Craig Blomberg

Craig Blomberg

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.

Are All Sins Equal?

“But you have neglected the more important matters of the law-- justice, mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23).

I hear the comment so often, in one form or another. It boils down to the question: “How can I judge someone else for what I think is their sin, when I commit plenty of sins myself?” There are numerous ways the Christian should respond. One answer is because Jesus told us to do so—see Matthew 18:15-18. A second involves definitions. If by “judge,” someone means being unnecessarily harsh or “judgmental,” then no, I shouldn’t act that way. That was Jesus’ point in Matthew 7:1. But Christ and the apostles regularly “judged” in the sense of analyzing what was right and wrong and declaring what fell into which category.

But in this blog I’m more interested in the issue behind this question which seems to suggest that all sins are somehow equal. One person commits adultery, but probably all of us lust. So how can we criticize the adulterer or engage in church discipline with them? After all doesn’t Jesus equate lust and adultery in the Sermon on the Mount? No, not exactly. He says that both bring us in danger of judgment. Every sin separates us from God, and every sin requires forgiveness. So in the sense that every sin creates a problem that needs to be dealt with, yes one can say that the Bible equates various sins.

But that hardly makes all of them equally bad! I would vastly prefer that my wife harbor inappropriate thoughts about another man but never act on them than that she commit adultery! I would even more prefer that people who dislike me think hateful things about me but not act on them than that they murder me! In terms of the severity of consequences for oneself and for others, especially in this life, there is a huge difference as to how bad different sins are.

And that is no doubt a big part of what Jesus meant when he criticized the Jewish leaders in Matthew 23 for scrupulously tithing, even down to the tiniest garden herb, but neglecting what he calls the “weightier” or “more important” matters of the Law. He immediately adds that they should have done the one without neglecting the other, thereby showing that he is not challenging any of the Law, at least not before his crucifixion, resurrection and sending of the Spirit at Pentecost would fulfill and thereby do away with the need for his followers literally to obey the civil and ceremonial laws of Israel. But even while the whole Law of Moses was still in force, there were issues that were much more important than others. Echoing the language of Micah 6:8, Jesus could sum these up with the terms “justice, mercy, and faithfulness.”

An older fundamentalism often seemed obsessed with railing against inappropriate sex, drink, and drugs. Today some Christians seem to revel in the degree to which they tolerate others who overindulge in any or all of these areas or actually themselves have sexual partners to whom they are not (heterosexually) married, or get drunk or are addicted to non-prescription drugs. But I wonder, have both groups overestimated how “weighty” these matters are compared with the neglect of social justice, concerning which Micah berated Israel?

Don't Be a Cretan!

"One of Crete's own prophets has said it:  'Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.'  He has surely told the truth!" (Titus 1:12)

Four years ago, my then 14-year-old daughter Rachel was watching me put together some power-point slides for class and asked if she could make one. I told her to make me something for Titus, since I didn't have much of anything creative for that often neglected of Pauline epistles. The result was a slide with several bullet-point entries like, "I like Titus." "Titus is short," "You should read it, too." She insisted I include it in my class presentation which I did every year since. Students always laughed.

Last summer she asked to revise the slide. She took out the bullet points and substituted one large all-capitals, stylized, red-letter slogan: "Don't be a Cretan!" The more I thought about it, the more it struck me that such a summary could well hold its own in competition for the "big idea" of the letter. Titus is pastoring one or more churches on the island of Crete in the Mediterranean sea, beset by problems related to a Judaizing heresy, perhaps with other local syncretistic elements mixed in. The Christians are quite young, many probably from rough and rustic backgrounds, so godly and mature leaders are hard to come by. In this context it is not surprising that the first two main topics Paul addresses after a rich, theologically detailed greeting (Titus 1:1-4) are the criteria for choosing elders/overseers (vv. Titus 1:5-9) and rebuking the false teachers (vv. Titus 1:10-16). Into this last section, he inserts the verse quoted above on the evils of being a Cretan.

Already in pre-Christian Greek philosophy the "liar's paradox" was well-known. If I truthfully declare that Andreas always lies, and then Andreas pipes up by saying, "I am lying," is he telling the truth or lying? If he is telling the truth, then his statement that he is lying is true, which means he has to be lying rather than telling the truth. If Andreas' statement is false, which it should be if he always lies, then it is false that he is lying which means he is telling the truth, which is what he can't be doing. So there is no way to answer the question as to whether Andreas is lying or telling the truth! Everybody still with me?  :)  (This is why I don't teach philosophy for a living!)

