2 Peter 1:4 - function of the aorist participle

Frank Gee frankrgee at outpost.net.au
Wed Nov 27 04:35:49 EST 2002


On Sunday, November 24, 2002 11:22 PM, Iver Larsen commented:

> >  . . .  I would
> understand EPAGGELMATA as the content of what was promised by God long
ago,
> that is, not the event of promising, but what was promised. To give what
was
> promised is then the same as fulfilling what was promised.
> Some take all of this to refer to the future, but it seems rather
difficult
> to reconcile such an interpretation with the perfect tense used. The
aorist
> participle APOFUGONTES also seems to me to point to a past interpretation
as
> the most likely from a grammatical point of view.

Like Jonathan Burke, I see this as a helpful comment, and almost certainly
correct, even though it points in a different direction from that taken from
numerous translations (such as NLT, NEB, JB, The Message).  The CEV is one
translation reasonably consistent with what Iver has suggested, with its
rendering:  " ... so that his nature would become part of us.  Then we could
escape our evil desires  ... ".
(Incidentally, modern translations such as GNB might serve us better if they
were still able to observe the tense distinctions available through apt use
of the forms "may" and "might".)
So (on Iver's view), receiving a share in the divine nature and escaping
from the corrupt world are present, realised benefits rather than matters
only to be hoped for in the future.  NT intertextuality probably supports
such a view (eg Colossians 1:13:
[hO PATHR]  . . . hOS ERRUSATO hHMAS EK THS EXOUSIAS TOU SKOTOUS ....
where the perfective aspect of the verb is very clear.  God's rescue (and
thus our escape) is already accomplished, at least initially.

However, I find myself wondering whether Iver's next comment is a necessary
concomitant of this insight.  He went on to conclude that:

>Having escaped the corrupt world is prior to becoming sharers in [the]
divine nature.

It seems that the aorist form of the participle APOFUGONTES may have led
Iver to assume that the action of that verbal form must "pre-date" the event
in the hINA clause.  I'm inclined to think that this may not necessarily be
so.  I'd need to look for other examples of such constructions, but let me
now offer my somewhat intuitive alternative suggestion.

Although it is true that in narratives containing a string of indicatives,
an aorist participle will indicate temporal priority in relation to the
action of the main verb, we have a different grammatical situation here.
It is at least equally likely that we are to account for the aorist form
here as determined by the tense of the infinitive in the purpose clause,
with the participle serving a coordinating role.  It is the perfective
aspect of both verbal events (GENHSQE and APOFUGONTES) which is in focus
here, not the temporal relationship between those two events.  The focus is
on the definite, quasi-"punctiliar" action of God's work, accomplished in us
through the efficacy of his (already enacted) promises.
If this be the case, we may construe the participle APOFUGONTES as
functionally equivalent to an aorist subjunctive in a second, coordinated
hINA clause, such as:
  . . .  KAI  [hINA] APOFUGHTE THS . . . FQORAS,
where it is quite unlikely that the present tense of the subjunctive would
have been used, for the reason indicated above.

Iver and others may be interested in Maximilian Zerwick's comment on this
issue,
in Section 261 of his BIBLICAL GREEK  (1963):
"The aorist participle ... does not of itself express any temporal relation,
whether absolute
(past time) or relative (preceding action etc).  This is all the more to be
noted in that in Latin and in many modern languages (e.g. in English for the
form  'having  -ed') a relation of
time (anteriority) is expressed by the participle, which might seem to
correspond to the Greek
aorist participle. ...  Hence in translating one is often obliged to render
such a relation ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT EXPRESSED BY THE GREEK FORM."  [Emphasis
mine.]
An example he cites is Luke 15:23:
    FAGONTES  EUFRANQWMEN    (which he suggests is equivalent to FAGWMEN
KAI  EUFRANQWMEN).

If we should want (unnecessarily, I think) to attibute any temporal
significance to the aorist form of APOFUGONTES, its "past-ness" would be in
relationship to the time of writing, not to the action of the hINA clause.
In that, it would be consistent with Iver's general concept for
understanding the time reference of this verseas a whole, with which I
agree.

(We could perhaps find some parallel  here with the way that participles can
sometimes fill the functional slot of an imperative, rather than repeating
the imperatival form, used elsewhere in the same sentence.)

Another way of approaching this would be to consider an alternative
perspective on the semantic relationship between the hINA clause and the
participial expression (APOFUGONTES ktl).  It seems quite likely to me that
the APOFUGONTES clause is in some sense epexegetic of God's purpose in
bestowing the divine nature upon believers: it unpacks one of the
implications, accompaniments or effects of receiving that nature.
While not wanting to engage in theologically-based proofs here, let me just
observe that seeing the relationship in such terms would give us an emphasis
much more consistent with the rest of the New Testament, where we do not
qualify to receive God's grace or nature by our "escapological"
achievements, but rather the reverse: his imparted presence/nature/Spirit
enables
our moral reformation.

We could test the validity of this idea by replacing the aorist with a
present participle, and seeing what difference that would make.
It seems to me that if Peter had chosen the form APOFEUGONTES (an option
certainly available linguistically), that form would have the effect of
focusing on the continuing efforts of the readers, subtly making them the
CAUSE of receiving the divine nature.  That would be similar to what Iver
suggested about the "escape" coming first.  But it is not what the Apostle
actually wrote.

I don't really think I can write QED at this point, but simply offer these
observations for further comment.

With all best wishes,

Frank Gee
Jamberoo, Australia.





More information about the B-Greek mailing list