The research conducted by Purnomo and his colleagues focusses on the aorist imperative syntax of the seven verbs in Matthew 6:9–13, namely, ἁγιασθήτω [hallowed be], ἐλθέτω [come], γενηθήτω [be], δὸς [give], ἄφες [forgive], μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς [do not bring] and ῥῦσαι [deliver]. These seven verbs are primarily in the aorist imperative mood, with one in the aorist subjunctive. However, a pertinent question arises: Does the aorist tense in the imperative indicate a level of ‘time’ (present, past, future)?

Blass and Debrunner (1961) note that the original function of tense in Indo-European languages is not to denote levels of ‘time’ but rather to indicate Aktionsarten (types of action) or aspect (perspective). In this context, the action type in the aorist is punctiliar, meaning the action is viewed as a point with an emphasised beginning or end, or as a whole without regard for duration.

Several linguists support this view. Hewett (2009) indicates that tense (both aorist and present) in the imperative does not refer to the timing of the action performed. Robertson (1919), a Greek grammatical scholar, cites Moulton to assert that no element of time is contained within the aorist imperative. Croy (1999) also contends that tense in the imperative mood focusses more on the type of action rather than on ‘time’. Mounce (2019) adds that the only significance of tense form (aorist or present) in the imperative is aspect; in this context, the aorist imperative is perfective, describing an undefined action. Wallace (1996) confirms that outside of the indicative and participial forms, in modes such as the imperative, subjunctive, optative and others, ‘time’ is not a feature of the aorist.

Therefore, the claim made by Purnomo and his colleagues that the aorist tense in the imperative of the seven verbs in Matthew 6:9–13 emphasises ‘past time’ or indicates actions that have occurred in the past lacks a strong foundation and cannot be scientifically justified. This assessment indicates that their interpretation of the aorist tense within the imperative context needs revision, taking into account more appropriate linguistic aspects and the perspectives of relevant scholars.

Mounce (2019) observes that the imperative not only functions as a command but can also serve as a request (imperative of request) and prohibition. In the context of Matthew 6:9–13, the question arises: Does the aorist imperative function as a request? Kostenberger, Merkle and Plummer (2016) note that the imperative can be understood as a request when the command is directed towards an individual of higher status. In such situations, the command transforms into a polite request. Therefore, in the context of prayer, a person of lower social status would not command someone of higher status to act, but would instead make a request.

Wallace (1996) states that requests in the imperative mood almost always appear in aorist form and are frequently used by speakers addressing individuals of higher status, such as God in prayer. Based on this view, Wallace, Mounce, and Kostenberger, Merkle, and Plummer identify the verbs ἐλθέτω [come], γενηθήτω [be] and δὸς [give] in Matthew 6:10–11 as examples of imperative requests. Meanwhile, Alan Black (1998) emphasises that the use of the aorist imperative in the verb δὸς [give] and others in Matthew 6:9–13 implies a succinct command where the action is viewed as a whole, without considering the progression or frequency of that action.

Thus, to determine whether a text represents an imperative of request, context is crucial, particularly the difference in status between the requester and the individual being requested. In this case, the believer (requester) is lower than God (the individual being requested) (Mathewson & Emig 2016). Therefore, the claim by Purnomo and colleagues that Matthew 6:9–13 is a prayer of thanksgiving rather than a prayer of request, based on the use of aorist, cannot be scientifically supported.

An interesting aspect of the use of the aorist imperative in the seven verbs of the Lord’s Prayer is revealed by Merkle and Plummer. They explain that the context of prayer indicates that the imperative can function as a request from the lower to the higher. Merkle and Plummer (2020) also pose an important question regarding the aorist form:

Merkle and Plummer also remind us that in the strong stylistic patterns of Koine Greek, imperatives in prayer, both Christian and pagan, almost always use the aorist form. Thus, the literary form determines the tense used, not the other way around. Moulton (2005) affirms that requests to deities generally employ the aorist form because they aim to draw attention to a specific issue rather than binding continuously. This indicates that the verb tense does not determine the literary form of the text; rather, it is the literary form that determines the tense employed. This perspective contrasts with the claims made by Purnomo and colleagues, who assert that the text speaks of a prayer of thanksgiving solely because it uses the aorist tense.

All interpreters agree that Matthew 6:9–13 is a prayer of request, consisting of seven petitions in the imperative form, both related to God (‘Hallowed be Your name’, ‘Your kingdom come’, ‘Your will be done’) and to humans (‘Give us this day our daily bread’, ‘Forgive us our debts’, ‘Do not lead us into temptation’, ‘Deliver us from evil’) (Carson 1984; Evans 2012; Hagner 1993; Keener 1999; Turner 2008; and others).

There is strong evidence in the context that indicates why Matthew 6:9–13 should be understood as a prayer of request. In verses 5–7, Jesus discusses how hypocrites and those who do not know God pray. Hypocrites pray in public, while those who do not know God pray with much repetition, thinking this will cause their prayers to be answered. The use of the word ‘answered’ in this text emphasises that the prayer Jesus speaks of is a prayer of request. Jesus then forbids his disciples from praying like that, for the Father knows their needs before they ask him (v. 8). The use of the word ‘ask’ in this text further reinforces that the prayer being discussed is a prayer of request. Thus, in verses 9–13, Jesus teaches his disciples the correct way to pray to God, contrasting it with the way hypocrites and those who do not know God pray (Davies 2009). This becomes even clearer in the context of Luke 11:1–13, where Jesus describes God as a Father who is more generous than a friend and earthly father, always ready to give what his disciples ask.

