We’re in business.

$1.19 at your local Apple app store. (Cheap at twice the price, etc., etc.)

When surveying the verbal changes made by NT authors in their use of the LXX, several patterns emerge. Firstly, in general, the form of verb chosen by the NT author mirrors the content. That is, the point of the passage or clause is not proven by the choice of verbal aspect, but the writer’s intent is supported and strengthened by the chosen morphology. Acts 2:32 is the strongest case of this, where a clear, intentional temporal change is made from David’s Psalm. Peter’s argument depends on his interpretation of David as a prophet who spoke about the present time of Jesus’ death and resurrection—however, the verb form is not the only way this conclusion is derived. The surrounding content leads us to this understanding, an interpretation which is supported by means of his removal of future temporal elements from the verb form and clause.

This coherence between content and morphology, while hardly surprising, explains the exegetical conclusions achievable with such an analysis. In the main, they aren’t a host of earth-shattering readings of NT texts. Comments above are not too dissimilar from popular commentaries. However, looking closely at the verbal semantics can give on a number of occasions some extra nuance to our reading.

We hear the reality of γέεννα, and the urgency of righteousness (compare the imperfective up-close-and-personal Mark 9:48 with the more distant future form of Isa 66:24). With the disciples we can feel the immediacy of the kingdom of heaven. We can stand on this side of the cross and God’s revelation in Christ and see the fulfilment of his promises. Our exegetical conclusions cannot be based only in verbal semantics, but with an appropriate consideration of context looking carefully at the chosen morphology helps to discern the subtleties of particular applications of OT texts to Christ and the church.

The New Testament authors were thus creative in their use of Scripture, but faithful at the same time. They had keen insight in understanding Jesus as the climax of theological history. Old Testament texts are used to show that Jesus is the Messiah, the anti-type of the Davidic King, the one who has ushered in the eschatological age. Furthermore, his people, the church, are also the fulfilment of God’s purposes for his people in Christ. We stand in continuity with Israel, but can see how God has acted for us in Christ as promised beforehand. This theology is of course writ large throughout the New Testament. The edited forms of scriptural verbs employed by the authors simply aids their explanation and confirms their conclusions.

For those interested in how verbal aspect figures in this, here are some more general conclusions based on all the cases where the NT cites the LXX and changes the verb form but retains the same lexeme.

Future/Aorist Opposition

Future/aorist oppositions are the most common in such passages. Alongside the aspectual change, a sizeable majority of these have what we might call ‘natural volitional change’. These instances are those where an aorist imperative or aorist subjunctive is substituted with a future indicative, or vice versa. The volitional, intentional, potential, or modal nature of the oblique aorist moods overlaps with the temporal reference of the future indicative. Furthermore, Koine has no future subjunctive or imperative forms. The general conclusion of this set of observations is that this combined aspect- and mood-change is a natural substitution, carrying with it only the addition or subtraction of explicit temporal reference.

This change in how explicit the temporal information is changes the reference frame on a number of occasions.^[1] These fall into two general categories: (i) OT past/present to NT future; and (ii) OT future to NT past/present.

In the first case, an OT verse that originally had a contemporary view is cited as explicitly looking to the future. In particular, it is taken to be looking to fulfilment in Jesus. John 2:17 is such a case, where Jesus’ action is aligned with David’s Psalm of the righteous sufferer. The Psalm is cast as looking to the future, fulfilled by the righteous sufferer par excellence in his cleansing of the temple. A variation on this type of change is to interpret the OT text in a wider salvation-historical frame. This is then not a case of aligning Jesus’ actions with the pattern of the Messiah, but of declaring that the eschatological age inaugurated by Christ’s death and resurrection is the time of fulfilment of God’s promises. Romans 9:33/10:11 and Hebrews 10:16–17 are examples of this latter version of re-interpreting OT texts to point to the present reality in Christ.

Secondly, the reverse case of an OT future form being read as an aorist performs a similar function of highlighting prophetic fulfilment. Here, however, the OT reference was prospective beyond the time of the writer, but the NT author identifies this as now completed. In other words, what the OT text said would come about has now, in Jesus, already happened. Acts 2:31 is a prime example of this: Jesus’ resurrection (and concomitant non-decay) is the very event that David foresaw and wrote about. Romans 11:4 is another instance, where Paul makes summary statements about what for Elijah were future events, commenting on the fulfilment of God’s promises.

Given the frequency of these aorist-future changes, and how little change in overall sense is involved, Campbell’s position on the future verb form appears to have some confirmation here. The future form does act in a comparable manner to the aorist—that is, semantically encoding perfective aspect—but differs in its explicit future temporal reference. The future tense-form is a true tense, with perfective aspect.

