Reconsidering The Imperatival Participle In 1 Peter

By 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 so, the key issue to be addressed is the question of development because understanding how the usage developed will shed significant light on why it is employed in the contexts in which it appears.[3] Once this information has been ascertained, the second portion of our discussion will be devoted to examining the meaning and purpose behind the imperatival participle in 1 Peter.

II. Previous Proposals

1. Milder Appeal

One of the first to give substantial treatment to the semantics of the imperatival participle in 1 Peter was David Daube.[4] As a result of his study of Tannaitic Hebrew, Daube proposed that the usage arose out of Semitic influence rather than Greek. Noting the parallels in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Baraita, he suggested that the participles were to be understood as somewhat less absolute than other biblical injunctions. That is, they were thought to communicate a softer, gentler appeal than the finite form. In his study, Daube argued that “the participle is in its place in all admonitions to a proper conduct and even the vast majority of fixed and exact precepts; but not where a precept is an unqualified, hard, fundamental ‘must’ or ‘must not’, having absolutely nothing to do with custom.”[5] In this way, it expresses what should be done rather than what must be done. While the volition of the addressee is engaged, the force behind the engagement is not quite as strong. This view quickly became the favorite of interpreters of 1 Peter, and even though the theory has been called into question on a number of occasions,[6] it continues to linger within Petrine scholarship.[7]

Although not mentioning the theory of Daube directly, Reinhard Feldmeier has recently offered a similar proposal. After noting the function’s suggested meaning in Blass-Debrunner-Rehkopf (§468.2b n. 4), he contends that the use of the participle might also “have something to do with the character of the writing that less dictates from above with apostolic authority than rather advises them from the perspective of participation in the fate of those addressees . . . and wishes to stand beside them leading the way.”[8] One of the reasons why he suggests this “conscious abandonment of the authoritative form of command” is the difficulty some might have had in following the author’s expected demands. Due to the fact that the prescribed roles of subordination could have been met with resistance among some groups (e.g., women and slaves—two groups who were more exposed to societal pressures and, as a result, the possibility of suffering), the participial form is thought to have been employed in an effort to motivate the readers towards compliance.[9] They would not have felt as if the author was attempting to throw his weight around; instead, they would have been open to the persuasion that following the author’s advice could be beneficial and expedient.

Along somewhat different lines (although still working under the same assumption) Michael Thompson has proposed that the imperatival participles in Rom 12 are employed as a result of the unfamiliarity of the author with those to whom he is writing. More specifically, he argues that “the choice of participles here may be attributed to the fact that [the author] did not know the majority of his readers. A string of imperatives such as occurs in 1 Thess 5 might not go down as well with strangers as the more descriptive exhortations subtly conveyed by participles.”[10] Behind this suggestion—just as with the two previous proposals—is the assumption that the participle carries a weaker force than the ordinary finite form, thus creating a softer and gentler form of imperative.

Although this view has been shared by almost all who have dealt with the subject, it is nonetheless an unsatisfactory conclusion.[11] Its insufficiency lies not only in its misunderstanding of the function’s development (see below), but also in the structural employment of the form and the nature of the contexts within which they appear. Each of these final two points will be discussed below.

2. Strategic Ambiguity

The “milder appeal” theory, although the most popular among interpreters, is not the sole voice within the discussion on semantics. A somewhat more novel approach is that of Lauri Thurén.[12] In his study of the rhetorical strategy of 1 Peter, Thurén argues that the participial constructions were used to create intentional semantic ambiguity. Such a technique was employed as part of the author’s larger rhetorical strategy. Thurén understands the driving force behind the letter to be a conflict of interests due to outside social pressures. On the one hand, some reacted to the pressure by merely assimilating into the non-Christian society. On the other hand, there were those who had responded by attempting to avenge the injustice. Due to the fact that the epistle was intended for a mixed audience, the participial forms were chosen as a way of simultaneously addressing both groups. Consequently, the author created a dual meaning: “His task is to encourage some and assure them of God’s grace, but to discourage others and tell them that their new status is not self-evident and guaranteed.”[13] In this way the forms “challenge the interpreter to make a choice between understanding them as encouraging utterances, which describe the addressees and their situation, or as injunctions.”[14]

Thurén has won very few followers with his proposal. One of the major reasons is because he has failed to consider the implications of his theory outside of its designated corpus.[15] Taking into account the fact that there are imperatival participles outside of 1 Peter, it raises the question of whether every instance should be viewed as semantically ambivalent. This is certainly not something that Thurén demonstrates nor does it seem possible considering the variegated situational backgrounds out of which the other uses derive. For example, we would be hard pressed to argue that the author to the Hebrews was simultaneously addressing two audiences when he employed the form (Heb 13:5). A second problem for this position is that it allows the Balch-Elliott debate to set the terms for all subsequent discussions.[16] In the dispute over the kind of relationship the Petrine author wants his readers to have with the secular world—with Elliott having argued for a sectarian distinction from the world, Balch for assimilation to it—Thurén assumes a middle position wherein both Balch and Elliott are essentially correct. What is missing, according to Thurén, is the recognition that the letter is simultaneously addressing two groups. But by starting with this framework in mind, he imposes upon the grammar a meaning that it bears nowhere else in any literature.

This, of course, raises the question, if the imperatival participles of 1 Peter do not connote a milder appeal or a strategic ambiguity, what do they mean and why are they employed? In order to answer this question, it is important to start at the beginning. We must first ask the question, how did this function develop? Just as the Semitic development assumed by Daube led to the conclusion that imperatival participles—like their Hebraic counterparts—function as less than absolute commands, so also a more properly conceived history of development will play a major role in ascertaining an accurate understanding of the function’s semantic value.

III. The Development Of The Imperatival Participle

Throughout the history of discussion, the question of the imperatival participle’s development has taken two distinct directions. In the early stages of research it was assumed that the syntactical category arose naturally out of the Hellenistic language. In the mid-twentieth century, however, this thesis was challenged, and for the most part replaced, by the view that the usage owed its establishment to Semitic influence. Today, adherents can be found for both sides.

1. Hellenistic Outgrowth

The view that held sway for the early part of the twentieth century, and which has been taken up again in more recent scholarship, is that the imperatival participle was a natural development out of Hellenistic Greek. This position has taken at least two different forms. While some have argued that the category was an outgrowth of the participle’s periphrastic usage, others have suggested an evolutionary progression from an attendant circumstance function. Each of these views will be examined below.

