“Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ...” (KJV)
“Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ...” (NIV)
“Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ...” (RSV, ESV)
“Whatever happens, as citizens of heaven live in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ” (TNIV)
What’s in a word? In Elizabethan English, the word conversation could mean “conduct.” The Greek verb, politeuomai, in Philippians 1:27, has nothing whatsoever to do with speaking, per se, so the translators of the King James Version in 1611 were clearly talking about behavior when they penned, “only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ.” Anybody who insists on reading an unrevised KJV today is highly unlikely to catch this nuance, unless someone has specifically taught them this, or they are avid readers of Shakespeare!
The majority of modern translations thus use words having to do with behavior, conduct, or manner of living. The old RSV spoke of one’s “manner of life,” and the ESV, which is an updating of the RSV, saw no need to change it here. The NIV speaks explicitly about conduct. The HCSB and NRSV likewise read “live your life in a manner...” while the NET and NASB mirror the NIV and use “conduct yourselves.”
But NLT, like the TNIV printed above, speaks of living “as citizens of heaven.” Where does this come from? The noun that is cognate to (i.e., from the same root as) politeuomai is politeuma and means citizenship. In Philippians 3:20, Paul uses this noun to declare explicitly that “our citizenship is in heaven, from which we eagerly await a Savior, Jesus Christ.” All of the versions I’ve mentioned so far use “citizenship” here except the RSV, which used “commonwealth” and the KJV which again used “conversation” in the old Elizabethan sense.
Is Paul already anticipating his discussion of 3:20 in 1:27? Is he investing a little extra meaning into the verb politeuomai in this earlier passage in Philippians than is usually implied by the term? The only other place the verb occurs in the New Testament is in Acts 23:1, in which Luke cites Paul affirming his good conduct throughout his life as a Christian. All the other occurrences in the Greek Bible (i.e., the Septuagint) come in the Apocrypha, once in the Additions to Esther and seven times in 2nd through 4th Maccabees, and never is the idea of citizenship present. Completely extra-biblical sources offer some support for the concept of citizenship, but it’s seldom the main point of the word.
What about “of heaven” in 1:27 in the NLT and TNIV? This expression corresponds to nothing in the Greek, even on the assumption that politeuomai does carry the sense of “live as citizens” here. But of course, Paul isn’t talking about following the laws of the Roman colony of Philippi, but of obeying God’s standards as revealed in the gospel, in God’s kingdom. And the affirmation that “our citizenship is in heaven” will explicitly appear in 3:20. So to clarify the distinction, translators who introduce citizenship into 1:27 have to go on and add something like “of heaven” to distinguish the two kinds of citizenship.
But then the danger is to view Paul’s command as ascetic, separatist, or otherworldly: “live as though you were already in heaven and not on earth” or something like that, which is not Paul’s point at all! Quite the opposite, Paul was very much talking about how to live on this earth, just not saying to follow merely human or secular standards of ethics. So the translations that speak only of good conduct in Philippians 1:27 are both the safest and the least confusing. Better to save citizenship in heaven for chapter 3.
It’s also another good reminder that, if you can’t read the Greek or Hebrew, always consult two or three translations, not just one. There is no translation anywhere that has always made the best choices in every passage!
Dr. Craig L. Blomberg serves as Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary.
“Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God.” (2 Cor. 2:17 TNIV)
“How much do you charge for preaching?” “What kind of honorarium will it take to get you to come and speak to us?” “What is your fee?”
I hear these kinds of questions frequently. I know that many Christian speakers give straightforward dollar-based answers to them. I recently learned of one very popular, very rhetorically gifted Bible professor who told a local pastor who was inquiring about the possibility of him coming to his church for a special event that he never spoke for less than $5000 per talk. I was stunned. I wasn’t sure which I was more amazed at—that he charged so much or that people were willing to give him so much, because he is very much in demand and speaks all over the country with great regularity.