Perfective/Imperfective Oppositions

Narrative sections display a good deal of perfective to imperfective alteration, mostly aorist-to-present change. This type of morphological change appears to reflect a heightened application of OT prophecy to contemporary hearers. Note that the overall message is carried by content: this is not a conclusion derived from the verb forms alone. In line with the context, then, certain shifts in viewpoint from perfective to imperfective aspect seem to bring this heightened expectation and reality to the hearers.

The use of Isaiah 6 is a good example. Jesus’ use of the text noting Israel’s response to Isaiah’s ministry are not, in the gospel narratives, universally applicable. As noted above, not all will respond as one in the same way, rather there exists a portion of the people who will hear and see and respond rightly. The disciples see the rejection (and acceptance) of the word of God before their very eyes, hence a change in aspect is warranted. Just as in the aorist/future cases above these instances of alteration reflect a different standpoint in salvation history. Direct relevance and urgent action accompany these narrative viewpoint shifts, reflecting the reality that ‘the kingdom is near’.

The isolated instances of imperfective-to-perfective change are not as puzzling as they initially appear. All cases involve the historical perfect, which functions similarly to the aorist in structuring narrative (and, generally, in referring to an antecedent event). According to Campbell’s theory this change brings a marginal change in prominence, which appears reasonable from some examples considered above but negligible in others. In the end, however, this by no means constitutes a broad enough pattern of usage to say a great deal about the nature of the perfect—a matter of some contention in aspectual studies at the present time.

These two major categories of alteration and re-interpretation by Jesus and the writers of the New Testament may feel like a somewhat laissez faire approach to the scriptural texts. It seems they were not wholly constrained by the exact form of words, being free (at points, at least) to cast their source material into a different context as part of a new discourse. They were concerned with the word of God over and above the words. Before properly assessing this use (and possible abuse) of OT texts, we should remind ourselves of the shortcomings of this study, its scope, and how our conclusions ought to be constrained.

A feasible model

It appears we have confirmation at a number of points for elements of Campbell’s aspectual system. These posts have hardly been a comprehensive study of verbal aspect usage; that being said, having considered LXX texts and others not directly examined in detail by Campbell it appears we can offer some tentative affirmation of his findings.

Firstly, the future tense-form, is a real tense. In all cases I looked at (more than those posted above) this form has explicit temporal reference, alongside its perfective aspect. The common transfer from aorist to future forms supports this understanding of the future.

Further, Campbell’s spatial model of imperfective aspect has quite reasonable explanatory power. The perfective/imperfective and proximate/remote oppositions, when they occur, display the rhetorical power of verb forms that semantically encode spatial values. These instances apply the texts very closely to the hearers, heightening their impact.

On the contentious issue of the nature of the perfect form, there is simply not enough data to make comment.^[2] All occurrences are forms of the historical perfect, which under any model of the perfect is a readily accepted usage.

[2] This lack of data is not surprising: in the entire Greek OT perfects make up only 4.2% of the verb forms. The NT figures are not much higher, at 5.6%. ↩

ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη, ἣν διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, φησὶ κύριος Διδοὺς δώσω νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν γράψω αὐτούς· … καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ ἔτι.

“Instead, this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days”—the LORD’S declaration. “I will place My law within them and write it on their hearts… and never again remember their sin.”

Jeremiah 31:33–34 (LXX 38:33–34)

ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη, ἣν διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰσραὴλ μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει κύριος· διδοὺς νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς, … καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ ἔτι.

“But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” says the Lord: “I will put My laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts, … and I will never again remember their sins.”

Hebrews 8:10, 12

αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι πρὸς αὐτοὺς μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει κύριος· διδοὺς νόμους μου ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς, καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθήσομαι ἔτι.

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws on their hearts, and I will write them on their minds, I will never again remember their sins and their lawless acts.

Hebrews 10:16–17

Hebrews 8:10, 12 and 10:16—17 are citations of Jeremiah 38:33—34 (LXX) that display three verbal changes, although the first two are minor. Firstly, Jeremiah~38 reads Διδοὺς δώσω, while Hebrews drops the finite verb δώσω leaving only the participle. The LXX version is possibly a Hebraism (although not present in the MT) that has been ‘corrected’ in Hebrews. This participle is in any case subordinate to the prior διαθήσομαι, so the sense is essentially unaltered. Secondly, γράψω in Jeremiah is changed to ἐπιγράψω, although there appears to be little change in meaning with the addition of the preposition.^[1]