Outgrowth of the Periphrastic Usage. One of the first interpreters to argue for a Hellenistic outgrowth in any type of thorough manner was James H. Moulton.[17] In the eyes of Moulton, the imperatival function could be traced back to the ellipsis of an unexpressed finite form, ἐστέ. Thus, the category grew out of a periphrastic usage. Over the years his proposal has garnered only a few followers.[18] This fact, however, may say more about how few scholars have actually tackled the question of development than about the relative quality of his proposal.[19]

The strongest piece of evidence in favor of the periphrastic position is the fact that imperatival adjectives often appear in the same contexts as imperatival participles (cf. Rom 12:9-19; 1 Pet 2:18-3:9). In such cases, most would agree that the adjectives demand the unexpressed imperative ἐστέ, a particular usage that is for some reason not found in the NT. Along the same lines, it would only be natural for the participle to require such a finite form as well.[20]

Upon closer examination, however, Moulton’s theory remains unconvincing. One of the strongest pieces of evidence (if not the strongest) against the view is its failure to properly identify the initial stages in the function’s development. This was due to a key methodological flaw in Moulton’s approach: constructing the usage’s developmental formation based on corresponding structures (viz., the imperatival adjective). While the participle may seem to require a finite form, no such formulation is necessary. By tracing the participle through its use in the Greek language, it becomes evident that such an assumption is ill-founded. As we will demonstrate below, the independent usage initially developed as a result of its ambiguity and cumbersome inflection. To avoid the problems raised by the form, authors began placing the participle in paratactic coordination with finite verbs. In this way it carried the same declarative or imperatival force as the corresponding finite form. Moreover, even if this theory of development is proven incorrect, Moulton’s treatment nonetheless fails to demonstrate why such periphrastic constructions might have developed in the first place.

A second problem, as Buist M. Fanning has pointed out, is that imperative periphrastic expressions of this sort are very rare.[21] In the NT, there are only two examples (possibly three—Eph 5:5), both appearing in the second person singular (Matt 5:25; Luke 19:17). In addition to this rarity, it should also be noted that in indicative periphrasis the equative verb is almost never omitted.[22] For this reason, we must look for a solution elsewhere.

Outgrowth of the Attendant Circumstance Usage. A second suggestion with reference to the development of the function is that its origins can be traced back to an outgrowth of the attendant circumstance participle. Just as in the case of the previous option, this position views the category as a natural development within the Hellenistic language. The first to clearly delineate this view was Fanning.[23] Although he is not the only scholar to hold to such a position,[24] his work, unlike the treatment of others, brought implicit ideas to the surface and spelled out a distinct evolutionary process through which the category embarked.

For Fanning, the transformation from attendant circumstance participle to imperatival participle was not direct. Between these two usages a transitional stage is proposed. He describes this process as follows: “An intermediate step along the way from [the attendant circumstance usage] towards the independent imperatival participle can be seen in instances where a participle is dependent in this adverbial way on an imperative-like verb, but only by ‘lax agreement.’” Furthermore, “in these the participle is construed as dependent upon another verb, but it appears in nominative plural form (since that is most common in adverbial use), even though there is nothing in the main clause with that form.”[25] In other words, the participle moves from a function that is totally dependent upon a finite verb (attendant circumstance) to one with less dependency (transitional) and ultimately to independence (imperatival). A few of the examples that are set forth in support of this intermediate stage include: Eph 4:1-3; Col 3:16-17; 1 Pet 2:12, 15-16. From these forms, it is argued, derives the imperatival participle as seen in the NT.

While Fanning is certainly to be commended for such an innovative approach, his view is not without its problems. One of the major weaknesses is that its suggested historical development is anachronistic. This is due to the fact that the initial traces of the independent function were already present, though rare, in the classical period. While little work has been done on the attendant circumstance function, it likely derived out of Semitic usage.[26] This means that the imperatival function was contemporaneous with, if not antecedent to, the attendant circumstance usage. But even if this thesis were to be proven incorrect, the most that could be shown would be that both existed at an early stage and thus developed independently.

The second problem is the lack of any type of functional correspondence between the attendant circumstance, the transitional element, and the imperatival usage. Some of the more recent work that has been done on the attendant circumstance function has revealed a certain structural pattern in which the category occurs: (a) the tense of the participle is usually aorist; (b) the tense of the main verb is usually aorist; (c) the mood of the main verb is usually imperative or indicative; (d) the participle will precede the main verb, both in word order and time of event; (e) attendant circumstance participles occur frequently in narrative literature, infrequently elsewhere.[27] However, neither the final forms (i.e., imperatival usage) nor the transitional forms correspond in any way to such a structure. This raises the question of how a transitional form could serve as an intermediary link while giving no evidence of any real ties to the initial form.

A final point against the attendant circumstance position is that the proposed intermediate forms are unnecessary. This is due to the fact that the suggested theory of progression does not adequately take into account the differences between the semantic situation of the attendant circumstance and imperatival usages. The primary difference between the two is emphasis. In the case of the former, the participle is simply the prerequisite that must take place before the action of the main verb can occur. The primary emphasis in such a passage is placed on the finite verb. On the other hand, the semantic weight of the latter is not dependent upon any other finite form for its force. When the participle is connected to finite imperatives by way of a copulative conjunction both are coordinate and therefore receive the same emphasis. The distinguishing characteristic between the two functions is the presence of a coordinate conjunction. For example, the insertion of a καί between an attendant circumstance participle and its main verb would result in the participial force being strengthened and coordination being established. Thus, it would seem that if one were to argue for the imperatival participle’s derivation out of an attendant circumstance usage, no transitional form or intermediate stage would be necessary.

2. Semitic Influence

A second proposal, and one that stands at the opposite end of the spectrum from the Hellenistic position, is that the primary impetus behind the participle’s imperatival function can be found in Semitic usage. This view can be seen in a number of articles, monographs, and commentaries on 1 Peter.[28] The seminal work in this area, as mentioned above, was produced by David Daube. With reference to the occurrence in the NT, he suggested that “the participles in question may be due to Hebrew or (though less probably) Aramaic influences.”[29]

According to Daube, the imperatival function of the participle closely resembles a similar phenomenon found in Tannaitic Hebrew. While absent in Classical (or Biblical) Hebrew, a common feature present both in the Mishnah and Tosefta is the use of the participle with a volitional force.[30] This syntactical category commonly appears in codes of conduct as well as certain religious precepts.

Herein the reader/hearer is told what he/she ought to do (i.e., what is appropriate). This, as we will explore below, was what separated the participle from the finite form. Daube proposed that the imperatival participle was specifically used to express a “milder” form of appeal. Due to its very nature, the form is limited to specific areas of employment. In particular, there are two types of situations to which Daube restricts its usage. First, the imperatival participle is “never used in a command addressed to a specific person on a specific occasion.” Furthermore, it “cannot be indiscriminately employed even for every kind of rule.” It is never found “in an absolute, unquestioned and unquestionable law.”[31]

This theory, as others have pointed out before, is hindered by a number of problems. First, a dilemma is posed by the existence of the imperatival function in any extra-biblical material. In order for this view to find substantiation, the imperatival usage cannot pre-date the Tannaitic sources (oral or written) in literature that has been unaffected by Semitic influence. In other words, if one were to discover the use in secular literature from the Koine period (e.g., non-literary papyri), then independent development must be posited. It was for this reason that Daube went to such great lengths to explain away any and all examples from the papyri. His efforts were, nevertheless, unsuccessful.