Paul vigorously argues in 1 Corinthians 9:1-18 that Christian ministers should have their material needs met by those among whom they minister. In doing so, he broke sharply from rabbinic practice that generally forbade receiving money for ministry, lest it compromise one’s motives. Paul adds, though, that with the Corinthians he has not availed himself of this privilege. Some historical background shed light on his behavior. Wealthy patrons regularly supported itinerant teachers and philosophers in the Greco-Roman world but then expected they could “call the shots” as to what those speakers did and did not proclaim. Paul would have no “strings attached” to his presentation of the gospel or of God’s word to a specific audience. But when he could be sure that no strings were attached, he was happy to receive support—hence his thank you note that we call the letter to the Philippians.
What, then, is the point of his comment that he and his traveling companions “do not peddle the word for profit” in 2 Corinthians 2:17? Great orators and rhetoricians in Corinth and other Greco-Roman centers of public speaking commanded hefty sums for their speeches. In Corinth, particularly offensive to Paul were the Sophists whose emphasis on form and style over substance and content has bequeathed the term Sophistry even to the English language of today.
Paul’s point is that the motivation for Christian ministry should not be whatever remuneration may accompany it. Countless pastors around the world today are bi-vocational because their churches cannot afford to pay them enough to live on. How tragic, then, when some Americans refuse a ministry simply because the pay isn’t adequate. Of course, given the opportunity to devote full-time energy to a ministry because the people are able to pay me a wage on which I can live, I may choose to do that over a ministry that does not produce the same wage because it is the best stewardship of my time and efforts. But I have to regularly ensure that those are my true motives. And Paul always ties ministry to spiritual giftedness. If someone is called and gifted to preach or teach, they must find outlets for doing so in the context of the community of God’s people for their growth, whether or not they ever get paid or have some formal staff position in a church or organization.
So what do I say to the question of what I charge for a speaking engagement? I tell people I understand that different churches and organizations have different resources and that it isn’t fair to create a “one size fits all” answer to that question. I tell them that I would just ask that they would treat me at least as generously as they would anyone else they would invite to engage in a similar ministry. (For the past several years, I’ve often also told people that I’m trying to help put two daughters through private universities, but, Lord willing, in two more years, I won’t be able to say that anymore!) And then I do my best to be content with whatever, if anything, I receive. I sometimes don’t succeed as well as I’d like to, especially when I know I’ve gotten a fairly stingy honorarium by today’s standards. But I suspect something along these lines is what Paul had in mind.
“To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” (1 Cor. 7:10-11; TNIV)
The Denver Post had a cover story in its “Lifestyle” section recently on how older, long-married wives are increasingly divorcing their husbands. “Unhappiness, emotional estrangement and drifting apart are among the reasons more boomers are single than any previous cohort of 40-60 somethings” (Sheba R. Wheeler, “A gray area for women” [July 21, 2010], section D, page 1).
Debates over divorce and/or remarriage in Christian circles have tended to focus on the meanings of what have come to be known as Jesus’ exception clause (Matt. 19:9; divorce and remarriage can be considered in the case of adultery) and the Pauline privilege (1 Cor. 7:15-16; if a non-Christian partner wants to leave). Some Christian exegetes and/or therapists have argued for other similar worst-case scenarios to provide acceptable grounds for divorce—serious physical abuse, prolonged unrepentant addictions, life imprisonment, irreversible Alzheimer’s and the like.
Virtually no disagreement has existed, however, over the fact that, from a biblical perspective, mere “unhappiness, emotional estrangement and drifting apart” hardly qualify as acceptable reasons for divorce. All of these can be reversed if both partners make a good faith effort. But nothing in this newspaper article suggests these three reasons are limited to non-Christians, and personal experience shows that they are certainly not so limited.
