1Pe1:16 - why not imperative?

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

1Pe1:16 - why not imperative?

Postby azclark » June 22nd, 2012, 1:20 pm

1Pe1:16:
διότι γέγραπται [ὅτι] ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος [εἰμι]

for it has been written, holy ye shall be, for I am holy

I was wondering why ἔσεσθε is translated with the force of an imperative in many translations: "BE holy, for I am holy". Would it not be as/more accurate to translate it as "You will be holy, because I am holy", in other words, more as a statement of fact than a command?

Many thanks in advance
Ade
azclark
 
Posts: 3
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 4:02 pm

Re: 1Pe1:16 - why not imperative?

Postby Jonathan Robie » June 22nd, 2012, 7:22 pm

The future indicative is often used as an imperative in the Septuagint, and is used this way sometimes in the New Testament, particularly in Matthew and in Old Testament quotations.

Here's an older thread:

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2005-November/036462.html
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
Jonathan Robie
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm

Re: 1Pe1:16 - why not imperative?

Postby azclark » June 22nd, 2012, 7:46 pm

That's very helpful, thank you.
azclark
 
Posts: 3
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 4:02 pm

Re: 1Pe1:16 - why not imperative?

Postby ed krentz » June 23rd, 2012, 10:31 am

OT law codes take two forms, casuistic and epideictic.

Epideictic uses the future tense in the decalog, which 1 Peter 1:16 is citing.
Edgar Krentz
Prof. Emeritus of NT
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
ed krentz
 
Posts: 55
Joined: February 22nd, 2012, 5:34 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: 1Pe1:16 - why not imperative?

Postby Scott Lawson » June 23rd, 2012, 2:57 pm

ed krentz wrote:OT law codes take two forms, casuistic and epideictic.


Ed,
Don't you mean apodictic? In any case I don't think adding the words "casuistic" and "apodictic" are of much help linguistically.

Ade,

Here are some facts about the imperative that I hope are helpful:

The imperative always implies future time.

The imperative is a late development in Greek. It is the last of the moods to appear.

Prohibitions in the 2nd and 3rd person aorist subjunctive held their place and were not supplanted by the imperative.

The imperative and the future between them carried off the old jussive use of the subjunctive in positive commands of 2nd and 3rd person.

The imperative receives most of its forms from the old injunctive.

The subjunctive, optative, future indicative, infinitive and participle are all used imperativally.

The imperative lacks a regular set of its own suffixes.

The imperative appears in a present form sometimes indistinguishable from the 2nd person plural present indicative active and middle.
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
 
Posts: 314
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm


Return to What does this text mean?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest