1 Peter 4:3

“`html

body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 2em; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 1.5em; }
h3 { color: #444; margin-top: 1em; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: justify; }
blockquote { background: #f9f9f9; border-left: 5px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 0; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 2em; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }

An Exegetical Examination of the Accusative Participle in 1 Peter 4:3

This exegetical study of An Exegetical Examination of the Accusative Participle in 1 Peter 4:3 is based on a b-greek discussion from May 2nd, 2014. The initial inquiry raised concerns regarding the syntactic function of the accusative participle πεπορευμένους in 1 Peter 4:3, specifically questioning its relationship to the preceding clause ἀρκετὸς γὰρ ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν κατειργάσθαι. The discussion highlighted the perceived unusual nature of an accusative participle in this context.

The central exegetical challenge lies in reconciling the seemingly anomalous accusative case of πεπορευμένους with standard Greek grammar, particularly when juxtaposed with the typical dative constructions expected after ἀρκετὸς and the infinitive. The issue is compounded by the fact that ἀρκετὸς normally governs a dative of person and an infinitive. Proposed solutions within the discussion included the possibility of an ‘accusative absolute’ or a ‘Hebraism,’ both suggesting an unusual grammatical construction, as well as alternative parsing of κατειργάσθαι and its relationship to τὸ βούλημα.

Greek text (Nestle 1904)

ἀρκετὸς γὰρ ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν κατειργάσθαι πεπορευμένους ἐν ἀσελγείαις, ἐπιθυμίαις, οἰνοφλυγίαις, κώμοις, πότοις καὶ ἀθεμίτοις εἰδωλολατρίαις.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• The SBLGNT (2010) text for 1 Peter 4:3 does not include the variant readings ὑμῖν or ἡμῖν after ἐθνῶν or κατειργάσθαι. These variants are found in some manuscripts but are generally considered secondary by critical editions.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes

From a textual critical perspective, the omission of ὑμῖν or ἡμῖν in the critical editions (e.g., NA28, SBLGNT) suggests these additions are likely scribal attempts to clarify the implied subject of the infinitive or participle. The earliest and most reliable manuscripts (e.g., א A C P) support the shorter reading, which presents a greater grammatical challenge, often indicating its originality. The presence of such variants, however, underscores the ancient struggle to interpret the clause’s precise grammatical structure.

Lexical notes for key terms:

• ἀρκετὸς (adjective): According to BDAG, this term means “sufficient, enough, adequate, satisfactory.” In a broader sense (cf. KITTEL, TDNT), it denotes what is suitable or fitting for a particular purpose or situation. In this context, it implies that the past duration of a certain behavior is now complete and ought not to continue.
• κατειργάσθαι (perfect passive infinitive of κατεργάζομαι): BDAG defines κατεργάζομαι as “to achieve, accomplish, carry out, perform.” KITTEL highlights its sense of bringing something to a complete end or working it out fully. The perfect tense indicates a completed action with ongoing results, emphasizing that the “will of the Gentiles” has been fully performed in the past.
• πεπορευμένους (perfect middle/passive participle, accusative masculine plural of πορεύομαι): BDAG provides meanings such as “to go, travel, depart; to live, conduct oneself.” KITTEL elaborates on its use to describe a way of life or conduct. The perfect tense here describes a past state of having walked or lived in a certain manner, implying a cessation or discontinuation of that specific lifestyle. Its accusative case is the crux of the exegetical problem.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The grammatical analysis of πεπορευμένους presents significant challenges. Typically, ἀρκετὸς takes a dative case for the person to whom something is “enough,” often followed by an infinitive. If πεπορευμένους were to modify this dative person, it would normally be in the dative case (e.g., πεπορευομένοις). The presence of the accusative participle leads to several interpretive avenues:

• Accusative Absolute or Hebraism: Some commentators have proposed interpreting πεπορευμένους as an “accusative absolute” or a “Hebraism.” An accusative absolute, while rare in Koine Greek, would function adverbially, providing circumstantial information somewhat detached from the main clause’s strict grammatical agreement. A Hebraism suggests an influence from Semitic syntax, where participles can function more loosely as adverbial or substantive clauses without strict case agreement. In either case, it would indicate that “having walked” (in the listed vices) is a general circumstance applying to the Gentiles whose will has been fulfilled, rather than a direct agreement with an explicit noun or pronoun in the clause.

• Relationship to τὸ βούλημα and κατειργάσθαι: One interpretation examines the syntax of κατειργάσθαι. If taken as a passive infinitive with τὸ βούλημα as its accusative subject (“enough for the will to have been accomplished”), then πεπορευμένους struggles to find a direct grammatical connection to τὸ βούλημα, as the will itself does not “walk.” Alternatively, if κατειργάσθαι functions more like a dative noun in a verbal phrase (“enough with accomplishing the will”), then τὸ βούλημα could be an accusative direct object, making it easier for πεπορευμένους to refer to an implied accusative subject performing the “walking” that constitutes this “will of the Gentiles.”

• Attraction of an Implied Subject: A plausible explanation, as discussed, is that πεπορευμένους modifies an implied subject (e.g., “you” or “them”), which is implicitly understood as the subject of the infinitive κατειργάσθαι. While ἀρκετὸς typically takes a dative, the implied subject of the infinitive, if attracted to the participle, might shift into the accusative case to agree with πεπορευμένους. This phenomenon of case attraction, though more commonly seen with relative pronouns, is not entirely foreign to Greek syntax. In this view, the “you” or “them” (the former Gentile believers) are the ones who have “walked” in these practices, and it is *enough* that this has happened.

Rhetorically, the passage powerfully emphasizes the decisive break with the past. The perfect tense of both κατειργάσθαι and πεπορευμένους underscores the completed nature of the former lifestyle. The exhaustive list of vices (debauchery, lusts, drunkenness, orgies, carousing, and abominable idolatries) vividly portrays the depravity of the “will of the Gentiles” and serves to highlight the radical transformation expected of Christian believers. The phrase ἀρκετὸς γὰρ ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος (“for the past time is sufficient”) functions as a rhetorical marker, signaling that this period of ungodly living is definitively over for the audience.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The grammatical anomaly of the accusative participle πεπορευμένους in 1 Peter 4:3 is best understood as either an adverbial expression (accusative of respect/reference or loose apposition) or the result of case attraction where an implied subject of the infinitive has been drawn into the accusative by the participle. Regardless of the precise grammatical mechanism, the core message remains consistent: the time spent by believers in their former pagan way of life is now definitively over.

Here are three possible translation suggestions:

1. For the time past is sufficient for you to have accomplished the will of the Gentiles, having formerly walked in licentiousness, passions, drunkenness, revelries, carousing, and lawless idolatries.

   This translation assumes an implied “you” as the subject attracted to the accusative participle, emphasizing their former participation.

2. For the past time is sufficient, having pursued the will of the Gentiles, as those who walked in licentiousness, passions, drunkenness, revelries, carousing, and lawless idolatries.

   This rendering treats πεπορευμένους as an accusative of reference or a loose appositive, describing the manner in which the “will of the Gentiles” was accomplished.

3. For the past time is sufficient for having engaged in the will of the Gentiles, namely, by having lived in licentiousness, passions, drunkenness, revelries, carousing, and abominable idolatries.

   This translation offers a more interpretive, idiomatic flow, connecting the participle adverbially to explain what “the will of the Gentiles” entailed.

“`