Translation commentary on Philippians 4:8

Apparently Paul is here making use of some ethical terms which are found in lists of virtues. The teaching device of reciting such a list is typically that of moral philosophers. But there seems to be no need for suggesting that Paul’s purpose is to urge his readers to learn from pagan society. He is simply interested in seeing that his Philippian friends develop certain good qualities. These apparently reflect the apostle’s own conduct and are the qualities which help to bring God’s presence (v. 9). Even though some of the terms used here are not found elsewhere in Paul’s letters or in the entire New Testament, all except one (honorable) are found in the Septuagint.

As the phrase in conclusion shows, the apostle once again prepares to bring his letter to a close. This adverbial expression is literally “for the rest” or “for what remains,” meaning “as to what remains to be said.” Most likely this is the meaning intended here, and so a number of translators render it as “finally” (Moffatt Revised Standard Version Jerusalem Bible New American Bible). In some instances in conclusion may be rendered as “and now to end what I am going to say,” “and now my final words are,” or “what follows is all that I am going to say.”

Paul lists eight good qualities. These are introduced by a series of six phrases, each beginning with “as many things as” and summed up by two phrases, each beginning with “if there is.” The first six ethical terms are adjectives and all have plural forms, and the last two are nouns and have singular forms. This rather stately and symmetrical construction can be arranged in pairs (cf. New English Bible Jerusalem Bible). But since the last two “if there is” phrases, being more generic, serve to sum up the preceding “as many things as” phrases, Good News Translation reorders the structure by moving the last two constructions to the front and punctuates them with a colon, thus … things that are good and that deserve praise:.

The present imperative verb rendered fill your minds with (literally, “consider” or “calculate”) certainly means more than “keep in mind” (Moffatt) or “think about” (Revised Standard Version). It is rather “take (them) into account” and reflect carefully upon them in order that they may shape your conduct. These good qualities are not merely things that are good for the head, but things that need to be transformed into action. The present imperative has the force of continual action (Barclay “your thoughts must continually dwell on…”). The phrase fill your minds poses a number of problems if translated literally into other languages. It is often better, therefore, to employ such an expression as “think only about” or “consider only.”

In this type of context the English word things refers not to particular concrete objects but primarily to actions and events. In many languages one can avoid a reference to “things” by translating simply “think only about what is good and deserves praise.” In some cases, however, it is necessary to talk about “happenings” or “events” which have certain qualities. Therefore one can say “think only about those happenings that are good and ought to be praised,” or “… what people do that is good and worthy of being praised by other people.”

The noun rendered good appears nowhere else in Paul’s letters, and elsewhere in the New Testament only in 1 Peter 2.9 and 2 Peter 1.3, 5. This word is one of the most important terms in Hellenistic moral philosophy. The difficulty in translating it is indicated by the many different renderings: “virtue” (King James Version Knox cf. Jerusalem Bible New American Bible), “excellence” (Revised Standard Version Moffatt Barclay cf. Goodspeed), “goodness” (Phillips). In classical thought it is an inclusive term that can describe every kind of excellence. The English word “virtue” is by no means as inclusive in meaning as the original Greek word. “Excellence” in modern usage has very little to do with moral conduct. The only word which may have nearly all the force of the original is goodness.

The word praise (Moffatt Knox “merit”; New English Bible “admirable”) is used in 1.11 in reference to the praise of God. As a rule Paul thinks only of what God will praise, but in this context he is obviously speaking of the kind of conduct that wins the praise of men (Barclay “wins men’s praise”).

In order to indicate clearly the relation between the clause those things that are good and that deserve praise and the clause things that are true, noble right, pure, lovely, and honorable, it may be very useful to introduce the second clause by some such expression as “that is to say,” “that includes,” or “these actions are also.”

Things that are true certainly refers to more than truthfulness in speech; it includes truthfulness and sincerity in thought, attitude, and action. In this type of context the meaning of true may often by conveyed more satisfactorily in a negative expression, for example, “in which there is nothing false.”

It is difficult of find a good word for the adjective rendered noble. This fact is reflected in the diverse translations: “honest” (King James Version), “honorable” (American Standard Version Phillips), “worthy” (Moffatt Goodspeed), “nobly serious” (Barclay), and “deserve respect” (New American Bible). Another possibility is “dignified,” since this adjective is often used in that sense. Sometimes the concept of noble may be expressed by an idiomatic phrase, for example, “that which causes people to look up,” or “that which causes people’s eyes to admire.”