One suburban Denver woman is quoted as saying, “The biggest thing was knowing I was approaching 50 and thinking I didn’t want to live the rest of my life married to someone I no longer loved” (section D, page 10). As is so endemic in our cultures and our churches, “love” is used here to describe a feeling. If you can fall in love, then you can fall out of love (or at least climb out of it)! If love, as in the Bible, is a choice, a commitment, then there is no falling. There is nothing that just happens to us outside of our control. Little wonder that cultures with arranged marriages (like many in biblical times) have microscopic divorce rates. The partners understand that it’s about how you behave toward one another, not about how you feel, that is most foundational to a marriage.
One might ask why this is “news” for the Denver Post. The article makes that answer clear also. Graying-haired men have been divorcing their wives in record numbers for some time now, often for “trophy wives”—noticeably younger, more attractive women who apparently care more about what their new, older partners can provide economically or socially in the short term than anything else, since second marriages on average dissolve faster than first ones. (Funny how in all the alleged interest in family values in the last presidential election, conservative Christians made next to nothing of the fact that this was precisely what the nominee of many of those voters’ choice had done years ago, whereas the other candidate had proved an exemplary husband and father. Guess the race really was about politics after all—which is probably what it should be—let’s just be honest about what we’re doing. But I digress.)
It’s not news either that most marriages that are going to end in divorce do so within their first eight years. What made this article worthy of publication was that the last bastion of faithfulness is falling. With younger men, younger women, and older men all leaving their spouses in record numbers for reasons far beyond anything remotely biblical, the only category of people left to join the bandwagon are older women. And now they have jumped on board.
It’s time to return to basics. Love is a commitment, not a feeling. Feelings follow from godly actions, not vice-versa. Wedding vows are promises: “till death do us part.” A divorcee by definition is a promise-breaker. Occasionally, it is impossible to keep promises no matter how much one wants to do so, because “it takes two to tango.” I cannot stay married if my spouse refuses to do so. But taking the initiative to divorce, and for no better reason than lack of personal fulfillment, simply cannot by any stretch of the Christian imagination ever be right.
I remember being shocked as a young adult by some Hollywood wedding (a true story) in which the traditional vows were replaced with promises to be faithful “until the death of love parts us.” That’s really what has become the norm today, even if we’re not honest enough to admit it. How many Christians getting married [now] would be prepared to go through with the wedding if those were the words they were told to repeat? Those who would be so prepared should save their money and skip the ceremony altogether. Especially for those already living together, wedding vows add nothing to what already exists unless they promise permanence. Might as well just keep “shacking up” with each other, to use some slang from my father’s lifetime, because it doesn’t take a promise to be faithful when good feelings are present. As C. S. Lewis put it years ago in objecting to shotgun weddings, why compound the sin of fornication with the sin of perjury? The whole point of wedding vows is to seal the relationship for the hard times.
Those who wouldn’t be prepared to have a wedding with such trivial promises need to think long and hard about what they are promising with the traditional vows. And keep thinking about it every week, month, and year of their lives thereafter.
The organization Bill McCartney founded had it right. It boils down to whether or not we are going to be promise keepers. And if I can’t trust someone in the most solemn pronouncement they will ever make in their lives, why should I trust them in anything else?
Dr. Craig L. Blomberg serves as Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary.
The more I study middle knowledge, the more I like it. No, I don't expect to see the demise of the Calvinist-Arminian debates in my lifetime. But when a position comes along that both centrist Calvinists and centrist Arminians can endorse, that can be supported by proponents of both libertarian and compatibilist free will, we might just be on to something.
OK, OK, cut the fancy terminology and tell us what you are talking about, you're saying! Right. Here goes. Middle knowledge is a proposed solution to predestination vs. free will, to divine sovereignty and human responsibility, going all the way back to the medieval Jesuit priest Molina (so sometimes it's also called Molinism).
