June 8, 2018

Is the Kingdom of God (Mystically) Within the Christian?

By Clarke Morledge

Leo Tolstoy, Russian apostle of non-violence, in Yasnaya Polyana, 1908, the first color photo portrait in Russia. (credit: Wikipedia)

“The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:20b-21, King James Version)

Is this the best translation of what Jesus was really teaching? Here is a good lesson as to why it pays to use a modern translation of the Bible, and compare with other translations.

As a young Christian, I struggled with the concept of Jesus’ teaching on the “kingdom of God.” Is God’s kingdom ever, in a sense, something inward, something that can not be seen? Sure, God’s kingdom is about the rule and reign of God in our lives, but is it in any way, a call to look within your yourself for the truth?

For example, Leo Tolstoy, the great 19th century Russian novelist, wrote a whole book about it: The Kingdom of God is Within You. Tolstoy rejected what he considered to be the “mystical” tradition of his Russian Orthodox state church, famously arguing for the principle of non-violence, as the summary of the ethics of Jesus Christ. Tolstoy’s prose has deeply inspired people, such as Mohandas Gandhi, in his efforts to overthrow British rule and assert Indian independence, in the mid-20th century.

But in doing so, in an odd twist of irony, Tolstoy himself left behind all institutional forms of Christianity, dismissing much of the supernatural reporting of miracles in the Bible, for his own kind of mystic individualism. Tolstoy viewed the Sermon on the Mount to be in conflict with the Nicene Creed, the ancient church affirmation of core, fundamental Christian doctrines, such as the Triune nature of God and the deity of Christ. Tolstoy felt forced to choose the former over the latter.  Tolstoy had become disenchanted with a state sponsored church, that encouraged passivity towards evil, by encouraging intellectual adherence to a set of abstract beliefs, at the expense of living out the ethics of Jesus.

While I felt drawn to Tolstoy’s ethic of non-violence, and his critique of shallow faith, built on mere intellectual adherence to Christian beliefs, I was still uneasy about his outright dismissal of historic, orthodox theology. In today’s terms, minus his anti-supernaturalism, Tolstoy’s views came dangerously close to a kind of New Age, “roll your own” type of spirituality.

I remember reading from the King James version (above), as well as my old, “trusty” NIV 1984:

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:20-21)

Mmmmm…. The way my mind worked, as I appreciated the teachings of Leo Tolstoy, was that this meant that the kingdom of God had some type of mystical presence inside the believer, Leo-Tolstoy-style. At least it seemed that way. What made me a little hesitant, though, was that this was the ONLY passage in the Bible that described the kingdom of God with such internalized language. But, if the Bible even had one verse like this, I figured, I might as well go for it.

Fast forward nearly twenty years later … Today, nearly all modern translations reject this English reading as inadequate, if not misleading. Here is the ESV rendering (below), and the NIV 2011 is pretty close:

Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you” (Luke 17:20-21)

You might get a footnote that exchanges “in the midst of you” with the older “within you,” or another, improved alternative, “within your grasp.” Nevertheless, the prevailing current view is that the kingdom of God is “in the midst of you.” But the point is that improvements in modern translation demonstrate that God’s kingdom can not be so easily turned into a mystical, inward, New-Age-type of experience. A note for the online NetBible, regarding the historical context for these verses, are worth considering:

[“In your midst”] is a far better translation than “in you.” Jesus would never tell the hostile Pharisees that the kingdom was inside them. The reference is to Jesus present in their midst. He brings the kingdom. Another possible translation would be “in your grasp.”

The truth of the kingdom of God was within the grasp of the Pharisees, but they were unable to observe or detect it, even though Jesus was right there in front of them. Contrary to the popular tendency to pluck verses of Jesus out of thin air, the context of this passage suggests that the Pharisees were not “Spirit-filled” believers, who should look introspectively to find the truth. Instead, the emphasis is on Jesus as the truth, and how He confronted the Pharisees, the religious leaders of the day, with their unbelief.

Likewise, for us today, the kingdom of God also concerns our relationship with the Jesus who confronts us, and not some “fake Jesus” that we can easily internalize and control. We can become so filled with self-righteousness that we become unable to observe the reality of the kingdom of God, right there in front of us. Sadly, it is temptingly easy to project our own inward thoughts, wishes, fantasies, and desires, onto our frame of mind, and pretend that God is revealing supposed “truth” to us. Far too often, the popular call to “look within yourself” to find out “who you really are,” is more about spiritual narcissim than having an encounter with Jesus, who calls us to follow in obedience.

True, the Holy Spirit does indwell in the heart of the believer (Romans 8:9), so there is, in a sense, a mystical element to our faith. Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, does live in every Christian. So, broadly speaking, you could get away with the older “the kingdom of God is within you,” as a possible application for believers today, in that we can trust in the Holy Spirit’s leading.

