There are a number of English words in older
translations of the Bible (like the AV) that that do not exactly
correspond with the meaning that we ascribe to them today—and
conversation is one of
these words. Nowadays when we think of conversation, what comes to
mind is using our tongues and speaking with one another, but the NT
idea is much broader. Some will have noticed a similarity in English
between the terms conversion and conversation,
and the similarity also exists in the original Greek. To convert
(strefw or
epistrefw),
means to
turn around, while to converse (anastrefw) means a
turning up and down, or, more easily,
to move about. The word
conversation should
therefore be understood to mean
how we conduct ourselves
in the sphere in which we live. It includes how we talk, but it is
not restricted to how we talk.
Conversion leads to a different conversation.
Thus Paul writes to the Galatians “For ye have heard [what was] my
conversation formerly in Judaism, that I excessively persecuted the
assembly of God, and ravaged it” (Gal. 1: 13). That was his conduct
or behaviour before he was converted, but as a Christian, the
apostle could write that “in simplicity and sincerity before God” he
had his “conversation in the world, and more abundantly towards you”
(2 Cor. 1: 12). The same Greek word is used in Heb. 13: 18, when he
speaks of being “in all things desirous
to walk rightly” (my emphasis; also compare 2 Pet. 2: 18: “those
who walk in error). Our walk is clearly a wider thought than our
talk.
Behaviour flows from what we are. Thus, as
unbelievers, we once “walked according to the age of this world”, a
sphere in which we formerly “had our conversation in the lusts of
our flesh, doing what the flesh and the thoughts willed to do” (Eph.
2: 2, 3). We could not do otherwise than what came naturally to us,
for our “former conversation” was governed by our “old man which
corrupts itself according to the deceitful lusts” (Eph. 4: 22). It
was the same “abandoned conversation” (2 Pet. 2: 7) that so
distressed Lot in Sodom. Even the Judaistic way of life, with its
high moral tone, only served as a veneer to the lusts of the flesh
(see 1 Pet. 1: 14), and is dismissed by the apostle Peter as a “vain
conversation handed down from [your] fathers” (v18)—that is, a
manner of life
having no value.
If we
have sanctified the Lord in our hearts (see 1 Pet. 3: 15) then we
will have a “good conversation in Christ” (v16). That is why Peter
writes “but as he who has called you is holy, be ye also holy in all
[your] conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am
holy” (1 Pet. 1: 15, 16). We are now children of God, and, as
before, behaviour flows from what we are. Thus Peter goes on to say,
“And if ye invoke as Father him who, without regard of persons,
judges according to the work of each, pass your time of sojourn in
fear” (v17). Here the verb
anastrefw is translated
pass in English.
Literally, therefore, he is telling those to whom he is writing to
converse their time in fear—their
manner of life is to be shaped by their reverence for the One whom
they call God and Father. Indeed, we might exclaim “what ought ye to
be in holy conversation and godliness” (2 Pet. 3: 11)!
Sadly though, there is an increasing discrepancy today between what
many profess to believe and how they lead their lives. Some who
apparently ‘active’ in their support of ‘the Gospel’ lead lives that
are little or no different from the unbelieving. Surely a poor
conversation must raise a question mark about the validity of the
supposed conversion? The reason behind Paul’s first letter to
Timothy was “in order that thou mayest know how one ought
to conduct oneself”
(anastrefw)
“in God’s house, which is [the] assembly of [the] living God, [the]
pillar and base of the truth” (1 Tim. 3: 15, my emphasis). God’s
house is not a material building (as in Judaism) to which we go for
‘church services’, after which we can settle back comfortably into
our materialistic lives in the world. We are in the house of God
all the time, and if
it is
God’s house, then
there is a conduct that necessarily befits it
all of the time. Put
very simply, I am not at liberty to behave as I like because the
living God is in the same building as I am! It comes back to what
Peter wrote “Be ye holy, for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1: 16). This is the
manner of life that gives weight to evangelical work, while an
inconsistent conversation will discredit anything that is said. The
apostle demonstrates this by turning to the case of the woman, for
whom preaching is not an option, and yet through her “pure
conversation” she may be used for the conversion of others “without
[the] word” (1 Pet. 3: 1, 2). Her conversion brings about a changed
conversation in herself, which in turn can be used to convert
others!