Classic Calvinists, properly concerned to safeguard divine sovereignty, have typically rejected any theological system that bases God's predestining activity on the basis merely of his foreknowledge of how humans will respond to the gospel, because they're convinced that makes human free choice the ultimate determiner. Romans 8:29, of course, does base predestination on God's foreknowledge, but the Calvinist typically argues that the Greek prÅginoskÅ ("foreknow") there begins already to shade over into the idea of election because in the Old Testament the Hebrew yÄdÄ‘ ("know") often appears roughly synonymous with "choose." That would explain why Paul doesn't say just that those whom God foreknew he also predestined, which could be seen as tautologous, but "predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son."
Classic Arminians and Wesleyans, properly concerned to safeguard human freedom and accountability, have typically rejected any theological system that bases God's predestining activity on the basis merely of his gratuitous election, because they're convinced that makes human free choice ultimately a chimera. They often point out that prÅginoskÅ is not the same verb as just ginoskÅ (which the LXX uses to translate yÄdÄ‘ and that in Greek it most commonly means simple knowledge in advance. Thus predestination is based on God's foreknowledge.
Middle knowledge argues for both! If open theism in recent years has diminished divine omniscience more than orthodoxy has classically permitted, middle knowledge magnifies or expands God's omniscience beyond what most people have thought about. But it makes good sense: middle knowledge claims that God's perfect, infinite knowledge must be able to know not only what sentient creatures will freely choose in all situations in their lives but what everyone would do in every possible situation that they could confront. Even more magnificently, divine and unlimited knowledge must be able to discern what all possibly created beings would do in all possible situations (or, as philosophers like to say, all possible worlds).
So far so good, I hope. Now here's the rub. Because there will only ever have been a finite number of humans created before God brings this world as we know it to an end, that means there remain countless uncreated beings that he could have chosen to create but didn't. So God's very choice to create you and me and not various other people he could have is an act of his sovereign election utterly prior to our existence. Calvinists should be happy. But it is based on knowing what we will and would do in all actual and all possible situations. Arminians should be happy. Thus, William Lane Craig in The Only Wise God defends this view from a libertarian Arminian perspective; Alvin Plantinga in a chapel talk at Denver Seminary years ago did the same from a libertarian Calvinist perspective, and Terrance Tiessen in Providence and Prayer does so from a compatibilist Calvinist perspective.
Nor is all this some highbrow theoretical exercise. It has massive, practical pastoral ramifications. You or someone you care about has just experienced an incredible tragedy. How do we deal with it? Is God still sovereign? Absolutely! Did he know in advance this would happen? Yes. Is Romans 8:28 (just one verse before Romans 8:29--you noticed that, right?) still true that "in all things God works for the good for those who love him" (correctly NIV/TNIV, contra KJV's "all things work together for good. . ." [no, they don't!])? Yes, God is in this situation somewhere bringing good out of it. Did God cause the tragedy? No, he is not the author of evil (James 1:13). Why did he allow it? Because it was part of what was required if he was to create a universe with true human freedom and the freedom to allow the consequences of sin, both directly and indirectly (as in "life in a fallen world") without overruling them except on very rare occasions (which is why we call them miracles when he does).
And both Calvinists and Arminians are right in what they affirm about Romans 8:29 and wrong in what they deny. Both/and wins again!
Dr. Craig L. Blomberg serves as Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary.
Dr. Blomberg completed his PhD in New Testament, specializing in the parables and the writings of Luke-Acts, at Aberdeen University in Scotland. He received an MA from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and a BA from Augustana College. Before joining the faculty of Denver Seminary, he taught at Palm Beach Atlantic College and was a research fellow in Cambridge, England with Tyndale House.
In addition to writing numerous articles in professional journals, multi-author works and dictionaries or encyclopedias, he has authored or edited 20 books, including The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Interpreting the Parables, commentaries on Matthew, 1 Corinthians and James, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation, Neither Poverty nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions; Making Sense of the New Testament: Three Crucial Questions; Preaching the Parables; Contagious Holines: Jesus' Meals with Sinners; and Handbook of New Testament Exegesis.
For more, visit Denver Seminary.