Right is a relational term. A man is “just” (Revised Standard Version New English Bible etc.) and therefore right when he gives to God and to his fellow men what is their due. He accepts and performs his proper duty to God and man. Some of the implications of a term for right may be expressed as “right in the eyes of God and people.” Something of the same meaning may be expressed in some languages as “fair for all people.”

The word pure, when used of ceremonial activity, describes that which has been cleansed and is fit to offer to God. But it is used here in the ethical sense as a description of what is morally pure, undefiled, blameless. This meaning may often be expressed by a negative phrase, for example, “in which there is nothing to be blamed,” “something which has no fault,” or “something in which nothing bad has been added.”

The word rendered lovely appears only here in the New Testament. It basically means “that which calls forth love,” or “that which is love-inspiring.” One may thus render lovely as “that which causes love,” or “what people want to love.” When it is used of man, it describes someone who has a winsome personality, is friendly and pleasant to be with. He is “attractive” (Moffatt), “amiable” (Goodspeed), “lovable” (New English Bible). In some languages “lovable” or “lovely” cannot apply to things, so “likable” or “pleasing” would be the term to use.

The rendering honorable represents another Greek term found only here in the New Testament. It means basically something that is “good sounding,” that is, fit or pleasant to be heard, not likely to offend people (New American Bible “decent”; Bruce “reputable”; New English Bible alternative “of good repute”). Honorable may also be translated as “what men can always think good about.” Or it may be expressed negatively as “something in which there is nothing bad to take away from the good.”

Quoted with permission from Luo, I-Jin. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1977. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Philippians 1:4

This verse is sometimes regarded as parenthetical because Paul’s thanksgiving is not mentioned again until verse 5 (cf. Luther), but this conclusion is unnecessary, for the following reasons. First, there is no need to mention the object of thanksgiving in verse 5, since it is already implicit in the phrase “every time I think of you” (v. 3). Good News Translation makes the object explicit by supplying “for you,” thus “I thank my God for you every time I think of you.” Secondly, there is no evidence that verse 4 is a digression, since it connects rather naturally both with what precedes and with what follows. Both “thanksgiving” (v. 3) and “supplication” (v. 4; the word translated pray in Good News Translation) are essential components of prayer. Furthermore, verse 5 gives the reason for the “joy” mentioned in verse 4. Finally, the sense of “joy,” being the dominant tone in this letter (1.18, 25; 2.2, 17, 18, 28, 29; 3.1; 4.1, 4, 10), is not likely to be parenthetical in Paul’s thought.

The word translated pray (a noun in Greek) is not the usual word for prayer. Its essential component is “supplication” (American Standard Version [American Standard Version] “in every supplication of mine”). The supplication Paul continuously makes is for you all. One cannot fail to be impressed by the repeated use of “all,” “each,” or “every” in this letter, especially when the Philippian church is referred to (1.4, 7, 8, 25; 2.17; 4.21). The word seems to be related to Paul’s constant exhortations to unity (1.27; 2.1-4; 4.2, 3, 5, 7, 9). The repeated reference to all the members of the Philippian church is intended to remind them of the danger of divisions, which is the one negative element in Paul’s general feeling of satisfaction with respect to that group of believers. One should not conclude that the use of “all” is meaningless and may be left untranslated (cf. Phillips New American Bible).

In verse 3 the phrase for you must be understood in the sense of “because of you,” but in verse 4 for you all must be understood in the sense of “on behalf of you all.” I pray for you must be expressed in some instances as “I pray to God that he will help you” but in others it maybe sufficient simply to say “I speak to God about you.”

The semantic elements in the expression I pray with joy must be reversed in some languages, for example, “I am happy when I pray” or “I feel joy in my praying.” In some languages this joy may be expressed idiomatically as “my heart dances as I pray,” or “my abdomen is content as I talk with God.”

Quoted with permission from Luo, I-Jin. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1977. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Philippians 2:6

The hymn proper begins here.

He always had the nature of God is literally “who, being in the form of God” (King James Version American Standard Version). “Who” points to Christ as the subject. The word rendered “being” is not the common Greek word for “being,” but it denoted one’s essential and unchangeable nature. The participle is either present or imperfect. In either case, it signifies a continuing state, so it is best rendered he always had, or “was his from the first” (New English Bible).