There is solid evidence in extra-biblical literature for both the formulaic and non-formulaic usages of the imperatival participle (see nn. 47-48). The presence of both constructions rules out any attempt to explain away the function by attributing it to a conventional concluding formula at the end of letters. Many of the examples set forth appear in the heart of compositions apart from any hint of formulaic affinity. Furthermore, the existence and validity of independent proper participles corroborates the legitimacy of the papyri evidence. In other words, since there is merely a pragmatic difference between the imperatival and independent proper functions, and since the independent proper usage in the papyri is not debated, it would seem that the imperatival function should be affirmed as well (see n. 3).

A second point against Daube’s theory is the lack of correspondence between the function of the imperatival participle in the Tannaitic tradition and in the NT. At least two areas of dissimilarity are substantial: (a) Whereas Tannaitic participles are used exclusively in rules or codes of conduct, thus eliminating any type of command addressed to a specific person on a specific occasion, imperatival participles in the NT appear outside the Haustafeln and are employed as directives for particular courses of action (cf. 2 Cor 8:24). (b) Semantically, imperatival participles found in the NT can carry the same volitional force as that of a finite imperative. As such, the author is able to impose his will upon his readers (see below). This is not the case in Tannaitic Hebrew, however, where the participle functions in a general or gnomic sense, indicating what should be done or what ought to be carried out. Had the NT writers been attempting to capture this obligatory sense, the most natural translation would have the impersonal verb δεῖ ορ ἐάω.[32]

Thirdly, dependence is very difficult to demonstrate. In fact, proof of dependence is the key omission in Daube’s proposal. Although he details the participial function in Tannaitic literature and describes the imperatival function of certain participles in the NT, the two are never linked together in any concrete manner. His discussion merely points out similarities between the two, similarities which in many cases are not all that analogous. A better conclusion is that since there is nothing about the essential character of the participle that would rule out its natural development within either the Hebrew or Greek language, independent development should be suggested.

A final point often brought against the Semitic position, especially against the thesis of Daube, is that the Tannaitic sources post-date the writings of the NT.[33] There is a general agreement that the Mishnah, which is the earliest rabbinic material, was not compiled into its final form until c. 200-220 c.e.[34] Of course, in response to this, some have argued that the conservative nature of the oral tradition authorizes the retracting of the timeframe to a period prior to the Christian era,[35] not to mention the fact that the usage was already evident in Aramaic.[36] This point is well taken, and for this reason the argument is not given great priority in the hierarchy of critique. Nonetheless, the objection remains, and will remain, because of the previous point.

3. The Historical Development Of The Imperatival Participle

From the examination above it becomes evident that each of the previously proposed developmental theories suffers from various shortcomings. As a result, it is necessary to examine the evidence afresh in order to determine exactly how this usage developed. In our search there are two crucial pieces of evidence that will help in ascertaining how the participle gained functional independence: the nature of the participle and the precursors to independence.

Nature of the Participle. The first matter to be taken into consideration when postulating a theory of development is the nature of the participle itself. Since it is a declinable verbal adjective there are various instances in which one dimension of the form becomes more prominent than the other. At times, the adjectival side comes forth more strongly, in which case it modifies (i.e., attributive) or asserts something about a substantive (i.e., predicate). What is more, the form can also function in place of a noun (i.e., substantival). In each of these cases, the verbal element is suppressed. In the same manner, it is possible for the verbal side to be emphasized over and even to the neglect of the adjectival element. In this way, the participle was capable of being put into service where finite verbal forms might have been expected.

The second point that must be kept in mind is the difficulty created by the adverbial participle in common speech. In his historical survey stretching back into the classical period, Antonius N. Jannaris notes that the participle “did not appeal to the taste and needs of popular speech because of its ambiguity and inconvenient inflection. For apart from its vagueness in regard to person, it did not even specify its own nature and meaning, but subordinated it to the context.”[37] Yet, what is more, he adds, “to avoid such ambiguities as well as the mental strain involved by the frequent use of the participles, even [Attic] writers, though fond of participial constructions (φιλομέτοχοι), very often resorted to the expedient of a lengthy but clearer and easier analysis into a subordinate clause.”[38] Clearly the form’s ambiguity and inflection made it troublesome for many a native Grecian, not to mention the difficulty it caused for those to whom Greek was a second language.

Precursors to Independence. A second point of consideration when attempting to construct a theory of development is any and all precursors to the participle’s independence. There are three areas in particular that aid in our search. The first area in which the participle breaks away from its normal adverbial function and into a semi-independent status is paratactic coordination. By combining two independent clauses—one whose controlling verbal idea consisted in a finite form, the other being controlled by a participle—with a copulative conjunction (e.g., καί, δέ, ετξ.), an author is able to present the clauses on the same level with one another. Such a connection would make it seem as if both the participle and finite verb convey an identical semantic force (whether it be declarative or imperatival). This phenomenon was present during both the classical[39] and Koine[40] periods. It is apparent then that the paratactic coordination used by biblical authors was not a peculiarity of their own making, nor was it a recent development. The initial stages of the construction can be traced back to an earlier period in the Greek language.

A second indication of the participle’s emerging independence was its employment in conditional sentences. In the classical period there were times when either the protasis or apodosis of a conditional sentence was expressed by means of a participle.[41] When this occurred the form would carry the force of the mood it represented, whether it be indicative or optative. In Aristophanes, Nub. 904, for example, we find: οὐ γὰρ ἦν μοι δήπου βιωτὸν τοῦτο ποιήσαντα (“for life would surely not have been worth living if I had done this”). The final trace from the classical period is its appearance in indirect discourse. Within the literature there were times when the participle would provide indirect assertions and declarations instead of the usual construction, ὅτι + finite form.[42] So, for instance, we find in Xenophon, Anab. 1.10.16: οὐ γὰρ ᾔδεσαν αὐτὸν τεθνηκότα (“for they did not know that he was dead”).

The History of Development.The results of this survey are of great significance for our understanding of the independent function as well as its development within the Greek language. While the existence of an independent verbal participle in classical Greek is sometimes denied, its paratactic coordination with finite verbs, its use in conditional sentences, and its employment in indirect discourse reveal at least the seedlings of the independent usage, if not fully blown autonomy. If this was the case, it would mean that the participle was set on its way toward independence sometime before the Koine period.