So now substitute Paul for me and the Cretans for Andreas. (Since Andreas is a Greek name and one I picked at random for the purposes of illustration, it's easy to make him be a Cretan). The reason Cretans got the reputation that they did was because they boasted that they housed the tomb of Zeus. But as head of the Olympic pantheon of Greek gods, Zeus could not die. So the Cretans' claim must be a lie. The Cretan philosopher Epimenides then coined the slogan that Paul quotes and endorses here.

Most commentators have simply assumed that Paul, like Epimenides, was employing hyperbole. He knows it is logically impossible for all of them to lie all the time. But as a broad generalization, he was able to use this well-known quotation to reinforce for Titus the seriousness of sorting out the problems in the Cretan churches. And the Cretans can't get too mad at Paul because all he is doing is citing their own writer back to them. Besides Epimenides' slogan had become somewhat humorous in the Hellenistic world; it wasn't necessarily even meant to cause offense, so much as poke fun at the silly claim about Zeus. Perhaps it wasn't too much worse, culturally speaking, than someone who might remind lifelong Cubs fans like me at the start of a new baseball season, "Cubs are always losers, always letting their fans down, lovable and laughable though they might be." Especially if a Cubs fan was being quoted, and since there is a core truth behind the quotation, it's hard to get too upset.

But English scholar Anthony Thiselton suggests that Paul is actually trying to point out how self-defeating it is to live in ways that do not match one's ideology or, in this case, religious commitments. This would certainly make the passage much more widely relevant and applicable, not only to situations that resemble Crete's but to all of us. 

We've just finished celebrating Good Friday and Easter Sunday, powerful annual reminders of the need for cruciform, selfless, servant lifestyles buttressed by the spiritual power already ours now to live above our circumstances and one day to triumph over death with resurrection bodies for life everlasting, wonderful beyond imagination. Are we demonstrating to the world around us that these spiritual truths are indeed realities in our lives, or are we creating our own liars' paradoxes, leading some to think, "Christians are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons"? Telling the truth, doing good, avoiding boorishness and violence, working hard and not overindulging our appetites for anything we are tempted to covet are crucial priorities for one who would bear Jesus' name before today's mockers and skeptics.

The Uniqueness of Sex

"Flee sexual immorality.  All other sins people commit are outside their bodies, but those who sin sexually sin against their own bodies." (1 Corinthians 6:18)

I remember my father (who was 37 when I was born) and his older sister (13 years older than him) describing young adulthood in the 1920s and 1930s. Women wore one-piece bathing suits that went down to the ankles. Non-Christians felt at least some guilt or shame if they had premarital sex, and in Christian circles virginity was the norm, with rare exceptions.

I had the "privilege" of having my adolescence span the turbulent period of the late 60s and early 70s when some women burned bras, Woodstock celebrated free air and love (i.e., a lot of public, outdoor sex), and Helen Reddy sang, "I am woman, hear me roar!" But still evangelical Christian leaders unequivocably upheld the historic Christian teaching on abstinence before marriage, even as not all of their young adult charges followed suit. Josh McDowell was still young, though, and spoke to rapt audiences of teens about "Maximum Sex"--i.e., saved for a heterosexual spouse.

Today, I regularly hear youth pastors saying that most of the "Christian" kids to whom they minister have had premarital sex. I hear well-read Christians of various ages admitting they're not sure the Bible really excludes the practice, since most of its prohibitions involve adultery--breaking the marriage covenant. I hear still others insisting that it doesn't matter what the Bible says about sex, it's as outmoded on the virtues of virginity as it is on gender roles in home and church. There's nothing wrong and a lot right about sexual relationships between consenting adults, they allege.  

The Bible hasn't changed, nor has God's Spirit, which enables humans to obey Scripture. So why are we giving up (or giving in) so ridiculously easily and prematurely in this area?

Then one reads 1 Corinthians 6:16 and just scratches one's head.  What? "Sexual immorality" (porneia or "fornication"--sexual relations with anyone other than a heterosexual spouse) is a unique sin against one's own body? What about cutting? What about alcohol or drugs? And surely suicide is the ultimate sin against one's body!

All very true, so long as "body" (sōma) is taken as meaning just the tangible or fleshly part of a human being. But the scholars who have researched the term in depth tell us it can also mean the human person in his or her most intimate acts of communication or communion with others. I suddenly start to understand a little better why the word "intercourse" is used both for conversation and for sex!