The Greeks had two separate words for “form,” and both are used in the hymn. One denotes an essential form of something which never alters, a form which corresponds to an underlying reality. The other suggests an outward form which may change from time to time and from circumstance to circumstance. The former, which appears in verses 6-7 (elsewhere in the New Testament only in Mark 16.12), is translated nature. The latter, which is used in verse 7 (elsewhere in the New Testament only in 1 Cor 7.31), is rendered likeness. When the author says that Christ existed in the “form of God,” he implies that Christ had the nature of God. This is the sense adopted by Goodspeed “he possessed the nature of God,” Moffatt “he was divine by nature,” Phillips “who had always been God by nature,” and New English Bible “divine nature was his.”

One must realize that in a poetic passage like this a precise metaphysical sense cannot be pressed. To say he always had the nature of God is not equivalent to saying that “Christ is God” or that “Christ is of one substance with God.” Similarly he … took the nature of a servant (v. 7) does not imply that Jesus was basically only a “servant.” Here nature should be taken in the general sense of “one’s inherent character or quality” which is manifested and expressed in actions. And so it is in Jesus’ humble and obedient ministry that the early church sees God himself working.

In a number of languages there is no abstract term such as nature. The closest equivalent would be an expression of “likeness,” and therefore the first line of this hymn may be rendered as “He has always been just like God.” One must obviously avoid an expression which would be equivalent to saying He has always been God himself.

The meaning of by force he should try to become is to some extent conditioned by the next phrase equal with God. It is therefore best to consider the meaning of the latter expression first. Equal with God is probably better taken in the sense of “to exist in a manner equal to God.” The structure of the hymns (synonymous parallelism, cf. v. 7) suggests that “equality with God” is closely related in meaning to “having the nature of God,” though not necessarily identical. The former is a natural accompanying consequence of the latter. By virtue of the fact that Christ had the nature of God, he naturally had the divine prerogative, that is, a unique privileged status in relation to God. Both expressions signify Christ’s unparalleled affinity with God. The primary focus of had the nature of God is in Christ’s sharing God’s “inherent character and quality,” while the emphasis in equal with God is to the relation with God’s “rank” or “status.” Taken in this sense, “equality with God” is not a reference to equality of attributes or powers, nor is it alluding to a higher dignity which Christ could achieve in the future; it is an honored status Christ already had.

The Greek word rendered by force he should try to become is a noun which appears only here in the New Testament and which occurs only rarely in Greek literature. Because of its rarity, its meaning has been debated. The form of the noun suggests an active meaning. It is so understood by King James Version (“thought it not robbery to be equal with God”). From this point of view, Christ did not regard his claim to equality with God as something unlawful; it was something rightfully his. But this interpretation does not seem to be suitable in the context. The general consensus of scholarly opinion is that the noun should be taken in a passive sense. Three possible meanings have been suggested:

1. It can mean “a prize to be seized.” This is the meaning adopted by Good News Translation (so also Revised Standard Version “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,” New English Bible “he did not think to snatch at equality with God,” New American Bible “he did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at”). On this understanding, “equality with God” is not something already possessed by Christ. He declined to do what he could have done.

2. It can also mean “a prize to be held tight.” This is the sense favored by Jerusalem Bible “yet he did not cling to his equality with God,” and Barclay “but he did not regard his equality to God as a thing to be clutched to himself” (cf. the alternative renderings of Good News Translation and New English Bible). The implication is that “equality with God” is something which Christ already possessed and which he might have held on to, but he resolved not to do so. This interpretation appears to suit the context better, for it is difficult to conceive that Christ could have given up what he did not have (cf. v. 7).

3. Another meaning has much to commend itself in this context; that is “a lucky find,” “a piece of good fortune.” The sense is that Christ held a privileged status which could open up the future possibility of advantage, but he refused to utilize this status or to exploit his privileges. This interpretation also implies that “equality with God” is something Christ already had, but it has the added advantage of giving full value to the basic sense of the noun “snatching” instead of “holding.” If this interpretation is adopted, the phrase can be rendered “he did not utilize equality with God as a gain to be exploited,” or “he did not exploit equality with God for his own advantage” (Bruce).

In order to distinguish clearly between the nature of God and equal with God, it may be necessary to speak of the first as “being just like God,” and of the second as “ranking as high as God.” In other languages equality may be expressed idiomatically as “sitting on God’s feet,” “standing as high as God,” or “having God’s own power.”