Thirdly, the familiar aorist subjunctive to future indicative change occurs with μνησθῶ and μνησθήσομαι in Heb 10:17 (NB. unchanged in 8:12). Once again the OT elements retain their perfective aspect and are cast as (explicitly) referring to the future (the future relative to, in this case, Jeremiah). In the context of Hebrews 10 this is in reference to the current state of the people of God in Christ.^[2]

Our present reality is that we are sanctified by his will, perfected forever by his one offering (Heb 10:10, 14).^[3] The citation of God’s promise in Jeremiah is a testimony of this by the Holy Spirit (10:15), leading to an exhortation to draw near to God with boldness (10:19—22). This present reality is brought about by Jesus’ establishment of the ‘new covenant’ of Jeremiah.^[4] The author therefore ensures we notice the futurity of the promise in the original context by using μνησθήσομαι, so that the theological conclusion can be drawn that the fulfilment of this promise is the present age in Christ.

[2] William L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13 (Word Biblical Commentary Series; Dallas: Word Books, 1991), 269–70. ↩

[3] Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 271. ↩

[4] Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 512, 514. ↩

Fourthly, and finally, God’s work in the church is taken to be not only in line with but also the fulfilment of the OT promises made concerning Israel. New Testament authors therefore change temporal markers and viewpoint on occasion to mark what God has completed in us through Christ. The writer to the Hebrews, for example, speaks of our present standing in Christ as the new covenant, now no longer a future work but completed in Christ for us. Verbal changes of this order are indicative of a coherent and rich theology of Christ as the centre of God’s promises.

A significant example from Hebrews 8 & 10 to follow tomorrow.

These examples give some more detail concerning the continuity of God’s people.

Acts 1:20

καὶ τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λάβοι ἕτερος·

… let another take over his position.

Psalm 109:8 (LXX 108:8)

τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω ἕτερος.

… let another take his position.

Acts 1:20

The verbal change we are concerned with here is from the optative mood (λάβοι) to an imperative (λαβέτω). Psalm 109 is a prayer, and thus we ought to understand the optative as a respectful request (although in the sovereignty of God, this does not necessarily mean uncertainty).^[1] Acts 1:15–20 is a recounting and commentary on Judas’ fate, applying Psalms 69 and 109 to Judas as an example of God’s enemies.^[2] Given this is a case of a posteriori theology the move along the spectrum from ‘potentiality’ to ‘actuality’ echoes the certainty with which Luke relates these events as acts according to God’s will.^[3] This is done, however, without suggesting that Judas was the primary reference of the Psalm.^[4] In doing so, however, the story concerning Jesus and those around him is connected closely to the earlier grand narrative of God’s interactions with his people.

Acts 7:5

Τῷ σπέρματί σου δώσω τὴν γῆν ταύτην.

I will give this land to your offspring.

Genesis 12:7

ὅτι πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, ἣν σὺ ὁρᾷς, σοὶ δώσω αὐτὴν καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος.

… for I will give you and your offspring forever all the land that you see.

Genesis 13:15

καὶ δώσω σοι καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου μετὰ σὲ τὴν γῆν,

And to you and your offspring after you I will give the land

Genesis 17:8

καὶ δώσω σοι τὴν γῆν ταύτην καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου μετὰ σὲ εἰς κατάσχεσιν αἰώνιον.

… and I will give this land as an eternal possession to your descendants to come.

Genesis 48:4

καὶ ἐπηγγείλατο δοῦναι αὐτῷ εἰς κατάσχεσιν αὐτὴν καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετ᾿ αὐτόν,

… but He promised to give it to him as a possession, and to his descendants after him,

Acts 7:5

Stephen’s summary of salvation history in Acts 7 covers both this instance and the next (Acts 7:40). His reference to God’s promise of descendants who would possess the land has its source in a number of Genesis texts, all of which have God speaking to Abraham in the first person (δώσω).^[5] Stephen’s version, however, is reported speech, and consists of an aorist middle indicative and complementary aorist active infinitive. A rhetorical effect of this is that emphasis falls on God’s promise, which is held in tension with the rebelliousness of the Israelites throughout history (cf. Acts 7:17, 51). As with other instances discussed above, a change from future to aorist does not signal a change in aspect, rather a possible change in (direct) temporal reference. For Stephen, then, the promise made to Abraham had already been fulfilled. An aorist indicative-infinitive construction is entirely appropriate to emphasise the promise and the word of God, in keeping with the emphases of Stephen’s speech. It’s interesting to note Stephen’s approach to the exact words: pretty chilled.

Acts 7:40

καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ Ἀνάστηθι καὶ ποίησον ἡμῖν θεούς, οἳ προπορεύσονται ἡμῶν· ὁ γὰρ Μωυσῆς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐξήγαγεν ἡμᾶς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου, οὐκ οἴδαμεν, τί γέγονεν αὐτῷ.