Now verse 16 makes sense. Plenty of sins damage one's own body but don't affect the bodies of other people. Sexual intercourse, by definition, requires two people. It is the most intimate of expressions of self-giving love; two people naked before each other, in postures and position that are meant to express ultimate vulnerability and therefore trust and ultimate allegiance, at least at the human level. Someone once said that what is most wrong with sex outside of marriage is not the risk of pregnancy or STDs, much as those remain even in our highly sexually educated society because people continue to refuse "protection." Rather, what's most wrong is that it takes from someone else what was designed to reflect the most intimate of human commitments without being willing to promise the ultimate loyalty intended to go along with that intimacy. Actually, they said it more succinctly and memorably, but I can't exactly remember how or where!

Augustine in his Confessions explained that once he got his sex life under control, he turned to his gluttony, because the same kind of drives were at work in each case, and the same solution required: delayed gratification. Maybe our obesity as a nation and our sexual incontinence are linked!

Does an Angel or Eagle Fly in Revelation 8:13?

Recently a friend from my church sent me a question on Facebook. She had read Revelation 8:13 out of both the New King James Version (NKJV) and the NIV (New International Version). The NKJV said that in one of John’s visions he heard an angel flying through the middle of heaven crying out woes over the earth. But the NIV said it was an eagle that was flying, not an angel. She wanted to know how two such different English translations could come from the same Greek word.

Here’s what I wrote her in reply:

Ah, the perils of using the KJV (or the NKJV)! :) The translators of the KJV did a marvelous job for their day with the couple dozen manuscripts available to them. But now we have rediscovered thousands, including dozens earlier and more reliable than what the KJV translators had access to. What is remarkable is how carefully preserved in general the Bible was, but there are differences.

The NKJV updated the language of the KJV but intentionally didn't change the manuscript base from which they worked. Some editions of the NKJV have footnotes alerting readers to the places where all other modern translations use a different textual basis but not all editions do this.

So, with that long-winded introduction, the short answer to your question is that “eagle” and “angel” DON'T both come from the same Greek word! The dozens of oldest and most reliable manuscripts have aetos, which means “eagle.” A handful of manuscripts, used by the KJV and NKJV, have angelos, which means “angel.” And a large number of very late manuscripts, reflecting scribal indecision and an attempt to harmonize the two readings, have henos angelos hos aetos, which means “one angel like an eagle”!

I’ve had enough experience with instances where the KJV and NKJV alone have one reading and all other translations of any recent vintage have a different one that I was pretty sure of my answer before even turning to my reference works. But for pastors and students used to working exclusively with the UBS (United Bible Societies’) Greek New Testament, you’ll find nothing at Revelation 8:13 to disclose any textual variants.  Remember that the UBS includes only about 1400 of what they deem to be the very most important or interesting variants out of a much larger number that they could have used.) The NA (Nestle-Aland) Greek New Testament, on the other hand, gives many more variants but, to conserve space, offers only very selective manuscript evidence to go along with each. The Word Biblical Commentary series also tends to give more detailed textual-critical information than any other commentary series today does, in small print, right after the translation of each passage and before the actual commentary proper on a passage begins. David Aune’s 3-volume masterpiece in the WBC gives as full a collection of textual variants as any volume in the NT part of the series (David Clines wins the award for his work on Job in the OT WBC volumes). So, Aune gave me the information I was able to provide for my friend in the above quoted paragraphs.

The NIV has way outsold other English translations of the Bible since it first appeared in 1978. Before the proliferation of several new translations that appeared in the last decade, it accounted for as much as 42% of all English Bibles purchased worldwide, though more recently it has dipped to closer to 30%. The KJV has frequently come in at about 20%, with the NKJV sometimes almost as high though usually in the mid-teens. The NLT has also often hovered around 20%, with no other translation even in double digits, percentagewise, of the “market share” in the last decade, though the ESV is starting to come close.

But why does the NKJV get this much attention? If you’re really in to the Elizabethan style of the KJV, it ruins it. If you can’t understand the KJV or simply value more modern English, there are a plethora of options for you. The only reason for retaining the NKJV is if you are among the less than one-tenth of one percent of all textual critics in the world who actually think the KJV and NKJV did use the better manuscripts. But lots more people than that have for some reason decided that the NKJV is for them. May I respectfully suggest they are misled.

Time to put the NKJV on the shelf if you own one and get a modern translation that uses an accurate textual base.

