# Luke 10:18, an Imperfect Indicative followed by an Aorist Pariticiple **URL:** \ **Category:** Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek\ **Created:** [October 17, 2026, 9:16pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/luke-10-18-an-imperfect-indicative-followed-by-an-aorist-pariticiple/31299 "2026-10-17T21:16:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lukas](https://www.textkit.com/user_avatar/www.textkit.com/lukas/32/159_2.png) [@Lukas](https://www.textkit.com/u/Lukas)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2026, 9:16pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/luke-10-18-an-imperfect-indicative-followed-by-an-aorist-pariticiple/31299/1 "2026-10-17T21:16:39Z")
Χαίρετε! I usually do not ask about **κοινή** Greek since I am trying to learn **Attic** but want to ask what I should consider when a main indicative verb in the imperfect is followed by an aorist participle: “εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς ἐθεώρουν τὸν Σατανᾶν ὡς ἀστραπὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεσόντα.” ---
**Author:** ![DavidCart](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/bb73d2/32.png) [@DavidCart](https://www.textkit.com/u/DavidCart)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2026, 11:32pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/luke-10-18-an-imperfect-indicative-followed-by-an-aorist-pariticiple/31299/2 "2026-10-17T23:32:43Z")
Maybe it’s because θεωρεω is a verb of perception. The rule in Attic is that they take a participle (don’t know about κοινη). The aorist maybe indicates that Satan has landed. ---
**Author:** ![mwh](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/6f9a4e/32.png) [@mwh](https://www.textkit.com/u/mwh)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2026, 1:31am UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/luke-10-18-an-imperfect-indicative-followed-by-an-aorist-pariticiple/31299/3 "2026-10-18T01:31:07Z")
Much as in Attic, “I saw(was seeing) Satan having fallen,” i.e. once he’d fallen, after he fell. The implication of the aorist participle is that Satan had already fallen, whereas the present participle would mean “I saw him falling” i.e. while he was falling, cf. e.g. Jn.20:12 θεωρει δυο αγγελους καθεζομενους “he sees two angels sitting” i.e. seating themselves. So translations such as “I saw Satan fall” (most bible translations?) are not quite accurate. The tense of the main verb makes no difference. In Attic it could also be an indirect statement, “I saw that he’d fallen, but not in Luke. τὸν Σατανᾶν is simply a direct object, and the participle is predicative. That θεωρεω is a verb of perception is immaterial. ---
**Author:** ![Mitch](https://www.textkit.com/user_avatar/www.textkit.com/mitch/32/222_2.png) [@Mitch](https://www.textkit.com/u/Mitch)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2026, 5:56pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/luke-10-18-an-imperfect-indicative-followed-by-an-aorist-pariticiple/31299/5 "2026-10-18T17:56:22Z")
Michael that’s fascinating but I think perhaps πεσόντα here is more likely a coincident aorist participle (CGCG 52.5) not a circumstantial participle expressing relative tense anterior to the matrix verb ἐθεώρουν. And as a matter of Biblical interpretation (not Greek grammar) I think the confusion regarding this sentence comes from believing that τὸν Σατανᾶν ὡς ἀστραπὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεσόντα literally means Jesus saw Satan fell down (or had fallen) from heaven. Instead, I think Jesus is probably speaking metaphorically here i.e. fall from heaven = lose control over the world. So with the imperfect matrix verb ἐθεώρουν my own (rather pedantic) translation would be that Jesus is saying “While that [you guys casting out demons] was happening, I was seeing Satan’s power over people crash down like a star falling from the sky.” ---
**Author:** ![mwh](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/6f9a4e/32.png) [@mwh](https://www.textkit.com/u/mwh)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2026, 6:36pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/luke-10-18-an-imperfect-indicative-followed-by-an-aorist-pariticiple/31299/6 "2026-10-18T18:36:22Z")
Mitch you may be right, but I’m always a bit suspicious of “coincident aorist,” which I think NT commentators tend to resort to too readily, and here (unlike Hebr.2:10?) I don’t see why the aorist shouldn’t be taken temporally as usual. But I agree Jesus is best understood as speaking more metaphorically than literally—and perhaps prospectively. ---
**Author:** ![Mitch](https://www.textkit.com/user_avatar/www.textkit.com/mitch/32/222_2.png) [@Mitch](https://www.textkit.com/u/Mitch)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2026, 7:01pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/luke-10-18-an-imperfect-indicative-followed-by-an-aorist-pariticiple/31299/7 "2026-10-18T19:01:01Z")
Yeah, but it could also be because of the influence of the LXX on the NT authors. It seems that “coincident aorist” often arose in LXX translation because of the grammar of the underlying Hebrew. So from Google AI: _The most common coincident aorist in the LXX occurs when translating the Hebrew phrase wayya‘an wayyōmer (וַיַּעַן וַיֹּאמֶר). The LXX translators routinely converted this using an aorist participle of apokrinomai (to answer) combined with an aorist main verb of epon or lego (to say). The answering and the speaking are the exact same event._ And of course there’s lots of ἀποκριθεὶς…εἶπαν in the NT. But I can’t offer anything more regarding this because my Biblical Hebrew sucks 😛