… and they said to him, “Come, make us a god who will go before us because this Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt—we don’t know what has happened to him!”

Exodus 32:1

λέγουσιν γάρ μοι Ποίησον ἡμῖν θεούς, οἳ προπορεύσονται ἡμῶν· ὁ γὰρ Μωυσῆς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐξήγαγεν ἡμᾶς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου, οὐκ οἴδαμεν, τί γέγονεν αὐτῷ.

They said to me, “Make us a god who will go before us because this Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt—we don’t know what has happened to him!”

Exodus 32:23

εἰπόντες τῷ Ἀαρών· ποίησον ἡμῖν θεοὺς οἳ προπορεύσονται ἡμῶν· ὁ γὰρ Μωϋσῆς οὗτος, ὃς ἐξήγαγεν ἡμᾶς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, οὐκ οἴδαμεν τί ἐγένετο αὐτῷ.

They told Aaron: “Make us gods who will go before us. As for this Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we don’t know what’s become of him.”

Acts 7:40

While the phrase echoed in Acts 7:40 is present in both Exodus 32:1 and 32:23, the latter reference should be taken as the direct antecedent based on the context of Stephen’s speech. Both Exodus 32:23 and Stephen’s summary are linked to the events immediately beforehand. Aaron has insisted that the people are evil; according to Stephen they had turned their hearts back to Egypt (Exod 32:22; Acts 7:39). The present indicative λέγουσιν in Exodus 32:23 is logically subordinate to the preceding clause (by the conjunction γάρ), so Stephen’s alteration to an aorist participle (εἰπόντες) makes the connection both syntactically and logically subordinate. Further to this, the common pragmatic use of the aorist participle is to supply antecedent information, as is the case here concerning what the people said to Aaron.^[6]

The use of the perfect forms οἴδαμεν and γέγονεν together in Exodus appears to be an instance of the historical perfect, which functions similarly to an aorist. The aspectual opposition to the aorist form lends it heightened prominence, a natural outworking of its proximate-imperfective aspectual value (In Con Campbell’s schema, the perfect tense-form is imperfective in aspect, with a spatial value of ‘heightened proximity’—so up close to the action).^[7] Γίνομαι is the only lexeme used as a historical perfect outside of the usual verbs of propulsion or introduction of discourse. Particularly in 32:1 this exclamation—‘we don’t even know what has become of him!’—forms the basis for the Israelite’s rejection of Moses’ leadership, and ultimately Yahweh himself.^[8] Stephen’s version, however, is part of a long history of Israel in which God demonstrated his faithfulness but the people were stubborn and rebellious (cf. Acts 7:51). Additionally, Stephen supplies the root reason for the people’s rebellion, namely their longing for the relative security and comfort—and idolatry—of Egypt (Acts 7:39).^[9] The people’s stated reason for their idolatry is therefore given less significance in Stephen’s discourse, and he uses the aorist form ἐγένετο to state the matter simply. Once again we see that form follows content: Israel’s spiritual poverty is shown clearly both by the content of Stephen’s narrative, and by how it is told.

1 Corinthians 5:13

ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν.

You must purge the evil from you.

Deuteronomy 17:7

ἐξάρατε τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν.

Put away the evil person from among yourselves.

1 Corinthians 5:13

Deuteronomy is a programmatic passage for Israel’s (future) life in the land living according to God’s law. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is concerned with the current state of the church and the ungodliness occurring in their midst. In light of this, the future tense has been removed from this statement to be more clearly a general statement broadly applicable (and in this instance, quite specifically applicable) at the present time.^[10] In accordance with the command for Israel’s life in the land, the believing community must act to banish the incestuous man both for their own sake and for his.^[11]

[2] Darrell L. Bock, Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 87.↩

[3] The optative and subjunctive moods are generally considered to lie more to the end of potential action, wheras the imperative and indicative are commonly associate with concrete action. These of course are generalisations, and are concepts that sit on a spectrum of ‘potentiality’/'actuality’. See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 446. ↩

[4] Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 125. ↩

[5] Genesis 17:8 reads διδωμι in a number of manuscripts, but the remaining textual evidence and parallels to other (textually secure) instances push for the text as given. See John William Wevers, ed., Genesis (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), Genesis 17:8. ↩

[6] Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament (Studies in Biblical Greek; New York: Peter Lang, 2008), 18. ↩

[7] Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 193, 199. ↩

[8] Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Louisville: Westminster Press, 1974), 564, 569–70. ↩

[9] Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 259. ↩

[10] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 417–18. ↩

[11] Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 227; David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Series; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 191. ↩