(Perceptive readers may recall previous blogs in which I argued that we should stop so much squabbling about the modern translations because they all have a place and something to contribute. I’m not contradicting myself in this blog, merely clarifying that, even though the English got updated in the NKJV, and even though it was published in the 1970s, it does not qualify as one of the truly “modern” translations that I was thinking about.)

When an Argument from Silence Becomes Utterly Meaningless

Not long ago an unsolicited e-mail asked me to comment on a skeptic’s blogsite that had posted a list of about twenty “historians” from the Jewish, Greek or Roman worlds of around the time of Christ. Not one of them ever mentioned Jesus, the blogger pointed out. Surely that should cast serious doubt on whether the Jesus Christians worship ever even existed.

It was an intriguing list. There were a few names I didn’t recognize that I had to look up, but most were indeed ancient writers from one of those three cultures. The trouble was that only about a third of them could be legitimately called historians. One was an ancient taxonomist who wrote about flora and fauna. A couple were writers on medicine or ancient science. Two were geographers. Several were poets and playwrights.

Of those who were truly historians, several did indeed live “around the time of Christ” but just a little bit before him. Gee, I wonder why they never mentioned him! Several others were actually second- or third-century writers not writing about life in Israel at all but about other parts of the Roman empire. In short, there wasn’t a single name on the list for which there would have been good reason for Jesus even to have been mentioned.

At least this blogger had the wherewithal to acknowledge that the first-century Jewish historian does twice refer to Jesus and that early second-century Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius do too. He obviously just had no idea who all these other folks were, and, in fact, acknowledged that he had taken the list from some obscure book published early in the twentieth century.

In our age of growing disinterest in history and classics (i.e., Greek and Roman language, history and literature) more generally, his faux pas isn’t surprising I guess. What is surprising to me, but perhaps it shouldn’t be either, are the number of people who ask why, even granted these late-first- and early-second-century witnesses, historians who wrote closer in time to Jesus’ ministry (probably 27 or 28 through 30 A.D.) didn’t refer to Jesus.

The question I always want to ask is “And which individuals are these who you think should have referred to Jesus?” The fact is that we no longer have in existence the writings of a single Jewish, Greek, or Roman historian who wrote about life in Israel during the first third of the first century. And even those whose names we know about, because later authors refer to them, are precious few in number, and we typically know little if anything of the contents of their writings. It’s hard for non-existent sources to reference Christ, or anyone else for that matter.

So why do so many atheists “buy” this meaningless argument from silence without even questioning whether sources exist in which we should expect to find something about Jesus but don’t. The only answer I can think of is that they really aren’t interested in learning truth, only in challenging it, and that without even being curious to find out what they don’t know that they don’t know!

G. K. Chesterton put it well a century ago. When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing. They believe in anything!

Christmastime Leadership

This week I got blindsided by someone who had let a lot of minor frustrations in his life build up throughout the fall until I unwittingly proved to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. All his fury was unleashed on me. Fortunately, only three days later, he profusely apologized and I gladly and quickly made amends. Reconciliation in ministry is often not that easy.

Pastors frequently testify to one or a small number of parishioners who remain a thorn in their flesh for years on end. They typically assume the worst of motives in their leaders, spread gossip—often a core of truth supplemented by false inferences, misleading embellishments, and negative innuendos. It can be extraordinarily difficult to know when to respond to unfair charges being made against oneself, risking an escalation of the problem, and when to try to ignore them in hopes that they will go away, but leaving others to believe untrue things about one. Many pastors try proactively to be very controlling with their congregations in hopes that people will be afraid to cross them. The strategy can work reasonably well, but it doesn’t foster good will and is not what Peter describes in [1 Peter 5:1-4].

Peter’s original audience included numerous Christian congregations in various Roman provinces in what today we would call Turkey (1 Pet. 1:1). They were undergoing local harassment for their faith (4:3-4) with Nero’s persecution looming on the horizon. If evidence from a slightly later period of time is at all representative, they were probably targets of many false representations of their beliefs and practices, mixed in with accurate descriptions of that which already repulsed the Hellenistic world. If anyone had accepted church leadership in hopes of satisfying their desires for power and influence, they might well have been tempted to resign as the situation grew bleaker. Peter uses a series of three contrasts in 5:2-3 to challenge the elders/overseers/shepherds of these churches to to reflect on their motives for leadership and to encourage them not to give up.  They should serve willingly, not for reward or status, and not autocratically. The term for “dishonest gain” could also mean “shameful gain” or “foolish gain.” Peter’s point could be that people are not to desire too much or inappropriate or ill-gotten gain, but more likely any time one’s motive for ministry is what one can get out of it one has lapsed into that which is dishonest, shameful or foolish.