Quoted with permission from Luo, I-Jin. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1977. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Philippians 3:8

Verses 8-11 are a complicated long sentence in Greek. This sentence needs to be restructured into shorter sentences in order to preserve clarity of thought.

Paul uses a series of particles (“yes rather even”) as a forceful introduction for an important statement. The combined force of these particles indicates that his statement in verse 7 is inadequate, and he feels constrained to reinforce it. The force of these particles has been expressed in various ways: Jerusalem Bible “not only that”; New English Bible “I would say more”; Barclay “yes, and more than that”; Good News Translation not only those things. The Good News Translation translation makes explicit the fact that the things which Paul counts as loss are not limited to those already mentioned. “Nothing” can compete with the supreme gain of knowing Christ. The contrast between verses 7 and 8 is clearly brought out in the Good News Translation rendering: those things vs. everything, and loss vs. complete loss.

With the phrase not only those things, it may be necessary to add some verbal expression such as “I consider as a loss,” or “I consider as no advantage at all,” for example, “not only do I consider all these matters as no advantage at all, but I consider everything as nothing for the sake of what is so much more valuable.”

Good News Translation takes the preposition rendered “for” in both King James Version and American Standard Version to mean for the sake of, as in 3.7 above. It can also mean “because of” (Revised Standard Version), signifying that the supreme worth of knowing Christ surpasses all other gains. Since the idea of comparison is already implicit in the neuter participle (used as a noun) rendered what is so much more valuable, there seems to be no need to give the preposition the unusual meaning of “compared to” (Moffatt Goodspeed). The basic meaning of this neuter participle is “surpassing” (Goodspeed Jerusalem Bible; “supreme advantage”; Moffatt “supreme value”).

It may be necessary in some languages to make more specific the expression I reckon everything as complete loss, for example, “I count everything I used to do as a complete loss,” or “whatever I used to do is now completely valueless in my reckoning.”

If for the sake of is understood as cause, one may translate this phrase as “because of what is much more valuable.” It is also possible to interpret for the sake of as introducing a type of goal, for example, “in order to gain what is so much more valuable,” “in order to have what is so much more valuable,” or “… what is worth so much more.”

Paul further defines this “supreme advantage” as The knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. The noun translated knowledge is a difficult word. It was one of the key words in the pagan religions in Paul’s time, often used of a revealed knowledge of the mystery of salvation—a mystical knowledge, a communion with the deity. It is possible that this sense is used here also, but more likely Paul’s use of this word is rooted in an Old Testament concept of knowledge—God’s knowledge of his people in election and grace (Exo 33.12, 17; Amos 3.2) and his people’s knowledge of him in love and obedience (Jer 31.34; Hos 6.3; 8.2). Primarily, this knowledge is not intellectual but experiential. In this context, the knowledge of Christ is personal and intimate, as the expression my Lord shows, certainly more than an intellectual apprehension of truth about Christ. Rather, it is a personal appropriation of and communion with Christ himself. The knowledge of Christ Jesus no doubt does involve one’s thoughts, but in its distinctive biblical usage it may be said to involve primarily one’s heart. The knowledge of Christ Jesus means, not the knowledge Christ has, but my knowing Christ, and so one may restructure the phrase as “to know Christ Jesus as my Lord” (cf. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). In some languages the order of Christ Jesus my Lord has to be reversed, that is, “my Lord Christ Jesus.”

The knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord is an apposition to the preceding clause, what is so much more valuable, and this appositional relation may need to be made more specific, for example, “namely, the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord,” or “that is to say, the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.”

Since in this context knowledge is not a matter merely of “knowing about,” it may be essential in some languages to employ a rendering such as “experiencing Christ Jesus my Lord with me,” or “becoming associated with Christ Jesus my Lord.”

I have thrown everything away is literally “I suffered the loss of all things” (American Standard Version). The verb is related to the word rendered loss in both the previous and the present verses. The aorist tense looks back to a definite occasion, presumably at Paul’s conversion, when this great renunciation took place. It is obvious in the present context (and especially in what follows) that the act of renunciation is voluntary. Thus Good News Translation renders the passive verb as active, have thrown … away (New American Bible “have forfeited”; Barclay “have abandoned”).

For his sake may be rendered as “because of him” or, as in some languages, “in order to serve him.” I have thrown everything away should not be understood in merely a physical sense. One can translate this expression as “everything I used to do has become a complete loss,” or “… has become useless.” Or one may shift the figure somewhat by saying “I have abandoned everything I used to do.”

