The way I see this, the idea is that Jesus’ life is considered in its entirety and it’s his whole life that is set as example. “Look at the whole life he lived, that’s how we should live!” The imperfect, on the other hand, would suggest something like “look at the sort of stuff he used to do, we should do the same!”
Paul’s explanation nicely complements mine just above, I think.
I’m still not entirely satisfied I understand this, and I still find the aorist slightly jarring. With καθὼς (and maybe οὕτως] the focus seems to me to be on the manner – the process – of his walking around, or living, not on the event – “how he walked around.” I would have expected imperfect.
The explanations mwh and Paul have offered read περιεπάτησεν as a metaphor for the completed life, not the way in which the life was lived. If περπατεῖν and περιεπάτησεν mean the same thing, then the exhortation would mean something like “Let’s do with our lives what he did with his life.” “Let’s let the sum of our lives add up to what his life did.” But that seems at odds with the literal meaning of περιπατεῖν. Maybe the metaphor is a little stretched. Maybe I’m just being too captious–the sentence works rhetorically if not strictly logically.
I too would have expected imperfect, as anyone would, but the aorist imposes a different perspective, according to which his walking is viewed not as continuous or as a succession of acts (“how he used to walk”) but as a one-off event. So it has to mean: “One who claims to stay in him is obliged to walk (and spend his life walking, pres. not aor.) in the same way that he once did (aor. not impf.)”—his time on earth being a one-time occurrence, as it were a single instant in his eternity. It is perhaps a little jarring, but there it is.
The image of “walking” was introduced at 1:6-7, walking in the dark vs. walking in the light. Obviously it’s more or less tantamount to “live,” “lead one’s life.” Jesus led his life (περιεπατησεν ~ διηγαγε τον βιον) in a certain way (unspecified): people who say they “remain in him” have to follow his example. — At the same time, περιεπατησεν conveys the idea of Jesus’ temporary human existence on earth, as in the memeticized “He became a man and walked among us” (just that once, before returning to the Father).
Don’t know if that makes it any clearer. And (taking Klewlis’ question to heart) it may not be very helpful to beginners.
I deleted my comment because I did not want it to come off as antagonistic but I think that all thoughtful discussion is helpful; my comment was in response to a post that I thought might be taken as discouraging to beginners.
Thanks, mwh. And I do think your discussion of imperfect vs. aorist would be helpful to beginners, as much as to more experienced readers of Greek.
The aorist views walking as a “complete undifferentiated process” (Porter 1992:35).
I have no quarrel with that, except that “process” might mislead.
“The aorist is an abstract tense which does not properly have any reference to situation in time or duration in time. It simply asserts that an action is attained.” Cooper vol 1, p434 §53.5.0.
“The aorist is an abstract tense which does not properly have any reference to situation in time or duration in time. It simply asserts that an action is attained.”
That’s exactly what my point was and where my discomfort lay. The sentence seems to be focused on the process or activity of walking around, or living, over time, not merely the fact that the life occurred. The author focuses on the manner in which the life was conducted over time–that’s what he exhorts us to emulate, not merely to have a life of our own. But I’ve made my point; we’re confronted with real Greek–the way the author expressed himself–and I have to accept that. The meaning seems clear enough, and the dissonance that I feel in reading this is really very minor.
(Note: At Qimmik’s suggestion I transfer this from the I’m-dead-but-I-won’t-lie-down thread on 1 John 1:1. It’s a little out of context here, and this reading group has managed to get beyond the first verse, to its credit, but anyhow …)
As someone with an interest in titles and quasi-titles and beginnings, I find Rev. quite interesting. The letter proper doesn’t begin till what we have as v.4, with a perfectly conventional kind of epistolary opening: sender in nom., addressee in dat., greeting: “John to the 7 churches of Asia, χάρις to you and peace” (a Pauline modification of the very traditional “X to Y χαίρειν”). Prefaced to that, however, we have two separate items: an extended heading (vv.1-2), kicking off with the de facto title “Revelation of Jesus Christ” and continuing with verbs in past tense and a 3rd-person reference to John; and appended to that a makarismos of the reader (v.3). These two prefatory items read as if they were subsequent attachments, informed by the book’s concluding section (22.7b-fin.).
1 Jn. takes very different epistolary form, with neither sender/writer nor addressee identified (just “we” and “you” pl., later subdivided into male age-groups), and its imposing opening, “What was from (the) beginning” etc., evidently harking back to the opening of the socalled “Gospel acc. to John.” It represents itself as a report (απαγγέλλομεν), a message (αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία)—cognate with Mark’s ευαγγελιον (the only actual gospel of the canonical four) but not evangelistic.
What 1 Jn. and Rev. most have in common is a sense of urgency, due to the widespread eschatological belief that the end was nigh (1 Jn. “It’s the last hour,” Rev.”the time is near”).