How can Christian leaders continue to follow this counter-intuitive approach? Central to the answer to this question is recognizing the eternal glory that awaits us after we suffer. Verses 1 and 4 bracket Peter’s trio of contrasts by reminding us of the everlasting rewards of the life to come. As I think back on some of the models of leadership that have had the best impact on me over the years, I recall individuals who were secure enough in what they stood for and strong enough in their walk with the Lord that when people unjustly abused them, they didn’t fight back but quietly prayed for their oppressors and just kept moving forward in obedience to God. Dr. Vernon Grounds, professor, dean, president and chancellor of Denver Seminary (in that order) for 59 years, who passed away at age 96, may have been one of the best models ever of letting such criticism leave him undeterred, unruffled, and still kind to his critics. 

I can’t pretend that I’ve even come close to his model. But with 41 fewer years of life thus far, maybe I can still grow a little more. If the king of kings could become a human embryo, he can surely help me to become more humble and less defensive and self-justifying!

Dr. Craig L. Blomberg serves as Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary.

Can Allah and God Be Used Interchangeably?

“For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with an inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship – and this is what I am going to proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23)

Timothy George wrote an excellent book exploring the similarities and differences between central Christian and Muslim beliefs, published in 2002, and provocatively entitled Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad? Among other things, George observed that Old Testament Jews were strict monotheists, much like Muslims. Without an explicit concept of the Trinity, prior to the coming of Christ and New Testament revelation, their doctrine of God closely resembled Muslim understanding of Allah. In fact, the etymologies of Allah and El (or Elohim), a common Hebrew name for God in the Old Testament are probably related in pre-Arabic, pre-Hebraic Semitic tongues. Jews who did not become followers of Jesus often stumbled over the very thing Muslims do, the notion of the deity of Jesus or of a Triune God more generally. So perhaps Muslim views of Allah approximate pre-Christian Jewish understandings of Yahweh. Because the New Testament can properly speak of Yahweh, the Lord God of Israel, as Jesus’ father, then maybe the Father of Jesus is the God of Muhammad.

George, however, concludes that this is going too far. The God of the Old Testament was a Triune God from all eternity past, whether most Jews ever realized it or not. There are at least hints of a plurality within the Godhead in the Old Testament in ways there are not in the Qur’an. There is nothing in the Old Testament that unequivocally states that God cannot have a Son, as repeatedly appears in the holy book of Islam. Read both the Jewish Scriptures and the Qur’an and despite the occasional picture of Allah as compassionate, the dominant impression one gets is of an all-powerful, all-knowing being whose mood is almost always one of judgment, primarily on outsiders to Islam. Read the Old Testament—actually read the whole thing and don’t just trust someone else’s simplistic summary—and Yahweh, God of Israel, is predominantly a God of love. When judgment does appear, most of the time it is against God’s own people. The major exception, with the inhabitants of Canaan in the days of Joshua, came only after centuries of God’s patience, until their sins had reached “full measure” (Gen. 15:16).

But one of our readers asks me to address this issue via a slightly different question: Can Allah and God ever be used interchangeably? Here I would agree with many missiologists, especially some who have served in Muslim contexts, that the answer is yes, so long as one goes on to define one’s terms carefully.

That’s exactly what Paul did on Mars Hill. Using theos, the general term for G/god in the Greek language, and based on an inscription to an unknown theos, he proceeded to define the term for the Athenians more accurately. But he never abandoned the term. “God” is an exceedingly common word for God in the Bible! There are plenty of accounts from the history of Christian missions of missionaries insisting on using a foreign word for God, or even creating a new word, in a given language because they cannot accept any indigenous word as close enough in meaning to the God of Scripture. Inevitably, additional barriers have been erected for the acceptance of the Gospel. Now in some instances, this may have been unavoidable, if no term exists that is not inherently polytheistic.

But in Arabic, Allah is as monotheistic as words come. Arabic Christians, before Islam was even birthed in the seventh century, used Allah to translate the biblical words for God. Here is a history we can draw on. Theos, of course, was used by Greek translators of the Septuagint, long before the coming of Christ, despite it being a term very susceptible to polytheistic overtones, but not inherently so.

So it all depends on context. If one can use Allah and explain what one means by it and this is a bridge for sharing Christian beliefs, by all means use it. If among a different group of people, it is inextricable from distinctively Islamic tenets, one may have to abandon it. Great discernment is needed either way.

What is the "Sin Unto Death" (1 John 5:16b)?

"There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that" (TNIV).

I continue to think a lot about apostasy. No, not as an option for me (!), but trying to make sense of the experiences and decisions of others. I also recently finished Robert Yarbrough's new Baker Exegetical Commentary on 1-3 John and gave it a glowing review (see under Denver Journal on our website). John has a lot to say about the topic in these little letters and the verse quoted above may be the most well known of all he has to say.

Ironically, his main point in this context is to encourage his congregations to pray for those who have committed all other kinds of sins besides the one that leads to death (vv. 1 John 5:16-17). But by setting up the contrast between the two kinds of sins, he naturally piques our curiosity about the more heinous of the two.

It is unlikely that John is talking about sins that lead to physical death, as with Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11. Every other use of "life" (zoÄ“) or "death" (thanatos) in the Epistles of John refers to spiritual life or death. In light of 1 John 2:19, it is unlikely that John thinks of these people who sin unto death as ever having been true Christians, though they may have fooled others and even themselves (the kind of deceit that should preclude us ever treating ‘eternal security" glibly or casually and that should ever keep us pronouncing with 100% assurance on the spiritual condition of anyone else).

1 John 3:10 offers us considerable help here: "This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Those who do not do what is right are not God's children; nor are those who do not love their brothers and sisters." No, the kind of help I'm thinking of is not what some might immediately think of - that professions of faith must be complemented and thereby demonstrated by love and obedience to the commandments, though that is a central theme of John. Rather it is the simpler but subtler observation that those whom one category of "fake Christians" fail to love are called adelphoi ("brothers and sisters," or "siblings" for those who prefer an accurate, one-word English equivalent).

But the way this term of biological or spiritual kinship is used involves reciprocity. I never call someone my brother who cannot in turn call me his brother. So that means that the fake Christians in John's community would have also been called brothers (or sisters). Thus when this same language of siblingship reappears in 1 John 5:16, we dare not assume that it proves John has true believers in mind. He is simply echoing the language of the community itself as they refer to one another as brothers and sisters. Tragically, some who have these terms applied to them and perhaps apply them to themselves as well may turn out to have been masquerading, wittingly or unwittingly.

Are we therefore never to pray for such people? As Paul would say, mē genoito ("by no means," or for Denver Seminary grads who had Elodie Emig or me for Greek, you'll know the more accurate though dynamically equivalent translation that might offend some readers)! One has to recall that Greeks didn't put their negations in misleading places in their sentences like we do. John very intentionally says that he is not telling them, on this occasion, to pray for those who sin unto death. This is quite different from him telling them not to pray for them! He's simply saying that he's not talking about the sin unto death in this context but those sins that aren't unto death.

Of course, if we knew who those people were who had so hardened their hearts that they had committed what Jesus calls blasphemy against the Spirit (Matthew 12:32) so that God gives them over to their depravity (Romans 1:24-28), we could stop praying for them, knowing it was pointless. But we don't have such knowledge and when we guess as to who such people might be we often guess wrongly. So we dare never stop praying for anyone no matter how much it seems like they might be sinning unto death. Deathbed conversions remain surprisingly common even today, including by some of the once-most-hardened atheists and "believers"-turned atheists!

So what is the sin leading to death? Yarbrough puts it well: it "is to have a heart unchanged by God's love in Christ and so to persist in convictions and acts and commitments like those John and his readers know to exist among ostensibly Christian people of their acquaintance, some of whom have now left those whom John addresses" (p. 311). The assurance John offers is always for those who are presently believers (1 John 5:13), not for those who have repudiated their professions of faith. But as long as the breath of life remains in a person, repentance unto eternal life is always possible. The only unforgivable sin is the sin of unwillingness, in the final analysis, to repent and come to Christ.

The Proper Use of Galatians 1:8?

I knew I was in trouble when I saw the Scripture chosen for the header at the top of this pastor's blog: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that person be anathema" (Galatians 1:8). Without reading a single post, I accurately predicted what its contents would be -- tirades against all the ways mainstream evangelicalism had gone "liberal." I was actually honored to be included with the many wonderful godly leaders and scholars who were attacked, including former teachers and colleagues, current peers with whom I went to school, and leading pastors on the American evangelical scene.

The blog was extreme, but the use of Galatians 1:8 was not unusual. There is a large segment of very conservative evangelicalism or fundamentalism that regularly appeals to the seemingly harsh language of the New Testament in combating false teachers, whether in Galatians, or in 2 Corinthians 10, or in Philippians 3, or in 2 Peter 2 or in Jude 1 to justify using harsh invective against those with whom they disagree. How can anyone object? They are following inspired, inerrant models!