For the third time in this section Paul uses the same verb rendered consistently as “count” in Revised Standard Version. In the two previous occurrences Good News Translation renders it as reckon, but in this last instance as consider. The intention is no doubt to declare Paul’s considered decision to do away with his old life. In the light of this new evaluation, he now sees everything as mere garbage. The Greek word rendered garbage can mean either “excrement” (King James Version “dung”) or “that which is thrown to the dogs,” that is, “rubbish” (Jerusalem Bible New American Bible), “refuse” (Revised Standard Version), or “garbage” (New English Bible). In any case, the idea is that of utter worthlessness and disgust. I consider it all as mere garbage may be rendered as “I count all this as fit for the refuge heap,” or, expressed somewhat more idiomatically, “I throw all of it into the street.”

The motive of Paul’s revaluation is to gain Christ. The verb used here is a cognate of the noun rendered profit in verse 7. To gain Christ is best understood in the sense of gaining a profit by personal appropriation of Christ. It may be possible in some languages to translate literally so that I may gain Christ, for that might imply that Christ was an object which could be acquired by purchase. In certain instances the metaphor gain Christ may be modified into the form of a simile, for example, “I may, so to speak, gain Christ.” But this rendering could impair the significance of the phrase as a whole. It my be better in some cases to translate “so that I may have the advantage of being related to Christ,” or “so that I may have the value of belonging to Christ.”

Quoted with permission from Luo, I-Jin. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1977. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Philippians 4:19

The particle which connects this verse with the preceding can be rendered in two ways. (1) It can be taken as an adversative “but” (King James Version) with focus on the loss incurred in helping the apostle. The implication is that God will not fail to repay their need. If so, the force can be brought out with “in return” (Jerusalem Bible; “in turn” New American Bible). On the basis of this view, God’s supply to the Philippians is seen as an act of compensation. (2) Most modern translators, however, take it as a copulative “and,” with the possible meaning of “so” (Knox). In this case, God’s supply to the Philippians is considered a natural consequence of their generosity.

The phrase my God suggests an intimate relationship that Paul has with God, but this relationship should not be understood as “the God whom I possess” but as “the God whom I serve” (Knox Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). It can also have the sense of “God on my behalf.” Paul could not repay the debt, but God whom he serves would repay it on his behalf.

With all his abundant wealth through Christ Jesus is literally “according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (American Standard Version Revised Standard Version). The preposition “according to” can be taken in several ways. (1) It can be understood in the sense of “in a worthy way of” (New American Bible), “according to the measure of,” or “on the scale of,” focusing on the extent to which God will supply his wealth (Jerusalem Bible “as lavishly as only God can”). (2) It can have the force of “from” (Moffatt Phillips New English Bible) or “out of” (Barclay), emphasizing God as the source of abundant wealth. (3) One can also render it as with (Good News Translation), highlighting the nature and quality of God as the one who has abundant wealth. On the whole, (3) and (2) appear to fit the context better than (1).

With all his abundant wealth through Christ Jesus is best treated as a clause of cause or attendant circumstance, for example, “since my God has so much wealth through Christ Jesus,” or “in view of the fact that God is so very rich through Christ Jesus.” There is a difficulty, however, in rendering the phrase through Christ Jesus, for this might imply that it is Christ Jesus who made God wealthy. The meaning, of course, is that God’s wealth may be shared with others by means of Christ Jesus. In some languages it may be essential to combine the phrase through Christ Jesus with the expression will supply all your needs, or to make the phrase through Christ Jesus into a separate clause, for example, “wealth which God gives through Christ Jesus.”

The phrase “in glory” is also open to different interpretations. One can hardly give it a local sense, “in the realm of the heavenly.” Some persons want to give it a temporal sense, meaning “in the glorious life of the coming age.” This suggestion seems equally unsatisfactory, as it is not likely that Paul had in mind only the future heavenly reward of the Philippian believers. Another possibility is to take the phrase adverbially as qualifying the verb “supply.” The resultant meaning is “God will supply your needs in a glorious manner” (Goodspeed “gloriously supply”; cf. Jerusalem Bible Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). But it is probably best to join the phrase closely to the word “wealth,” as the majority of modern translators do—thus abundant wealth, “magnificent riches” (New American Bible Bible en français courant), “glorious wealth” (Bruce), “glorious resources” (Phillips), etc.

