Reconsidering The Imperatival Participle In 1 Peter -- By: Travis B. Williams

Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011)
Article: Reconsidering The Imperatival Participle In 1 Peter
Author: Travis B. Williams


Reconsidering The Imperatival Participle In 1 Peter

Travis B. Williams

Travis B. Williams is an Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at Tusculum College, Greeneville, Tenn.

I. Introduction

One of the more neglected, and therefore misunderstood, grammatical functions in the NT is the imperatival participle.1 On a brief perusal through some of the major Greek grammars, one will come to discover that the usage is normally afforded only a few passing comments and is often relegated to a place of insignificance. Whether this is due to the rarity with which it occurs or simply because of its seeming lack of exegetical importance, few have ventured into serious study of this grammatical anomaly. Even among those who have taken up the challenge, the results are somewhat inconclusive. For this reason, the usage remains enigmatic and, as a result, often miscommunicated. While such a fact may appear to be only a minute detail in the overall scope of biblical studies, the way this syntactical category is understood has significant bearing on the interpretation of certain NT epistles. First Peter is one such epistle, for it is here that the usage appears with some regularity, most notably in the Petrine Haustafel (1 Pet 2:18; 3:1, 7).

While prior discussions have often centered around the validity of the usage or how it can be identified, only a modest amount of attention has been devoted to the question of semantics.2 Nonetheless, what little work has been done in this

area seems to point in the same direction, namely, that the imperatival function conveys a meaning that is distinct from the finite form. For many commentators, the imperatival participle is understood as a softer, gentler form of appeal, a request given with less force than a direct command. Such an understanding, of course, has significant implications for the overall interpretation of 1 Peter. If it is correct, it forces the paraenetic character of the letter to be examined through the lens of grammar.

The purpose of the present article is to offer a word of correction to this popular misconception. For while the imperatival participle may be a grammatical phenomenon of which all Petrine interpreters are aware, few have correctly diagnosed its true significance. Our goal will thus be to determine exactly what the Petrine author intends (and does not intend) to communicate by making frequent use of such an anomalous function. In order to do ...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()