Historically, then, it appears that the formation of the participle’s imperatival function can be attributed to a somewhat simple process of renovation. The first step toward independence found its impetus in the very nature of the form itself. Due to the fact that it did not appeal to popular speech—as a result of its indefiniteness (i.e., lack of specificity related to person) and need for inflection—the adverbial usage began to be neglected and to be replaced with simpler forms. In order to avoid these ambiguities, communicators resorted to lengthier and clearer subordinate clauses to get their message across.

In this restructuring of its formal duties, the participle was employed in numerous usages that corresponded to the tasks ordinarily performed by finite verbs. It was used in coordinate connection with parallel finite forms. Often it was forced to carry the weight of a verb as it was employed both as a protasis and apodosis in conditional sentences. Furthermore, the form was put into use in indirect discourse, rendering its service in instances where an indicative would have been expected. Such tasks were only possible as a result of the elasticity of its range of usage (i.e., being a verbal adjective). In each of these cases the participle functioned just like its corresponding finite form, even carrying the same declarative or imperatival force.

It is in these constructions that the first glimpses of the form’s independence can be seen. This status was further legitimized as it was later employed outside of these perimeters in ways that corresponded to independent finite forms. Once it moved into this position the question of semantic force became simply a matter of pragmatics. Since the independent function had already been established, the form was available for use in either a declarative or imperatival manner. It is this usage that is picked up on by many NT writers and employed to suit their individual authorial needs.

IV. The Semantics Of The Imperatival Participle In 1 Peter

The theory of development proposed above has significant bearing on the meaning behind the participle’s imperatival function. With this historical development in mind, we now attempt to examine how the usage was employed both in the broader Koine period and, more specifically, how it is used in 1 Peter.

1. Examining The Evidence From The Koine Period

The two aspects of the imperatival participle that play the greatest role in interpretive discussions are its semantic value and its purpose. When the two are compared, it becomes evident that the former gives rise to the latter. In order to determine the significance of the use’s employment, we need to uncover what it is about its meaning that an author intends to communicate. Therefore, in this section we will attempt to answer the question, what is the meaning conveyed by the function? (a question of semantics), which, in turn, will aid us in answering the question, why is the function being used? (a question of purpose).

If we hope to understand why an author might choose to employ the imperatival participle it is crucial to establish what the usage actually communicates. That is, we must wrestle with semantics. As we have seen above, those who have treated the issue in the past have all been in agreement that an author’s choice of the participle over a finite imperative correlates to the communication of a force other than what would have been conveyed through the finite form. Such a deduction would seem appropriate, even welcomed, as a result of much of the vagueness that often characterizes grammatical analysis. It was this problem over which Daniel B. Wallace lamented several years ago. He noted that a major obstruction within NT grammatical study was that many interpreters were satisfied with “presenting the structural phenomena of the NT in a descriptive manner (i.e., a mere tagging of structures as belonging to certain syntactical categories), while hardly raising the question of the differences in the fields of meaning that ‘synonymous’ structures [i.e., those that are structurally distinct, yet semantically equivalent] can possess.”[43] Certainly each of those who have dealt with the issue has avoided falling prey to such a minimalist mentality. In fact, they are all to be commended for their attempts to move the discussion past a surface level analysis and into a more careful search for meaning.

Even now, though, the question of semantics has yet to be fully answered. The reason for this is that no theory has been able to account adequately for the numerous variations within the usage itself. In most cases this is due to the fact that the studies have focused on individual pericopae to the neglect of those examples outside their designated corpus. In light of this fact, it is crucial to examine the Koine period as a whole in order to assess the complete range of usage. Only in this way will we be able to determine exactly what is being communicated by the imperatival participles in 1 Peter. In making this assessment, there are two questions with which we will be concerned: (1) what is the most basic or essential idea that is communicated by the imperatival participle, and (2) is there any additional sense(s) associated with the imperatival usage?

Denotative Value. The primary question fueling the search for the usage’s denotative value is, what is the most basic or essential idea that is communicated by the imperatival participle? When all of the pertinent data is gathered and all of the examples are compared, what becomes clear is that the form’s imperatival function is very similar to, if not parallel with, the finite imperative. As defined by Wallace, the imperative is the “mood of intention . . . the mood furthest removed from certainty . . . [the mood which] moves in the realm of volition (involving the imposition of one’s will upon another) and possibility.”[44] Within the specific uses of the form, three are by far the most common: command, prohibition, and request. In a comparison of the two forms the similarity between the participle and the finite imperative becomes striking.

The overwhelming majority of the instances appear in contexts where one who is in a position of superiority offers a command or directive to one who is in a position of inferiority. In each case, the language user intends to direct his hearer to a particular action. Of course, within this category commands vary depending on the relationship between the participants and the situation that gives rise to the communicative event. It is within this range that each NT example falls.[45] While it is true that some occur in contexts that are filled with tension (e.g., 2 Cor 8:24), the very nature of the relationship between author and recipients lends the idea of greater to lesser. As an apostle of Jesus Christ, Paul possesses the authority to command and direct the audiences to whom he writes. Thus, in the same way that Paul can command his Roman audience to bless (εὐλογεῖτε) those who persecute them (Rom 12:14), he is able to command them (through the participle δουλεύοντες) to serve the Lord (Rom 12:11). Likewise, the Petrine author—whether drawing his authority directly through apostolicity or indirectly through pseudonymity—sets forth commands to certain groups using the participial form (1 Pet 2:18-3:7) when the same groups are elsewhere directed by finite imperatives (Eph 5:22-6:9).[46]

The examples found in the Apostolic Fathers provide similar directives, although without apostolic authority.[47] As leaders of the Christian Church, the language-users offer valuable instruction that the recipients are expected to follow. Ignatius’s Letter to the Trallians serves as a prime example. In 13.2 he concludes his correspondence: “Farewell in Jesus Christ. Be subject (ὑποτασσόμενοι) to the overseer as to the commandment, and likewise to the body of elders. And each of you, love one another with an undivided heart.” What is interesting about this statement is that subjection to the leadership of the church is directed through the participial form. Ignatius, who himself stood in a position of leadership, is commanding obedience to those who share his same authority.

Drawing on an authority outside of a biblical context (most likely that of wealth and social status), the non-literary papyri reveal instances in which a person of lower status is commanded by way of the participle.[48] For instance, in P.Fay. 112.8-14 we find instructions given to one who appears to be serving in some type of agricultural capacity. The text reads, “Until today you have not harvested the field of Apiados but neglected it and up until now have harvested only half of it. Attend to (ἐπεχον [= -ων]) the measurer Zoiloi and do not shame him. You have left it unharvested until today; therefore I greatly blame you.” Because the addressee has neglected his duties to this point, the writer commands that he fulfill his responsibility immediately.

On the other end of the spectrum of force, the form is also capable of weakening its strength to communicate a mild request. Again, this is often the result of the position held by the language user. In that one who is in a position of inferiority is addressing someone of a higher rank, the participle communicates a milder appeal on the part of the language user. A prime example is P.Petrie II 19.1-9: “I beg of you with requests and prayers on account of the god indeed who is good, give (δούς) faithful assurances to Mezakon that I never said anything inappropriate to you against him on account of what is true, and if you do this, request (ἀξιώσας) of him to send for me and to release me from prison.” Clearly, the one offering the request finds himself in a state of peril. In his distress, he begs the recipient to clear up the matter with a certain Mezakon. This, he hopes, will result in his emancipation.

As we attempt to piece this information together, the denotative value becomes clear: the function is used to engage the volition of the recipients in order to direct them toward a particular action. Such direction can be communicated both in a strong or mild manner. Therefore, as far as its denotative value, the participial use is essentially equivalent to the finite imperative. What this means is that if the desire of an author was to give a command, set forth a prohibition, or make a request, either of these two forms would have adequately communicated the idea.

Connotative Value. The second matter to be analyzed is the function’s connotative value. Here the primary issue to be addressed is, is there any additional sense(s) associated with the imperatival usage? Or, to put it another way, what does the participle communicate that the finite form does not, and vice versa?

Most who have dealt with the issue have assumed that an author’s employment of a form other than the finite verb brings with it a weakened force, or that in some sense he/she is holding back his/her authority. An examination of the evidence reveals that this is not the case, however. There are three points that call such an assumption into question. The first is the usage’s historical development (as discussed above). Classical authors began to employ the participle where finite verbs might have been expected not in an attempt to soften their appeal but because it could serve as an analogous substitute for the finite form due to its elasticity and lack of specificity.

A second problem with this assumption is the structural employment of the form. There are instances in which the participle is connected paratactically with finite imperatives. In Rom 12:19 Paul instructs, “Do not avenge yourselves (ἐκδικοῦντες), beloved, but leave room (δότε) for the wrath of God.” It seems safe to conclude that an author would not vary the force of the injunctions within such a construction. Furthermore, even outside of parataxis, the participle appears alongside finite forms with no identifiable variation (e.g., Rom 12:9-19; Heb 13:5). As such, it would appear that both carry a very similar (if not the same) force and connotation.

Finally, the nature of the contexts within which the exhortations are given and the response called for as a result of the exhortation is exactly the same as that of the finite imperative. The participle is used, for example, to direct the manner of living within the Christian community. Should we say that the Petrine author held back in the area of conformity to previous lifestyles (1 Pet 1:14—participle) but was stern when it came to being holy (1:15—finite form), loving one another (1:22—finite form), being subject to human institutions (2:13—finite form), and being humble before God (5:6—finite form)?

So, if the participle is not used as a softened exhortation, what is its purpose? Why would an author choose this form over a synonymous one? This question is somewhat difficult to determine. The reason lies in the complexity of usage. At times, it is used when an author wants to be gentle or less direct with his audience. On the other hand, it can also be employed when the intent is to be more direct or forceful. It is true that it shows up in moral codes, but it is also used to address specific individuals on particular occasions. Confronted by this roadblock, the next logical step would be to analyze the syntactical category within each individual author. With that being said, we turn to an examination of 1 Peter.

2. Examining The Evidence In 1 Peter

In the recent history of interpretation, commentators have seen imperatival participles around almost every corner. This has been especially true in the case of 1 Peter.[49] Due to the fact that the letter contains one of the largest clusters of imperatival participles in the NT, interpreters are quick to assign this familiar label.[50] Nevertheless, at most there are only eight (possibly nine) instances of the function in the epistle.[51] In order to gain a proper perspective on the participle’s semantics, we must undertake an investigation into each of these usages.[52]

Moving out of the discussion of the audience’s privileged position as heirs of God’s precious salvation (1 Pet 1:3-12), the body of 1 Peter consists of a series of exhortations designed to instruct the readers on how to live out their salvation in light of God’s marvelous grace (1:13-5:11). It is here that we are introduced to the first imperatival use of the participle. Within his larger paraenetic purpose, our author exhorts his readers to avoid being conformed (συσχηματιζόμενοι) to the lusts of their former Gentile existence (1:14). Of interest is the way in which this command is connected to the following thought. The imperatival participle of 1:14 is linked paratactically with a finite imperative in 1:15: “do not be conformed (συσχηματιζόμενοι), but be (γενήθητε) holy.” Such coordination assumes some level of continuity in imperatival force; it is therefore safe to assume that the participle carries the same connotative value as the finite form.[53]

The next three examples are located in the Petrine Haustafel (2:18 3:7).[54]

Servants (2:18), wives (3:1), and husbands (3:7) are all commanded by way of the participial form. Some have argued for a weakened force at this point due to the possible resistance from those being addressed. There are a couple of points, however, which seem to call this theory into question. First, all three groups are addressed by way of the participial form, not simply those who find themselves in roles of subordination. Furthermore, the participle is used elsewhere to direct all believers, not just groups that might have a propensity towards resistance (cf. 1:14; 4:8). Secondly, the directives that appear in the Petrine household code are the same as those found elsewhere in the Christian tradition (cf. Eph 5:22-6:9). One wonders, then, why the author would have felt any restraint to “hold back” the force of his commands. As such, there is no reason to deny that the participles in 2:18, 3:1, and 3:7 carry essentially the same semantic force as that of finite imperatives.

The remaining examples (1 Pet 3:9 bis; 4:8, 10) are somewhat less evident. Two points deserve closer examination. The first is the lack of variation amidst a host of other paraenetic passages. While they may not be connected paratactically with finite forms, it is telling that 1 Peter opts to scatter the participles amongst other finite exhortations. Secondly, the nature of the exhortations would lend weight to the idea that the participles convey essentially the same force as a finite imperative. Due to the fact that the readers are instructed in principles that are basic to the Christian faith (e.g., non-retaliation—3:9 [cf. Luke 6:27-28; Rom 12:17]), there is no reason for the participle to address them in a manner that is any different from the finite form.

Earlier we noted the complex variation in the way the participle is employed. This led us to address the question of whether or not individual authors (in particular, the author of 1 Peter) used the form because it communicated something different than the finite imperative. But even this was a dead end. As we examined each usage in the context of the Petrine argument, no set patterns are developed. It appears right alongside finite forms with no distinguishable disparity. Overall, it would appear that there is little, if any, added connotation in the participial form.[55] This, of course, is perfectly in-line with the historical development traced above. Because of its elasticity, the participle came to be used where a finite form might have been expected. In this way, it began to take on the same semantic force.