The characteristic Pauline phrase “in Christ Jesus” should probably be taken with the verb supply. Accordingly, the preposition “in” would acquire an instrumental sense, thus through Christ Jesus (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch cf. Goodspeed), translated as “Jesus Christ caused this” or “Jesus Christ brought this about.”

The clause will supply all your needs does not tell us whether Paul has in mind here material needs or spiritual needs. He probably means both. The verb will supply (identical with the one rendered I have all I need in verse 18) can mean “will supply fully” (New American Bible), or “will fully meet every need” (Bruce).

Quoted with permission from Luo, I-Jin. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1977. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Philippians 1:15

Paul now speaks of two classes of preachers with different motives. Of course is used in the sense of “it is true” (Goodspeed Jerusalem Bible New American Bible) or “indeed” (Revised Standard Version New English Bible). Some of them seems to refer to a segment of most of the brothers mentioned in the previous verse (it may be useful to render this phrase as “some of the brothers” or “some of our fellow believers”). However, it is sometimes argued that Paul is here referring to preachers in general on the ground that jealous and quarrelsome motives can hardly be compatible with the attitude of confidence in the Lord which some of them apparently had. It is very difficult to determine who these preachers are. That they are Jewish Christians who insist on going back to Jewish ways seems unlikely, since Paul does not accuse them of any false teachings. In any case, they are “pro-Christ” but “anti-Paul” preachers.

The word translated preach is the standard New Testament word for the preaching of the gospel. It has substantially the same meaning as the word translated proclaim in verse 17 and as preached in verse 18. The latter is a compound verb which may signify “to proclaim with authority,” but the two words are used interchangeably in this context (cf. vv. 15, 17, 18). It may be impossible to translate preach Christ literally, since in many languages one can only “preach about Christ” or “tell people about Christ.” To indicate clearly that this is a proclamation of the good news about Christ, it may be useful to render preach Christ as “tell the good news about Christ.”

Because they are jealous and quarrelsome (literally, “on account of envy and strife”) explains the motives of the preachers (New American Bible “from the motives of envy and rivalry”; New English Bible “in a jealous and quarrelsome spirit”). One may find it necessary to indicate the so-called “object” of jealous, in which case it is probably best to say “because they are jealous of me.” Yet one must be cautious in the use of a term such as “jealous,” for it may imply meanings which do not fit this context. Hence one may need to use such an expression as “they are unhappy because of what I have been able to do,” or “they are envious because of my success.” Quarrelsome may be rendered as “they quarrel with others,” “they habitually quarrel with people,” or “they quarrel with me.” In some languages “to quarrel” is “to fight with words.”

The meaning of the biblical word translated good will varies greatly according to the context. It is used of God’s “choice and pleasure” in Matt 11.26; Luke 10.21; and Eph 1.5. It is sometimes used in the sense of a person’s “wish” or “desire” (e.g. Rom 10.1). In the present context it means “good will” or, as Jerusalem Bible renders it, “right intention” (Phillips “good faith”). It is possible that the meaning here refers to good will toward Paul, since Paul is speaking of the preachers’ attitude toward him in the context. “Good will” toward the gospel which he proclaims is, of course, presupposed.

If good will is understood to refer to the attitude of these preachers toward the gospel, then one may translate from genuine good will as “because they like the gospel,” or “because they are fully in favor of the gospel.” Similarly, if one understands that the good will is directed toward Paul, one may translate “because they are favorably disposed toward me.” One may, however, wish to emphasize, in rendering good will, the concept of “right intentions,” in which case one may translate from genuine good will as “because their purposes are altogether good” or “because what they want to accomplish is perfectly right.”

Quoted with permission from Luo, I-Jin. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1977. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Philippians 2:17

The scene shifts here from the athletic stadium to the altar and sacrificial rites.

The verse begins with a series of particles, literally, “but if also.” “But” functions here as an introductory particle, not as an adversative. “If also” is not an improbable supposition as the rendering “even if” (Revised Standard Version) appears to suggest; the possibility of martyrdom is apparently in Paul’s mind (cf. 2 Tim 4.6). Good News Translation expresses this possibility by perhaps … if that is so. In some languages perhaps may be expressed as “it is possible that” or “it may happen that.”