One can and should object for at least five reasons. First, such rhetoric was more common and acceptable in the first century than it is today. Read the Old Testament prophets, the diatribes at Qumran, or the full text of the Hippocratic Oath and Paul seems almost mild in comparison. Yet this language was understood as neither ad hoc nor ad hominem but conventional, culturally acceptable ways of strongly disassociating oneself from certain perspectives.

Second, even in Paul's world one had to balance this text against his quite different command in Galatians 6:1-"if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently."

Third, as I showed in a paper published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 2002, the harshest, condemning language in the New Testament is consistently reserved for those who challenge the very heart of the saving message of Jesus Christ. Unless a false teacher's beliefs or behavior, if imbibed, would prove so damaging that a person would actually be lost who adopted them, then the inspired authors' tones remain quite different.

Fourth, even when it is a core doctrine that is at stake, it is those who have distorted the gospel in an overly conservative, legalistic, works-righteousness direction who come in for the strong denunciation, not those who are flirting with "left-leaning" boundaries.

Finally, the only acceptable reasons for such rhetoric can be the sincere hope that it will win the offending person or persons (back) to the Lord and/or keep others from following suit. In today's Western world, the latter almost never occurs when one replicates such harsh tones. Indeed, one's opponents are simply alienated even further and their antagonism is reinforced. Increasingly, especially among those not yet middle-aged, even Christians recognize that this flies in the face of the centrality of the command to love one's neighbor and even one's enemy. Those who weren't in any danger of doing so become likely to throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject Christianity altogether when they observe Christians who are characteristically combative.

That ought to be more than enough to warn all of us who care about what God thinks and wants in this world to be extremely wary of ever sounding like Paul in Galatians 1:8--except, ironically, in the occasional need to censor people like the writer of the blog I stumbled across, since his legalistic theology actually turned out to be a close replica of the Judaizers Paul censored in Galatia!

He or she who has hears to hear, let them hear...

The Rich in James 5

"Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and ear your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you" (James 5:1-6)

Of course these words don't apply to us! In the context of James these are most likely the rich non-Christian who were oppressing the largely impoverished congregations James pastored, made up of day-laborers, akin to our modern-day migrant workers, in agricultural settings. By not receiving their agreed-on wages at the end of each day, the workers might not have enough money to buy food for themselves and their families. If this happened often enough, they would have to borrow money in order to avoid starvation. But they would sometimes be unable to repay their debts and eventually could be thrown into debtors' prison. There they would have no way of earning any money. Unless they had friends, they would not eat in prison because ancient Roman prisoners did not bother to feed prisoners. But friends from outside could bring prisoners things to eat. Unless a well-to-do benefactor came to their aid from outside, they would languish in prison for life, a life often drastically shortened by the cruel conditions. It is this sense in which the rich oppressors were condemning and murdering innocent people.

The Sunday before Election day, I preached in the only Evangelical church of Meynooth, Ireland, home to the theological college that trains Ireland's Catholic priests and, until six years ago, was bereft of evangelical churches altogether. It was a small gathering of about one hundred people meeting in a large classroom of a secondary school. But what a wonderful gathering of people it was, welcoming, friendly, and yet serious about their faith. As has regularly been my experience in Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand (but rarely in the United States except after special disasters or tragedies), part of the worship service was devoted to praying for the world and the nation in some detail, by a leader very abreast of the news of the week. The children's sermon even involved an explanation of American politics, the election, and the significance of the outcome in a very even-handed, unbiased fashion and with more political savvy than I often experience in American evangelical churches.

I shouldn't have been surprised. Most countries in the world spent a disproportionate amount of their recent news on the American elections, not because they were enamored with America, but because they realized that in our global village their political and economic well-being is closely tied to what the U.S. does. I was reminded once again of how evangelicals even in the comparatively prosperous nations of Western Europe (and Ireland had the fastest growing economy in the world at one point in the last decade until the recent financial downturn) still lag noticeably behind even the average middle-class American Christian. Not in a critical but merely in an informative way, the pastor in Meynooth reminded his Irish congregation before I spoke that 50% of all the military spending in the entire world was done by Americans in the last year, that Americans have one of the highest percentage of homeless people in the "developed" world, and that Americans still consume more of the world's resources than any other country on the planet, even though the Chinese have between four and five times as many people as we do.