In an effort to substantiate their thesis, Purnomo and colleagues reference the term εδωκεν (translated as ‘given’) in John 3:16. They note that the verb form εδωκεν in this text is in the aorist tense, akin to the verb δὸς (translated as ‘give’) found in Matthew 6:11. Both share the same root form, δίδωμι [to give]. Consequently, they argue that because the term εδωκεν in John 3:16 is understood as an action that has already occurred, the verb δὸς in Matthew 6:11 should similarly be interpreted as a completed action, given their similarities in tense and root.

However, what Purnomo and his colleagues overlook is the fundamental distinction between the verbs εδωκεν and δὸς in terms of mood. The verb εδωκεν is in the indicative aorist, whereas δὸς is in the imperative aorist. Moreover, the contexts of these verb usages differ significantly; the context of δὸς is situated within a prayer framework, while the context of εδωκεν is not. As Wallace (1996) elucidates, ‘time is absolute in the indicative, relative in the participle, and nonexistent in the other moods’. A similar assertion is made by Von Sienbenthal (2019), who states that as a non-indicative form, the imperative lacks any intrinsic notion of ‘time’. The choice between aorist, present or perfect tense is more closely related to considerations of the aspect of the action expressed.

Thus, the distinction in meaning between the aorist tense in the indicative and imperative moods becomes strikingly clear. Therefore, it is erroneous for Purnomo and his colleagues to utilise the verb εδωκεν in John 3:16 as a foundation for claiming that the aorist form of the imperative in Matthew 6:9–13 should be interpreted as a ‘past tense’. Their argument neglects crucial aspects of linguistic structure and the broader theological context, leading to an invalid conclusion.

In Matthew 6:13, there is a petition expressed through the phrase μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς (translated as ‘do not lead us’), where εἰσενέγκῃς is the aorist subjunctive form of the verb meaning ‘to lead’. The use of the subjunctive in this context serves as a prohibition, reflecting a negative command (Wallace 1996). The tense in the subjunctive, much like the imperative mood, does not indicate the ‘time’ of the action, but rather emphasises the type or aspect of the action (Hewett 2009). In other words, the phrase μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς carries a negative request that expresses a desire for us not to be led into temptation.

Through this use of the aorist subjunctive, the text underscores the importance of protection from temptation, not merely indicating a time frame, but highlighting the nature of the request, which implies a longing to avoid perilous situations. This demonstrates the theological depth in Jesus’ teaching regarding the disciples’ dependence on God in facing life’s challenges.

Purnomo and his colleagues argue that the prayer recorded in Matthew 6:9–13 is a prayer of thanksgiving rather than a petition, based on the use of the aorist tense. However, if we examine examples of prayers of thanksgiving presented by Matthew and Luke, such as those found in Matthew 11:25–26 and Luke 10:21, we encounter a different pattern. In both of these examples, the prayer of thanksgiving begins with the present indicative verb ἐξομολογοῦμαί [I give thanks], followed by the conjunction ‘because’ [ὅτι] and an aorist indicative verb (for instance, ἀπέκρυψας or ἔκρυψας, along with ἀπεκάλυψας), which serves as the reason for giving thanks.

This pattern is not evident in Matthew 6:9–13. There is no use of a form resembling this structure for a prayer of thanksgiving. Therefore, the text cannot be classified as a prayer of thanksgiving. Consequently, to strengthen their argument, Purnomo and his colleagues bear the burden of proof to demonstrate other examples of prayers of thanksgiving in the Bible that utilise aorist imperative and aorist subjunctive forms. This approach would provide a broader context for understanding the variations and uses of prayer forms within the biblical tradition.

Purnomo and his colleagues, in their research, argue that the Lord’s Prayer is a prayer of thanksgiving, based on the use of the verb προσεύχομαι, which they claim can refer to thanksgiving. They contend that if the prayer were a petition, the verb that should be used is δέομαι, which more specifically describes the act of requesting (Purnomo et al. 2004:4–5).

However, according to authoritative sources such as Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich (BDAG), προσεύχομαι is defined as ‘to ask a deity’ or ‘to pray’, while δέομαι is described as ‘to request something urgently’, ‘to beseech’, or ‘to ask’. A similar definition is found in the Louw and Nida Lexicon (1988, 1989), where προσεύχομαι is interpreted as ‘to speak to God’, ‘to beseech God’, ‘to ask of God’, or ‘to pray’. In contrast, δέομαι refers to the action of ‘urgently requesting, with implications of pressing need’, translated as ‘to beseech’ or ‘to implore’. The fundamental difference between the two terms lies in their nuanced usage: προσεύχομαι is a technical term within a religious context that refers to the act of speaking to God to seek his help or assistance, often in the form of prayer or supplication. On the other hand, δέομαι is more frequently employed in contexts of urgent pleas for specific needs (Laia, Laia & Wibowo 2020). Nevertheless, both terms contain elements of petition.

The use of προσεύχομαι in the Gospel of Matthew supports the interpretation that this term refers to prayers of supplication to God. For instance, Jesus instructs his disciples to pray for those who persecute them (5:44). It is evident that this context cannot be interpreted as a call for the disciples to give thanks for the persecution they endure; rather, they are commanded to seek blessings for their persecutors. In Matthew 24:20, Jesus also instructs his disciples to pray that their flight does not occur in winter or on the Sabbath, and in Matthew 26:41, that they do not fall into temptation. Furthermore, in Matthew 26:36–40, Jesus himself employs the term προσεύχομαι in his prayer at Gethsemane, pleading for the cup of suffering to pass from him.

Therefore, Purnomo and his colleagues’ claim that προσεύχομαι in Matthew 6:9 should be understood as a prayer of thanksgiving appears to be an interpretation that is inconsistent with the context and original meaning of the term in the Gospel of Matthew. This claim can be seen as an inadequate attempt to interpret the text, adding elements that were not intended by the author of the Gospel.