My life’s blood is to be poured out like an offering translates a single Greek verb, which means literally “I am poured out” (that is, as a libation or drink offering). The drink offering was usually a cup of wine poured out on the ground to honor a deity. When used of a person, the verb denotes a violent or bloody death. This kind of offering was common in both pagan and Jewish worship (cf. Num 15.3-10). In talking about the possibility of his martyrdom, Paul likens his life’s blood to a drink offering poured out to honor God (cf. Rom 15.16; 2 Tim 4.6).

My life’s blood is in some languages equivalent to “the blood which causes me to live,” but my life’s blood is to be poured out may not indicate in some languages the meaning of “death.” It may be necessary to change the idiom or to employ a nonidiomatic expression, for example, “it is possible that I will be killed like a sacrifice,” “perhaps I will be sacrificed,” or “… caused to die, as it were, like a sacrifice.” The difficulty with this type of expression, however, is that Paul’s death would be regarded as a kind of sacrifice, but the faith of the Philippians is itself regarded as a sacrifice offered to God. It may, therefore, be preferable to translate the beginning of verse 17 as “Perhaps I will be killed and in this way be like an offering of blood which is poured out on the sacrifice that your own faith offers to God.”

Literally, the offering is poured out “upon the sacrifice and service of your faith” (King James Version). The exact meaning of this phrase is much debated. The difficulty involves first the precise meaning of the preposition “upon” (epi); secondly, the relation of the coordinate construction “sacrifice and service”; and, thirdly, the sense of the genitive construction “service of your faith.”

The meaning of the preposition “upon” is conditioned by Paul’s allusion to the sacrificial system. If the allusion is to Jewish usage, the meaning is “in addition to,” since the Jews poured the drink offering, not over the sacrifice, but beside or around the altar. New English Bible favors this view by rendering “to crown that sacrifice.” On the other hand, if the allusion is to pagan ritual, the meaning is “upon” or “on,” since the pagans poured the drink offering on the sacrifice that was on the altar. This interpretation is adopted by the majority of translations, including Good News Translation, on the sacrifice. In view of the fact that most of the Philippian Christians were converts from paganism, it is more likely that Paul would draw his illustration from the pagan sacrificial system (cf. 2 Cor 2.14 ff).

The noun rendered “service” in King James Version is the Greek word from which the English word “liturgy” is derived. In secular usage, it meant a service to the public or the state. In both the Septuagint and the New Testament, it is sometimes used in the general sense of service to men, but more frequently in reference to priestly functions. Here the noun is used metaphorically in the latter sense, denoting the offering up of the sacrifice. “Service” in this context is thus best understood in the sense of “offering.” Since in Greek two nouns often share one article, this coordinate construction is probably to be taken, not as referring to two things, but as forming one event. The “sacrifice” is the semantic goal of the “offering,” and God is the implied recipient of the “sacrifice.” Now, by making this information explicit and restructuring the construction into a verbal phrase, we have the Good News Translation rendering the sacrifice that … offers to God.

The identification of the subject of the offering depends on the analysis of the genitive construction “offering of your faith.” The ambiguity of this construction is reflected in the various translations. It is interpreted by some as “the offering is your faith”; thus Jerusalem Bible has “offering—which is your faith” (cf. New English Bible “that sacrifice which is the offering up of your faith”). Moffatt provides a variation of this interpretation by identifying the agent as “you,” thus “the sacred sacrifice of faith you are offering to God.” These renderings regard “faith” as the thing offered. Another possibility, adopted by Good News Translation, is to take the construction in the sense of “your faith offers something (sacrifice).” The context makes it clear that it is not Paul who is offering the sacrifice, but the Philippians. Furthermore, what the Philippians offer is not their faith; rather their new-found faith is the source or the impulse for that offering. The sacrifice which their faith offers is probably their gifts to Paul, for these constitute a sacrifice on their part (cf. 2.30 and especially 4.18).

It may be difficult to speak of the sacrifice that your faith offers to God, since in many languages the event implied in faith cannot be regarded as an agent which would offer a sacrifice. It is much simpler to speak of “your faith” as being a “sacrifice” or “an offering.” But even this interpretation may be difficult to express in a receptor language in which faith must be regarded as a verb, not as a noun. If one assumes the interpretation that “the offering is your faith,” it may be possible to say “that which you offer to God is the fact that you trust him,” or “… is your trusting him.” On the other hand, if one understands faith as being the motivation or impulse for an offering to God, one may speak of “the sacrifice that you offer to God as the result of your trusting him,” or “… which your trusting him causes you to offer.”