But it is a translation not without its limitations, particularly within the historical context of Jesus’ confrontation with the Pharisees. We still need the external check of the Word of God, to make sure we do not float away into some supposedly superior mystical realm, that leads us to have thoughts and opinions that contradict the Scriptures. To put it another way, the only “Jesus” that we can know is the one presented to us in the Bible, and not some creation of our own fertile imagination, however well-intentioned. Our beliefs about Jesus, like His divine status within the Godhead, can not be so easily dismissed as controllable abstractions, without undermining the very call of radical discipleship, that Jesus demands of us.

Sadly, Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Thomas have a field day with phrases like “the kingdom is inside you,” , thus giving the wrong-headed idea that a knowledge of the Gospel is like having some special, esoteric knowledge of God, that only the spiritual “elite” can have. Genuine, orthodox, historic Christianity suggests otherwise. Real experience of the kingdom of God can be had by anyone who has a relationship with Jesus, and not only by self-proclaimed, spiritual “super-Christians,” who supposedly have an inside-track to God.

As someone who considered himself a Christian, Leo Tolstoy was not exactly “New Age,” in the way we think of it today. But he did have an unfortunate gnostic streak running throughout his writings. Leo Tolstoy was right to challenge a state church, that had completely subverted itself as a pawn to a totalitarian, oppressive government. But by setting in opposition the ethics of Jesus against the core, supernatural beliefs of historic Christian faith, Tolstoy has left us with a false dichotomy that has continued to confuse his admirers, almost two centuries later.

Thankfully, modern English Bible translations are trying to correct that false dichotomy.

——————————————————————–

Patheos blogger Mark Roberts, a few years ago, put it this way:  “If the Pharisees want to find the kingdom, Jesus says, they should look, not into their own sinful hearts, but right in front of their eyes, at Jesus himself, at his words and works.”  New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado chimes in with the scholarly reason as to why more recent Bible translations have changed their wording for this passage. There is a dissenting view by Roman Catholic scholar Ilaria Ramelli, who argues for the traditional translation of this verse, that so captivated Leo Tolstoy, but I do not know of any other scholars who follow her.

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

10 Comments   |  tags: , , | posted in The Gospels

May 30, 2018

Yanny vs. Laurel… vs. Jesus?

By Clarke Morledge

Here is a little science that makes for an interesting, quick Bible illustration: Listen to the following video, and tell me what you hear.

I hear “Laurel” every time, but some folks, particularly younger people, hear “Yanny” instead. This dispute triggered an Internet craze that raises a really good question: Why do some people hear one thing and other people hear something completely different?

According to the video above, a study of acoustics and neurology provides the answer. Certain frequencies in the recording allow some listeners to hear “Yanny,” while others only hear “Laurel.” Younger people are generally more sensitive to hearing higher pitched frequencies, so they hear “Yanny,” whereas an older person (like me) can not detect the higher frequencies, and so I hear “Laurel.” If you change the pitch of the recording, you can actually hear the difference.

The “Yanny-vs-Laurel” dispute provides an analogy for how we go about conducting spiritual conversations with our neighbors. When Jesus went about his preaching, many were healed. But the demons recoiled in horror, at the name of Jesus (Luke 4:31-41).

In an analogous way, different people respond differently today upon hearing the name of “Jesus.” This is why it is important not too assume your audience knows what you are talking about, when you talk about your faith.

For example, when I hear the name of “Jesus,” I think of the joy of knowing Christ as my Lord and Savior. However, when I am with nonbelievers, or with those whom I simply do not know well, I am sensitive to what they think when they hear about “Jesus.” For some, talk about “Jesus” is simply a cloak for what they think is religious narrow-mindedness. They may hear the word “Jesus,” but they may think they are being drawn into a conversation about politics.

You just never know what people are hearing. But, every now and then, prompted by the work of the Holy Spirit, they might hear something like, “I am far away from God, and I know it. Perhaps I should think more about who Jesus really is, so that I can experience the type of love and acceptance that Christians are talking about.” Asking for feedback and listening goes a long way, when it comes talking about Jesus.

So, what do you hear when you hear the name of “Jesus?”

Leave a comment | posted in Apologetics

May 28, 2018

Indiana Jones, Egyptian Chariot Wheels in the Red Sea, The True Cross… and Fringe Archaeology

By Clarke Morledge

 

Harrison Ford’s classic character “Indiana Jones,” has affinities with Hans Solo from the Star Wars franchise. A younger version of Harrison Ford’s  Hans Solo character, is the central focus in the 2018 Solo: A Star Wars Story movie.

Now that Hans Solo is back on the pop culture radar….

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) is one my favorite movies of all time. Harrison Ford, elsewhere known as Hans Solo, played this iconic, adventurous character, looking for the Ark of the Covenant. Who knew that Bible archaeology could be such fun?

