3C Hebrew Verbs Indicating Continuous or Progressive Action

The Hebrew verb has two states, the perfect state and the imperfect state. The perfect state indicates completed action. The imperfect state indicates incomplete or continuous action, or action in progress. In Ge 1:1 “created” in Hebrew is a verb in the perfect state, showing that the action of creating the heavens and the earth was completed. In Ge 2:2 “proceeded to rest” in Hebrew is a verb in the imperfect state, indicating an incomplete or continuous action, or action in progress. (Compare Heb 4:4-7.) Therefore, in Hebrew, action that took place in the past could be indicated by verbs in the imperfect state if that action is viewed as incomplete, while action taking place in the future could be indicated by verbs in the perfect state if that action is viewed as complete. The imperfect state of the Hebrew verb could be rendered in English by using auxiliary words such as “proceeded,” “went on,” “continued,” etc.

Concerning the fundamental characteristic of the imperfect state in Hebrew, James Washington Wattsa wrote in his work A Distinctive Translation of Genesis, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1963), pp. 129, 130: “The fundamental characteristic of all imperfects is incompleteness. . . . The incompleteness of these imperfects, when they are in the indicative mood, appears either in a progressive form or a frequentative form. The context is relied upon to indicate one or the other, for the structure of the verb is the same in both cases.

“If the context indicates a single act or state, the force is progressive. The action is pictured in the process of development. In such case the primary idea of the verb in English is not sufficient to convey its full meaning. The addition of an auxiliary like ‘proceed’ or an adverb like ‘gradually’ is needed if the translator sees an occasion for bringing out the full force. When a narrative is unfolding rapidly and the sequence of events is more important than the vivid portrayal of progress in some particular event, the translator may depend solely upon conjunctive adverbs like ‘afterward’ to indicate both sequence and progress. Progress in this case is not brought out fully. There is merely movement from one action or state to another without definite portrayal of progress within the second. The use of this limited translation means that the translator sees no special reason for bringing out the idea of progress more fully at that point. The account in English would become tedious if he did. On the other hand, if the translator sees that the account is enriched by bringing out the full force of the verb, he is at liberty to do so.

“If the context indicates more than one occurrence of the act or state, the force is frequentative. Again the primary idea of the verb in English is not sufficient to convey the full meaning. The addition of an auxiliary like ‘continued’ or an adverb like ‘frequently’ is needed to reveal the full meaning of repetition or customary occurrence.”

Throughout the centuries scholars have been amazed at the capability of the Hebrew language to express past events by using verbs in the imperfect state, and to express future events by using verbs in the perfect state. In an attempt to explain this peculiarity, they developed the theory of Waw Consecutive. Concerning this theory, O. L. Barnes, in his work A New Approach to the Problem of the Hebrew Tenses and Its Solution Without Recourse to Waw-Consecutive, Oxford (1965), pp. 4, 5, wrote: “The matter has been needlessly complicated by the introduction and slavish adherence to the doctrine of Waw Consecutive, or its more ancient forebear Waw Conversive (the latest name proposed for it is Waw Conservative). Very briefly, though there have been a variety of modifications of the theme, this states that the ‘and – Waw ו’ appearing before the first of a series of consecutive Hebrew Verbs in the Imperfect Tense, if preceded by a Hebrew Verb in the Perfect Tense, indicates that all of them should be read or taken as Perfects (instead of what they really are: Imperfects) and vice versa, provided of course certain vowels associated with the Waw ו in the Imperfect are present.”

Regarding the validity of this theory, O. L. Barnes wrote on p. 1 of his work: “We may rightly ask why the ‘and – Waw ו’ has this strange converting power. Some recent grammars, in an attempt to by-pass the absurdity, state that it is not really the ‘and – Waw ו’ that has this converting power, but it is the key or guide we must look for to indicate the conversion; in end-result, therefore, it amounts to precisely the same thing. I trust it will be evident from what is stated here that in fact the ‘and – Waw ו’ neither has this power, nor is its assumption necessary to explain the rapid, sometimes abrupt, change in sequence of the Hebrew Tenses. In other words, we may dispense completely with the mythical Waw-Consecutive theory invented by grammarians.”

About one hundred years ago, Benjamin Wills Newton, in his work The Altered Translation of Genesis ii. 5, London, 1888, pp. 49-51, took a firm stand against the theory of Waw Consecutive. After giving a sample translation of Ge 1:3-8, Newton concluded on pp. 50, 51: “Throughout the chapter the future is used to denote progression. In our translation we rightly enough use the past, for we are unable by our future tense similarly to mark progression. There is an expansiveness in the Hebrew use of the future which our future has not; and, consequently, greater accuracy of statement. I may add that there certainly is no room for the theory of Vav conversive in this chapter, and no ground for saying (because our future cannot adapt itself to the elasticity of the Hebrew future) that therefore the Hebrew future is to be shorn of its prerogatives and commuted into a past. It is marvellous that any one should have ventured to propose anything so preposterous.”

Following, we give Ge 1:3-8 from three different versions: Benjamin Wills Newton’s translation, New World Translation and James Washington Watts’ translation.

Benjamin Wills Newton’s translation (1888) (brackets his)

And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future].