Friday, August 03, 2007

Etymology

Howdy blogers (the few that actually read this! :)

I was recently at a scholars and professors conference where people were presenting various papers and essays that were in-process. One of the fellow participants and I were chatting about the very verse that is at the top of this blog. A verse, by the way, that is crucial to the embracing of our identities.

A New Testament scholar, which makes him very familiar with Koine Greek, he told me his preferred interpretation of this pericope. Specifically, he does not like how the NIV translates entos as "within" you. This is no small controversy among many NT scholars. Various people I have read have had problems with this understanding. However, in the Septuagint, entos means "within" in Ps 38:4; 102:1; 108:22, and Isaiah 16:11. In each of these instances, entos is used in reference to something inside the thing being referenced (e.g. "inmost being" Is 16:11; "heart" Ps 108:22). In other words, it is ontological in nature, speaking of the very being of the pronouns spoken of.

The main objection to understanding Luke 17:20-21 (esp. 21) as Jesus saying the kingdom of God is "within" you is due to the pronoun within the prepositional phrase (though some say it is an adverbial phrase) being plural. The alternate translation, that advocated by the translators of the NAS, is "For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

Those pushing for an "adverbial phrase" do so because then it will necessarily be understood as "in your midst." However, entos is a preposition to be sure. And frankly, some of the objections I've run across are as flimsy as, "Until there is a clear passage that posits the kingdom of God being within someone, we shouldn't understand Luke this way." This is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. It says, "There is no evidence for 'P'. Therefore, Not 'P'" In my view, this position shows the bias of the individual more than a sound argument. Furthermore, is there not ample evidence to understand entos the way the NIV promulgates? The four LXX passages are simply explained away by opponents because they do not reference a plural pronoun. This is not good enough.

Here's a few reasons why I think this understanding of entos in Luke 17:21 is untenable.

(1) It commits the etymological fallacy. It defines the word outside of its context and then inserts said definition into a new context, one in which it wasn't meant to be. It simply makes little to no sense that Jesus would say, "You will not see it by careful observation. You will not say, 'Here it is,' or, 'There it is' for the kingdom of God is in your midst." For if the kingdom of God is "in your midst" that would be observable, the very thing Jesus told them wasn't possible! Furthermore, it was Jesus who said, "My kingdom is not of this world." And it was Jesus who continually contrasted this "kingdom not of this world" with the kingdom(s) of this world. Could it be that the reason the kingdom of God is not of this world is because it resides within "he who does the will of the Father" (Mark 3:35)?

(2) As hinted at in the previous point, it does not take into account the teachings of the rest of Jesus' ministry and those of the NT. The NT is clear in teaching that the Kingdom is an inside-out thing. When Jesus talks with the woman at the well, what does he tell her?

...whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life. (John 4:14, italics mine)

Jesus believed that when one "drinks of the water" (i.e. believes in the son), his very ontological existence changes, that when he steps into eternity, eternity steps into him. This is what has always made the gospel so powerful--transformation. Consider also Matthew 15, one of Jesus' most pointed teachings on God's passion for our heart transformation rather than mere behavioral transformation. This is not new to Christendom! Paul was no stranger to this inside-out kingdom. He speaks of being transformed from the inside out most notably throughout Romans 6-8, especially 6:1-4. We were raised with Christ for the very reason of being freed from the identity of sin and death and living/walking in this new life of freedom. Paul seems to believe that Christ is in us (Gal 2:20). And what are we to make of Christ in us? If the kingdom cannot be "within us," as some opponents are weary of embracing, then what do we make of Christ in us, who was the very embodiment of the Kingdom. Christ is The Kingdom Identity.

(3) Finally, the understanding of entos as "in the midst of" is untenable because of its very narrow conceptual consideration. The opponents of my proposed translation, and that of the NIV, hold to a literalistic understanding. One opponent demonstrates this effectively when he says, "Evidence that 'the kingdom of God' is a state in the heart of Christians can only include passages with these very words, or passages with closely related synonyms such as 'the kingdom of heaven'" (italics mine). So for this opponent, unless he reads these exact words "The kingdom of God resides in the hearts of men," he will not accept it! Never mind that the very concept of the kingdom of God being within the Christ-follower's heart is replete in Jesus' teachings and those of the NT.

This is why we must be conscientious of our fascination with the original languages. If we're not careful, we will become so fascinated with the individual words that we forget that those words make up sentences that inform their definitions. We have to come to a place where we embrace the kingdom of God as something within us rather than something out there. This theosis that I am arguing for, as I've mentioned, is not new to Christendom. In fact, it is the reality of the kingdom within us that changes our hearts which informs our every decision and action. Without this inward transformation, this heart transplant in which Christ infuses himself within us, we will only be doing behavior modification rather than kingdom living.