Let us explore how the Bible and archaeological adventures connect, and find out…

George Lucas and Steven Spielberg took the mega-popular Hans Solo character of Star Wars, and put him back on earth in the 1930s, as one Indiana Jones. One of my favorite scenes shows this studious looking archaeology professor talking about the Ark of the Covenant, the great chest of the Old Testament that stored the Ten Commandments, that went missing sometime during Israel’s ancient history. Within minutes after this scene, our Indiana Jones would be traveling the world, fedora hat on head, with bullwhip in hand, chasing trucks, trying to beat the Nazis to recover the missing Ark of the Covenant.

Continue reading

7 Comments   |  tags: , , , | posted in Archaeology

May 25, 2018

What Did You Think of The Royal Wedding Sermon?

By Clarke Morledge

The May 19, 2018 sermon by U.S. Episcopal bishop Michael Curry, at the wedding of Prince Harry to Meghan Markle, might have been the most watched Christian sermon, in world history. I am not a morning person, so I never bothered to get up for the wedding. But I have listened to a number of people give their opinions about the sermon, including a few evangelical Christians.

It just amazes me that two believers can listen to the same sermon, and get a completely different message out of it. Some Christians heard Bishop Curry give a powerful testimony to the love of God, a fiery display of the nature of the God of the Bible. Others heard a vague call to the power of human love, white-washed with Christian language, a camouflage over the false teaching it really was. Others just registered a “no comment” vote.

It was interesting that Curry appealed to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (no surprise, really), as well as the controversial Roman Catholic paleontologist and priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who was censured by the papacy, in the 20th century, for his writings in support of evolution, but who today has received calls for his rehabilitation, among some Roman Catholics, and other calls to retain his censure.

My thoughts are best reflected by the following witty, intelligent remarks by British evangelist Glen Scrivener (catch his Richard Niebuhr quote — right on!). What did you think of the sermon? Let me know in the comments section below. Bottom line: may we all have discernment and search the Scriptures for God’s Truth.

If you have not seen or heard the sermon, here it is:

1 Comment   |  tags: | posted in Topics

May 19, 2018

Did King James Order His KJV Translators to Conceal the True Meaning of Baptism?

By Clarke Morledge

A baptismal font in England, dating back to 1405, large enough to be used for full infant immersion, throughout the Reformation period. Note the table top on the left hand side of the photo, to gain some perspective as to how big this baptismal font really is: Saint Bartholomew the Great Church in London.

This might be a bit nerdy, but it is a pet peeve of mine: Is the proper mode of baptism by pouring, sprinkling, or full immersion? What follows is an example of how an arguably plausible theological doctrine can be improperly justified with a flawed piece of historical “evidence.” The actual history of baptism is far more interesting, and it makes for a good rallying point for discussing the Scriptural mode of baptism.

I recently listened to a YouTube sermon whereby the pastor claimed that King James, the early 17th century English king, who authorized the famous 1611 King James Version translation of the Bible, purposely sought to obscure the true meaning of baptism. King James “did not allow [his Bible] translators to translate [the word] ‘bapto’” into English. The Greek word “bapto” is where we get the English word “baptism,” which is basically a transliteration from Greek into English. Most concordances, such as Strong’s, will translate “bapto” as to “dip” or “immerse.”

So, why did King James steer his translators clear from actually translating this Greek word into English?  The pastor went onto explain, “Because the Anglican Church did not practice what [baptism] means. The Anglican Church sprinkled.”

My ears perked up. But the pastor continued…

The problem with leaving “bapto,” or our “baptism,” untranslated is that it has encouraged people to interpret the word however we imagine it to mean. As a result, this ambiguity about “baptism” has led English-speaking Christians, since the time of King James, to be unsure as to how baptism should be practiced in the churches. Should we practice sprinkling, pouring, or full immersion? Readers of the King James Version of the Bible, the pastor concludes, are left in this state of confusion. What a tragedy.

Well, when I heard this, my fallacy-o-meter started to register near the red-zone. I will not link to his sermon, as this is pure bunk. Things like this just annoy me….

Obviously, this pastor rejects any form of baptism that is not full immersion, which would implicitly include most modern practices of infant baptism. My longtime pastor, Dick Woodward, from years ago, told the story of a Baptist kid, who had a cat that had gotten himself entangled in some pile of garbage, and the cat came out smelling just awful! The Baptist kid wanted to wash this cat, before letting him into the house. He tried to immerse the cat into a tub of water, but the cat resisted. He tried to pour water on the cat, but the cat kept dodging the water. Frustrated, to no end, and scratched up by the rebellious cat, the Baptist kid finally uttered, “Cat, you stink so much, that I will make a Presbyterian out of you, and just sprinkle you, and let you go to hell!” Continue reading

6 Comments   |  tags: , , , , | posted in Topics