The possibility of death is for Paul not a cause for grief, but of joy. This joy is based on the confidence that death will be a gain, because by it Christ will be glorified and the gospel proclaimed. Here again we have the characteristic refrain of this letter, “joy” and “you all.” In this verse and the following, Paul employs the verb “to rejoice” twice, and also its compound “to rejoice with” twice. Here he says I am glad and share my joy with you all.

If that is so refers, not to the sacrifice that your faith offers to God, but to the possibility of Paul’s death. Therefore if that is so may by rendered as “if that turns out to be the case,” or “if I die.”

Quoted with permission from Luo, I-Jin. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1977. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Philippians 3:19

Paul now describes the fate and character of these enemies. They are going to end up in hell is literally, “whose end is destruction” (Revised Standard Version). Here the “end” is more than a mere point of termination; it means the inevitable outcome (Goodspeed Barclay “they are doomed to destruction”). The noun “destruction” is Paul’s usual word to express the opposite of “salvation” (Phil 1.28; cf. 1 Cor 1.18; 2 Cor 2.15); it is equivalent to eternal punishment. They are going to end up in hell may, of course, be translated simply as “they will finally be destroyed,” or “… suffer destruction.” One may also say “they will finally go to hell,” or “… will be sent to hell.” In this type of context hell may be rendered in some languages as “the place of punishment” or “the place of suffering.”

Their god is their bodily desires is literally “whose god is the belly” (American Standard Version). The expression bodily desires is used also in Rom 16.18, where most translations, including Good News Translation, render it as “appetites.” Some commentators understand it in the sense of unnecessary concern with laws about clean and unclean foods. Taken in this sense, the reference is to the Judaizers. Others take it to mean “greediness,” referring to those Christians who were excessively greedy for food (Jerusalem Bible “they make foods into their god”). But it is probably best to interpret it, along with Good News Translation and some commentators, in the general and wider sense of bodily desires. In some languages a literal rendering of “belly” may be able to convey the right meaning. In this clause the focus is on their god, and in some languages this focus can best be brought out by reversing the clause order, thus “their bodily desires are their god” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

It may not be possible to translate literally their god is their bodily desires or even to say “what they desire for their body is their god,” because such a rendering might be taken to refer to an idol or fetish. One can, however, make very good sense of this clause by saying in some languages “the only thing they worship is what they themselves want for their bodies,” or “their only real concern is for what their own bodies desire.”

These enemies are further described as “whose glory is in their shame” (King James Version). The noun “glory” here is equivalent to “pride” (Know) or “boast.” The somewhat abstract noun phrase “their shame” really means conduct which should be considered shameful. Good News Translation rephrases the statement as they are proud of what they should be ashamed of. It is possible to take “shame” as an allusion to the nakedness involved in the act of circumcision (3.2), but the immediate context appears to indicate that Paul is thinking of immoral conduct in general (see the expressions bodily desires and things that belong to this world). They are proud of what they should be ashamed of may be expressed as “they are proud of doing certain things, but these things are what they should be ashamed of,” or “they are proud of what they do, but they should be ashamed of what they do.”

The last element in the description of these enemies of Christ’s death prepares the way for the sharp contrast which follows in verses 20-21. They think only of things that belong to this world translates a Greek participial phrase, literally “who think earthly things.” Some commentators interpret the sudden change in the Greek construction as a return to the primary construction in verse 18, thus summing up what has just been said (New American Bible “I am talking about those who are set upon the things of this world”). This is grammatically possible. The majority, however, regard this as a kind of apposition with the preceding clauses. The word “think,” which appears twice in verse 15, means more than mere intellectual perception; it denotes one’s inward disposition, state of mind, or attitude (see the discussion under 3.15). In some languages the clause is best rendered as “their hearts are set on the things of this world.” Things that belong to this world means things that are not of divine origin, that have no eternal quality or value (cf. Rom 6.5-6). This statement is a damaging indictment of certain people who are considered to be citizens of heaven (v. 20).

The phrase things that belong to this world can be easily misunderstood as a reference to objects which are simply here in this world. Paul, however, is not thinking particularly of material things; in fact, the object of the thinking of the persons he is speaking about is not an assortment of things, but a series of activities. One may, therefore, translate the final clause of this verse as “they are only thinking about doing what people of this world do,” “they only think like people who are typical people in this world,” or “… like most people think.” In this way the contrast with citizens of heaven (v. 20) may be clearly marked.

Quoted with permission from Luo, I-Jin. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1977. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .