, warning, or blessing? Imperatives carry tone as well as force; choose English that matches (e.g., “let’s…,” “please…,” “must…,” “see that…”).

10) Conclusion — what you should now be able to do

After this lesson, you should be able to:

1. Parse imperatives (2nd/3rd person; present/aorist; act/mid/pass) instantly.

2. Read prohibitions with μή and responsibly assess the present vs. aorist nuance given the context.

3. Recognize third-person imperatives, imperatival participles, and imperatival futures, and translate them with the right pragmatic force.

4. Explain how imperative aspect and form support the pastoral strategy in a passage (renounce/replace patterns, habits vs. decisive acts, community norms).

5. Apply this to exegesis and teaching, moving from grammar to ethos formation.

Mastering imperatives will make paraenetic passages sing; you’ll hear not merely rules, but Spirit-shaped practices that the grammar itself helps articulate.

References (APA)

Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. University of Chicago Press.

Campbell, C. R. (2008). Basics of verbal aspect in Biblical Greek. Zondervan.

Decker, R. J. (2015). Reading Koine Greek: An introduction and integrated workbook. Baker Academic.

Fanning, B. M. (1990). Verbal aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford University Press.

Porter, S. E. (1992). Idioms of the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.). Sheffield Academic Press.

Robertson, A. T. (1934). A grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research (4th ed.). Broadman.

Runge, S. E. (2010). Discourse grammar of the Greek New Testament: A practical introduction for teaching and exegesis. Lexham.

Wallace, D. B. (1996). Greek grammar beyond the basics: An exegetical syntax of the New Testament. Zondervan.

Young, R. A. (1994). Intermediate New Testament Greek: A linguistic and exegetical approach. Broadman & Holman.

Mounce, W. D. (2019). Basics of Biblical Greek (4th ed.). Zondervan.