V. Conclusion

The epistle of 1 Peter has a number of different grammatical peculiarities, each contributing to the letter’s unique character. Even though it teeters on the brink of obscurity, the imperatival usage has played an intricate role in various exegetical schemes and reconstructions. For this reason, it is important to understand exactly what the form communicates. In our examination, we have discovered that the imperatival function was used to engage the volition of the recipients in order to direct them toward a particular action. This engagement could range from a mild appeal (i.e., request) to a more forceful command. In this way, it communicated essentially the same idea as the finite form. Likewise, on a connotative level, the participle did not stray very far from its finite counterpart. An examination of the usage in 1 Peter did not reveal a noticeable difference between the two. Consequently, to make anything out of the author’s choice of the participle over the finite form is to extract too much from an unusual piece of grammar.

This particular conclusion has significant bearing on the study of 1 Peter.[56] Firstly, we have hopefully demonstrated the implausibility of Daube’s theory of Semitic origin, and interpreters should thus have sufficient reason to re-examine the language of 1 Peter in light of these discoveries. Secondly, our findings regarding the history of development should serve to further establish the legitimacy of the imperatival participle within 1 Peter amidst recent objections to its validity. The final contribution of this study is essentially preventative in nature. Our conclusions are intended to serve as a fence of protection guarding against any unwarranted exegetical deductions, namely, attributing more to the usage than the author originally intended. Although this is a somewhat negative result, it is important insofar as it should caution commentators against attributing special significance to the author’s use of the imperatival participle, as many remain inclined to do.

