What’s the Word?

Seek good, and not evil, that you may live, and so the LORD, the God of hosts, will be with you, as you have said.  Amos 5:14  ESV

And so – In Hebrew, the letters Kaf-Nun can be the word ken or the particle kn.  Sometimes it’s very hard to tell the difference.  That’s when translators guess which one applies based on their understanding of the context and their theological persuasion.  But even though they are guessing, they almost never tell you, the reader, that there is any doubt about the translation.  You simply think that you are accurately reading what God’s word says, but as you must know by now, sometimes this just isn’t the case.  In this particular verse, if Kaf-Nun is the word ken, then the verse would read, “Seek good, and not evil; thus what is right will come to pass.”  If Kaf-Nun is a particle attached to the verb, then the translation would be, “Seek good, and not evil, and so will be with you the LORD, God of hosts.”  As you can see from the ESV, the translators have chosen this option.  A quick review of the major English translations reveals that they all take this route.  But the other option is just as legitimate.

And that raises two questions.  First, why do most English translations ignore kn as a stand-alone word rather than an attached particle; and second, what are the implications resident in each of the two meanings so that one is chosen over the other?

Perhaps the answers to these two questions are really one and the same.  The particle choice leads us to read the text as if God says that seeing good, not evil, guarantees His presence.  The emotional quality of the verse pushes us toward an inner psychological state.  If we attempt to do what is good, then God shows up for us.  This translation follows the current Christian emphasis on experience as the touchstone of spirituality.  It is not necessarily about doing good simply because it is good.  It is about the personal reward that comes from doing good, namely, God’s attendance to me.

The alternative, that ken is the word “(what is) right,” follows a different path.  If Amos uses the word as a stand alone thought, then he is telling us that doing what is good should be done simply because it is the right thing to do.  Doing good brings about what is right, in other words, justice.  God still vouches for this relationship (“the LORD, God of hosts, has said”), but the motivation is not to feel God’s company nor receive any personal benefit from Him.  The motivation is simply to do what is right, to follow the code.  That is reward in itself.

Given the context of Amos, it seems difficult to me to argue that the standard translation (with the particle) is the more likely one.  Chapter 5 is all about the lack of justice in the land and YHWH’s cry against this ungodly behavior.  The verb darash is used several times to exhort the populace to search diligently for those attributes that lead to life.  Warnings are given.  It is true that God will accompany the righteous, but they are not righteous in order that God may accompany them.  They are righteous because men are called by God to exhibit His image, to live according to His code.  If they do not adhere to the code, death will follow.  It seems to me that in this context, recognition of the necessity of doing what is right takes priority.

It seems to me that the preference for a translation that emphasizes God’s immediate presence is the result of two important theological assumptions.  The first is that the code of the Tanakh has been replaced with the God of love and grace.  Good behavior is still important, but it is not the determiner of life.  Grace is the determiner of life.  Good behavior is an extra add-on.  The second assumption is that spiritual awareness is personal, not communal.  What matters is my personal involvement with God and His personal involvement with me.  Since this is the critical measure of my spiritual health, a promise of God’s presence is more valuable than a command to do what is right regardless of the outcome.  Rather than recognize that “God with us” means a communal experience of God’s code in action, contemporary Christianity seeks first “God for me” and worries about the communal code later.

Of course, I can’t say for sure that the translators had these two presuppositions in mind when they chose to treat kn as a particle.  But if I had to guess, I would say that the particle-based translation fits replacement theology but the stand-alone word translation doesn’t.  What do you think?

Topical Index:  ken, thus, and so, what is right, Amos 5:14