How do we know that the rich in James 5:1-6 are non-Christian? The two main answers are (1) because of the behavior described of them, and (2) because God pronounces only judgment against them. But then if we are honest, we have to say that, by global standards, we are the ones who have lived in luxury and self-indulgence, especially in what we spend on our homes and on our churches, in how much we eat and how much we throw away on recreation and entertainment. At some point presumably this disqualifies any profession of faith in Jesus we might otherwise make. I wish I knew where that line was.

But that would only tempt me to get as close to the line as possible. Since I don't know, I have to consistently ask myself how I can do more and more to move away from the danger of being anywhere close to such a line. After all, the earnings on the investments I didn't give away in the last ten years have all disappeared in the last few months due to the financial crisis. Will I ever learn the lesson?

Why Do Teachers Face Stricter Judgment?

"My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation." (James 3:1 KJV)

I suppose the only good thing about this translation of this verse is that it might have dissuaded a few antebellum Christians from becoming slaveowners if they were sitting on the fence! 

The word rendered "masters" in Elizabethan English, however, is correctly rendered in all modern translations as "teachers." But of course that raises major questions for people like me. Did James really think that all teachers, or at least all teachers in the church would be condemned? Surely not. Lest there be any doubt at all, James includes himself as one of the teachers involved, but it would be strange theology (and history) that viewed James as condemning himself, especially when condemnation in the Bible usually refers to hell!

Again, modern translations rectify the problem by typically rendering the final words in accurate twentieth or twenty-first century English as "judged with stricter judgment" or "judged more strictly." But I'm still not entirely assuaged by being told that those who teach God's word will be judged more strictly, especially when I see some commentators still trying to relate this to degrees of reward in heaven. Of course, I decided a long time ago that Martin Luther had the better side of the Reformation-era debate over that disputed doctrine in denying differences in believers' status or state in heaven beyond the inevitable differences they would experience as they stood before God on Judgment Day. I even wrote an article published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society way back in 1992 to that effect (long before anybody made digital copies, I might add, just in case somebody might be hoping that I could e-mail them one).

But then what is the stricter judgment of which I should beware? The larger context of James 3:1-12 is all about the power of the tongue for both good and evil. Teachers in James' day, even more than in our own, relied on speech. In fact, what typically distinguished the teacher from other forms of leaders or speakers was that they were responsible for passing on a fixed body of catechetical tradition related to the subject at hand. Many times this information was carefully memorized and students were expected to memorize it as well. The rabbis often argued that until you had a passage of Scripture committed to memory you could not discuss it because you might misrepresent it. Ah, if we could reinstate that in our churches ... :-) But it won't happen, I know.

The point is that teachers were committed to a higher standard of accuracy than others because they were the bearers of the tradition. But teachers were also expected to practice what they preached. In ways not nearly as frequently true in our modern, Western world, students were meant to observe their teachers in every situation of life, so that they could learn how to act in all those situations, including those in which a person sinned and had to repent. So the second way in which teachers could incur stricter judgment was in the poor choice of words they spoke (or in the way they spoke them) in contexts outside of rote memorization. Teachers, both ancient and modern, inhabit settings in which they experience virtually every kind of temptation to speak sinfully: "arrogance and domination over students; anger and pettiness at contradiction or inattention; slander and meanness toward absent opponents; flattery of students for the sake of vainglory" (Luke Johnson, The Letter of James, 263).

Why are these sins more serious when committed by teachers rather than by other people? (1) More people may be affected. (2) A closer relationship of trust may be violated. (3) The very person who should be the student's best model fails in that capacity. (4) The resulting hurt may be greater. Apologies can be made and errors can be corrected but the damage from untruthful or unloving words may not be able to be fully eradicated. Forgiveness may, in some instances, come quickly, but trust always takes longer to be re-earned. The stricter judgment against which James warns may, therefore, at least in large part, have to do with negative consequences of the teachers' sins in this life.

This election campaign has involved some of the most vicious rhetoric I can recall in my lifetime. No, not primarily by the candidates, but often by Christian leaders and teachers anathematizing one of the candidates and anyone who would vote for them. The blogworld, on just about any topic, seems to bring out the worst in people, including Christian leaders and teachers, perhaps because of the impersonal and distance-creating nature of the medium. People say things and say them in ways they would never say to someone's face. E-mail and Facebook create the same temptations. The non-evangelical world already thinks far too many of us are far too combative. Let's take James 3:1 to heart and work hard at a much kinder, gentler character.

Conversation, Conduct, or Citizenship (Philippians 1:27a)?

“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.