Notes

1. An “imperatival participle” is a participle that (a) appears where a finite imperative might have been expected, (b) is grammatically independent of any finite verb (i.e., neither modifying any preceding or following finite form and apart from the elision of any periphrastic phrase), and (c) carries an imperatival force. Thus, the imperatival usage is a specific function of the participle, while the form remains unchanged. To capture properly this differentiation between form and function, the designation “imperatival participle” is employed rather than “imperative participle,” as used by some interpreters (e.g., David Daube, “Participle and Imperative in 1 Peter,” in The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Essays, by E. G. Selwyn [2d ed.; London: Macmillan, 1947], 467-88; H. G. Meecham, “The Use of the Participle for the Imperative in the New Testament,” ExpTim 58 [1946-1947]: 207-8; Robert L. Hamblin, “An Analysis of First Peter with Special Reference to the Greek Participle” [Th.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1960]; Lauri Thurén, The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter, with Special Regard to Ambiguous Expressions [Åbo, Finland: Åbo Academy Press, 1990]). Within the latter designation, there could be a subtle insinuation that the participle actually becomes a finite verb, as if its nature had somehow been transformed. However, no such change takes place. The participle always remains a participle, yet it operates in various capacities. In this way, one could say that the participle is used instead of a finite verb, but never used as a finite verb (cf. Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood [Studies in Biblical Greek 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1989], 374-75).
2. By semantics we are referring to “meaning as it is conveyed by language, specifically by the particular forms of language” (Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament [2d ed.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 313).
3. Our discussion assumes the validity of the imperatival participle in Hellenistic Greek. Although some have attempted to explain away the legitimacy of the category (e.g., Georg B. Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek [trans. W. F. Moulton; 3d rev. ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882], 440-41; Edwin Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit [2d ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1938], 2.1.340-41; Troy W. Martin, Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter [SBLDS 131; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992], 90-92; Ervin R. Starwalt, “A Discourse Analysis of 1 Peter” [Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Arlington, 2005], 166-85), their efforts have been unsuccessful. The independent use of the participle has traditionally been recognized as a valid category by Greek grammarians (see, e.g., R. Kühner and B. Gerth, Ausfürliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache [2 vols.; 4th ed.; Leverkusen: Gottschalksche, 1955], 2:105-7; Eduard Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechische Grammatik, Vol. 2: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik [completed and edited by Albert Debrunner; Munich: Beck, 1950], 403-4; James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1: Prolegomena [3d ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908], 222-25; A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research [4th ed.; Nashville: Broadman, 1934], 1132-35; BDF §468). Therefore, as Porter points out, “the terms of the discussion must be shifted . . . . The question is not whether these examples [of independent participles] may qualify as such, but whether they pragmatically are used as commands” (Verbal Aspect, 376). For a further defense of the legitimacy of the imperatival participle, see Travis B. Williams, “The Imperatival Participle in the New Testament” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2007), 56-68.
4. Daube, “Participle and Imperative in 1 Peter.”
5. Ibid., 475-76.
6. See, e.g., A. P. Salom, “The Imperatival Use of the Participle in the New Testament,” ABR 11 (1963): 41-49; Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1965), 165-68; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 370-77.
7. Whether or not they have been directly dependent upon the views of Daube, there have been many Petrine commentators who have held to the “softer appeal” view (e.g., J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude [HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1969], 67-68; Ernest Best, 1 Peter [NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 30, 86; Norbert Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief [4th ed.; EKKNT 21; Zürich: Benziger, 1993], 74; David L. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in I Peter [SBLMS 26; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981], 97; Eduard Lohse, “Parenesis and Kerygma in 1 Peter,” in Perspectives on First Peter [ed. C. H. Talbert; trans. J. Steely; National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Special Studies 9; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1986], 37-59 [45-47]; Ferdinand-Rupert Prostmeier, Handlungsmodelle im ersten Petrusbrief [FB 63; Würzburg: Echter, 1990], 153; Norman Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude [NIBCNT; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992], 47; Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter [trans. J. E. Alsup; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 171, 194 n. 14; Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996], 117-18; John H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 37b; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 357-58; Donald P. Senior, 1 Peter [SP; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2003], 81; Betsy Bauman-Martin, “Women on the Edge: New Perspectives on Women in the Petrine Haustafel,” JBL 123 [2004]: 253-79 [277-79]).
8. Reinhard Feldmeier, The First Epistle of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text (trans. P. H. Davids; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2008), 146. A similar suggestion, although regarding the participial usage in Romans, can be found in the work of Neva Miller (“The Imperativals of Romans 12,” in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis [ed. D. A. Black; Nashville: Broadman, 1992], 162-82). After describing the caution taken by the apostle Paul in addressing the Roman believers, and after pointing out the frequency of the participial use over against the finite verb, she claims that the “patterning suits the apostle’s purpose to convey directions without giving direct commands” (173). According to Miller, “the participial injunctions appeal to reason and the emotions more than to the will” (174).
9. Feldmeier, The First Epistle of Peter, 167. Cf. Joan M. Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind: A Critique of Four Exegetical Devices at 1 Timothy 2.9-15 (JSNTSup 196; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 290: “Greek imperatival participles were certainly found useful by both pre-Christian Jews and Christians to reduce the force in directives they wished to distinguish from Old Testament commands or teachings of Jesus.”
10. Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12:1-15:13 (JSNTSupp 59; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 90 n. 2.
11. Unfortunately many Petrine commentators simply do not address the question of semantics (e.g., Hubert Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief [NEchtB 18/20; Würzburg: Echter, 1987] 37; Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter [TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 78 n. 1, 125; J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter [WBC 49; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1988], 57, 157; Otto Knoch, Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief. Der Judasbrief [RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet], 81; Scot McKnight, 1 Peter [NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 164 n. 2, 181 n. 1; Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude [NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003], 77-79, 137; Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005], 120, 200-201; Joel B. Green, 1 Peter [Two Horizons New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 76 n. 35, 90 n. 70; Ben Witherington, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1-2 Peter [vol. 2 of Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2007], 94).
12. Thurén, The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter.
13. Ibid., 125.
14. Ibid., 28.
15. This same criticism could be leveled at the discourse analysis study of Starwalt, “A Discourse Analysis of 1 Peter,” 166-85.
16. On the Balch-Elliott debate, see Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive; Balch, “Hellenization/Acculturation in 1 Peter,” in Perspectives on First Peter, 79-101; John H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Social-Scientific Criticism of I Peter, Its Situation and Strategy, with a New Introduction (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990 [1981]); Elliott, “1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy: A Discussion with David Balch,” in Perspectives on First Peter, 61-78. This debate has continued to set the parameters for much of the subsequent debate about the social character of 1 Peter.
17. Moulton, Grammar, 1:180-83, 222-25.
18. E.g., Robertson, Grammar, 944-46, 1132-35; Bastiaan Van Elderen, Jr., “The Pauline Use of the Participle” (Ph.D. diss., Pacific School of Religion, 1960), 142; Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 3: Syntax (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963), 343; Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples (trans. J. Smith; Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 114; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), 129-30; Jobes, 1 Peter, 201 (possible in 1 Pet 2:18; 3:1).
19. It is difficult to determine where some interpreters fall on this issue. Many who hold the imperatival function to be a genuine Hellenistic development have not disclosed their views on the specifics behind its development (e.g., Porter, Verbal Aspect, 370-77; Scot Snyder, “Participles and Imperatives in 1 Peter: A Re-Examination in the Light of Recent Scholarly Trends,” Filogia Neotestamentaria 8 [1995]: 187-98; Jacob Prasad, Foundations of the Christian Way of Life according to 1 Peter 1, 13-25: An Exegetico-Theological Study [AnBib 146; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2000], 130-46).
20. In response to this particular argument three objections could be raised. First, within the various imperatival forms in Rom 12 there is one instance in which the finite imperative is present alongside the adjective (Rom 12:16). The remarkable thing is that the verb that is used is γίνεσθε not ἐστέ. Secondly, while the imperatival use of ἐστέ is not found in the NT, this does not mean that it was non-existent in the Koine period (cf. 1 Clem. 45.1). Third, simply because the adjective seems to demand the ellipsis of a finite imperative does not necessarily imply that the participle requires any elided form to produce a volitional force. The two forms are not inter-related as if the function of one necessarily dictates the function of the other.
21. Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 386 n. 81.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid., 385-88.
24. Cf. Paul S. Karleen, “The Syntax of the Participle in the Greek New Testament” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1980), 158-59. Although Karleen’s work pre-dates that of Fanning, it was the latter who brought the issues to an explicit level.
25. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 386.
26. Cf. Cleon Rogers, Jr., “The Great Commission,” BSac 130 (1973): 258-67.
27. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 640-43.
28. E.g., Kelly, Epistles of Peter, 67-68; Best, 1 Peter, 30, 86; Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive, 97; Lohse, “Parenesis and Kerygma,” 45-47; Karl H. Schelkle, Die Petrusbriefe, der Judasbrief (4th ed.; HTKNT 13/2; Freiburg: Herder, 1988), 75 n. 1; William L. Schutter, Hermeneutic and Composition in I Peter (WUNT 2/30; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 61 n. 122; Prostmeier, Handlungsmodelle, 153; Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, 47; Samuel Bénétreau, La Première Épître de Pierre (2d ed.; Commentaire évangélique de la Bible; Vaux-sur-Seine: Edifac, 1992), 99-100; Goppelt, 1 Peter, 171, 194 n. 14; Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 74; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 117-18; Elliott, 1 Peter, 357-58; Bauman-Martin, “Women on the Edge,” 277-79. Cf. also C. K. Barrett, “The Imperatival Participle,” ExpTim 59 (1947-1948): 165-66; C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 179-80; Charles H. Talbert, “Tradition and Redaction in Rom XII.9-21,” NTS 16 (1970): 83-93; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 329; Philip Kanjuparambil, “Imperatival Participles in Rom 12:9-21,” JBL 102 (1983): 285-88; Steven Thompson, The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax (SNTSMS 52; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 58-59; David Alan Black, “The Pauline Love Command: Structure, Style, and Ethics in Romans 12:9-21,” Filogia Neotestamentaria 2 (1989): 3-21 (17).
29. Daube, “Participle and Imperative in 1 Peter,” 471.
30. Cf. M. H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927), 159; Miguel P. Fernandez, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (trans. J. Elwolde; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), 137.
31. Daube, “Participle and Imperative in 1 Peter,” 474-75.
32. Salom, “The Imperatival Use of the Participle,” 44.
33. More recently, Kanjuparambil (“Imperatival Participles in Rom 12:9-21,” 285-88) has proposed parallels between Rom 12:9-19 and The Manual of Disciple (1QS). In this way, he attempts to remedy one of the major problems that has plagued Daube’s position, namely, finding parallels that pre-date the biblical sources. Kanjuparambil’s treatment, however, contains two serious flaws (aside from the major dissimilarities admitted by the author himself) that impede any inherent value: (1) a failure to differentiate between grammatical and contextual/exegetical comparisons, and (2) the absence of any substantial evidence that the imperatival forms operate in a similar manner to those in the NT. This same omission is what stalled the work of Daube. While depicting the imperatival usage in two different traditions, no conclusive proof is set forth to establish dependence on the part of the biblical authors. Thus, Kanjuparambil’s work moves the discussion no further than that of his predecessor.
34. See Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: An Introduction (Northvale, N.J.: Aronson, 1989), 42-53.
35. Talbert, “Tradition and Redaction in Rom XII.9-21,” 93 n. 6.
36. Max Wilcox, “Semitisms in the New Testament,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase; Part 2, Principat 25; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984), 978-1029 (1016).
37. Antonius N. Jannaris, A Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect (London: Macmillan, 1897), 504.
38. Ibid., 505.
39. E.g., Herodotus, Hist. 4.185.2; Xenophon, Cyr. 1.3.5; 2.3.8, 17, 21; 3.3.9; 4.2.10; 5.3.30; 5.4.29; 8.2.24; Thucydides, Hist. 1.25.4; 1.42.1; 1.57, 58; 4.100; Plato, Theaet. 144c. Cf. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik, 406-7; Kühner and Gerth, Grammatik, 2:109.
40. In the NT there are a handful of instances where an independent proper participle is connected in a coordinate manner with a finite verb (Rom 5:11; 1 Cor 16:9; 2 Cor 5:12; 7:5; 11:6; 2 Thess 3:8). This can even be seen in some inscriptional evidence (e.g., Georg Petzl, ed., Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens [Bonn: Habelt, 1994], no. 71, ll. 2-5). As far as imperatival participles connected with finite imperatives, though, the number is somewhat less (Rom 12:19; 1 Pet 1:14-15; see Turner, Grammar, 3:343).
41. An example of the protasis expressed by a participle includes Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.2. An example of the apodosis expressed by a participle includes Xenophon, Anab. 1.1.10. Cf. Herbert W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (rev. G. M. Messing; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956), 530-32; William W. Goodwin, Greek Grammar (rev. C. B. Gulick; Boston: Ginn, 1930), 300.
42. E.g., Xenophon, Cyr. 1.6.6. Cf. Basil L. Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek, from Homer to Demosthenes (Groningen: Boumas Boekhuis B.V., 1980), 142-43; Albert Rijksbaron, The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1984), 114-15.
43. Daniel B. Wallace, “The Semantics and Exegetical Significance of the Object-Complement Construction in the New Testament,” Grace Theological Journal 6 (1985): 91-112 (92) (original emphasis).
44. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 485 (original emphasis).
45. Examples of the imperatival participle in the NT include: Rom 12:9-19 (17 times); 2 Cor 8:24; Heb 13:5; 1 Pet 1:14; 2:18; 3:1, 7bis (possibly), 9 bis; 4:8, 10.
46. Although one might argue that the meaning conveyed by one author may not be the same as another, the point here is that the same types of instructions are being conveyed through both participles and finite forms. Both are using common Christian paraenesis. Thus, the author of 1 Peter is not asking anything of his audience that has not been asked of those in other Christian communities.
47. Examples of the imperatival participle in the Apostolic Fathers include: Diogn. 2.1 ter; Ign. Eph. 10.2 (possibly); Ign. Trall. 13.2. Cf. Henry B. Robison, Syntax of the Participle in the Apostolic Fathers, in the Editio Minor of Gerbhardt-Harnack-Zahn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1913), 40.
48. Examples of the non-formulaic use of the imperatival participle in the non-literary papyri include: P.Teb. 59.8-11 (99 b.c.e.); P.Petrie II 19.1-9 (3d b.c.e.); P.Hib. 78.6-13 (244 243 b.c.e.); P.Fay. 109.10-11 (1st c.e.); P.Fay. 112.8-14 (103 b.c.e.); P.CairoZen. 59154.1-3 (256 b.c.e.); P.CairoZen. 59251.6-7 bis (252 b.c.e.).
49. Bauman-Martin, “Women on the Edge,” 278, claims that there are a total of twenty in 1 Peter (1:13a, b, 14, 18, 22; 2:1, 4, 12, 18; 3:1, 6c, d, 7a, b, 9a, b, 16; 4:8, 10; 5:9).
50. Robertson’s word of caution still rings true as the most important guideline for locating an imperatival participle: “In general it may be said that no participle should be explained in this way that can properly be connected with a finite verb” (Grammar, 1133-34; cf. J. A. Brooks and C. L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek [Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1979], 138).
51. These are 1 Pet 1:14; 2:18; 3:1, 7bis (possibly), 9 bis; 4:8, 10.
52. A further word of caution could be added at this point. One fact that some Petrine commentators have failed to understand is that the imperatival force of the participle is conveyed independently of any other finite form. So to claim that a participle functions adverbially, yet still carries an imperatival force due to its relationship with the finite verb, is to misconstrue how the imperatival form actually works (e.g., Michaels, 1 Peter, 57; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 118, 120; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, 121, 176; Jobes, 1 Peter, 110-11, 140). The imperatival force comes not from another imperative but from the participle itself. Therefore, if a participle is in any way dependent upon a finite imperative (aside from the attendant circumstance usage), it must carry one of its usual adverbial forces (e.g., means, purpose, concession, etc.).
53. Achtemeier’s (1 Peter, 120) rejection of an independent imperatival function for συσχηματιζόμενοι is hardly substantial. The tense of the form (present or aorist) has no bearing on its independent function, and the idea that it modifies the preceding ἐλπίσατε (following Daube, “Participle and Imperative in 1 Peter,” 482) would make little sense of the contrast in v. 15 (“set your hope . . . but be holy” rather than the more natural “do not be conformed but be holy”).
54. The notions that these participles are adverbial modifiers of ἀπέχεσθαι in 1 Pet 2:11 (Barth L. Campbell, Honor, Shame, and the Rhetoric of 1 Peter [SBLDS 160; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998], 123-24) or of ὑποτάγητε in 2:13 (Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 98; Earl J. Richard, Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary [Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2000], 110; Aída Besançon Spencer, “Peter’s Pedagogical Method in 1 Peter 3:6,” BBR 10 [2000]: 107-19 [111]) or of τιμήσατε in 2:17 (Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 205; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 194; J. de Waal Dryden, Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter: Paraenetic Strategies for Christian Character Formation [WUNT 2/209; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006], 156) should be rejected. With regard to the former two approaches, it is extremely unusual to assume grammatical modification over such a large distance, especially considering all that lies between. The latter founders on the fact that three other finite verbs follow closely on the heels of the command to “honor all.” If τιμήσατε were intended to control all that is to follow, why not put these verbs in participial form as well (or the participles into finite forms)? The fact is, these are all coordinating commands, and it makes little sense to claim that the participles describe how they are to be carried out. Finally, the transition from a general exhortation to the entire community (2:11-17) to specific instructions for particular groups (2:18 3:7) via participial modifiers makes for a painstakingly awkward sentence.
55. Cf. Gene L. Green, “Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter” (Ph.D. diss., University of Aberdeen, 1979), 329: “It should not be assumed that the author uses [the imperatival participle] in any way different than a regular imperative—both have the same force of an absolute command rather than a simple expression of church ethos.”
56. These conclusions also contain significant implications for the interpretation of Rom 12. With the disproving of Daube’s theory, much of the recent work on the imperatival participles in Rom 12 could also be called into question.