E.P. Sanders's book

Sanders, E. P.
Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. Pp. xxxv + 862. Paper.
Price $39. ISBN 9780800629564.




This introductory book on Paul by Sanders is the longest book (862 pages except for front matters) that I have ever reviewed and is also the most comprehensive volume of Paul and his major letters (1 Thess, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and Romans). This book is, in a way, a compilation and the product of his lifelong studies on Paul, aimed at first-time readers of Paul. But this does not mean that this book’s content is easy or shallow, or that its argumentation is naïve or simplistic. Part 1 (with 4 chapters of more than 140 pages), Paul’s Life, is very clear and profoundly handles Paul’s life from critical historical perspectives. Then Part 2 (which is 20 chapters long!), The Letters contains a vast amount of complex information and discussions partly because it covers too many topics given space and partly because the topics themselves are difficult exegetical issues (for example, homosexual activity in 1 Corinthians). There are two appendixes attached at the end of the book, which is very helpful for in-depth researchers who want to go deeper into matters of Paul’s theology: “Homosexual Practices in Greece and Rome”; “Where Was Galatia? Who Were the Galatians?” This book also includes various helpful indexes plus a short glossary: an index of ancient and biblical literature, an index of authors, and an index of subjects. There is no question that Sanders is one of the most erudite Pauline scholars who not only has published a number of important works on Paul, but has paved a new way of understanding Paul’s relationship to, or background of, first-century (and Second-Temple) Judaism, which is not a legalistic religion but the religion of grace. But even with this new understanding of Judaism in the first century, I cannot help but say that in the end, Sanders’ conclusion about Paul’s thought or theology is very limited, as I shall come back to this later.


First, obviously, Sanders’ method is a historical-critical literary approach, and he seems to say that he is not interested in the theological interpretation of scriptures, having an attitude that Paul is Paul and he is not us. Well, that is a good position taken by historians. But this dichotomous position between then and now is not really desirable to take because virtually every interpretation, including a self-proclaimed, objective historian like Sanders, is contextual and ideologically minded. I say this because every interpretation is presupposed. For example, one of Sanders’ undergirding pillars for his view of Paul is the so-called Two Dispensations (Law’s period and Christ’s era), which is his hermeneutical choice. Otherwise, the text does not refer to the two periods in a pellucid context. Another example is his interpretation of the Greek genitive pistis christou (“faith of Christ”), and he chooses to go with the objective genitive meaning (“faith in Christ”) even if he acknowledges that a majority of scholars go with the subjective genitive meaning (Christ’s faithfulness). Otherwise, he never refers to Christ’s faith. That is clearly his choice in matters of translation and interpretation. An irony is that while Sanders attacks Luther’s legalistic interpretation of Judaism and Law, he ends up with another Luther interpretation because his primary interpretation of Paul is always “righteousness by faith in Christ,” which is called the forensic salvation perspective (like an imputed or imparted righteousness in the case of Augustine and Luther). When Sanders says, “What is wrong with the Jews is that they are not Christian; what is wrong with Judaism is that it does not accept Christianity” (681), this conclusion reflects his own hermeneutical lens about Paul; in other words, he read Paul’s mind through his own mind. Otherwise, there are no crystal-clear references to this in Paul’s text. I will come back to this issue later. Again, while Sanders’ historical-critical literary method produces a wealth of good, sound information about Paul and his thoughts, his interpretation is very limited because of his reading lens as such, exposing weaknesses here and there.

Second, Sanders’ major arguments in this book are many, so I will list some and briefly explain them below:

1. Eschatology: The dominant view of Paul’s eschatology is the imminent Parousia when there will be a one-time complete transformation. So much so that in 1 Thessalonians, one of his early letters, Paul told the Thessalonians to earnestly wait for the day of the Lord. But as time went on and new situations arose in Paul’s ministry such as in Corinth or in Galatia, Paul needed to deal with them, and the solution was to comfort them with realized eschatology: God is already here and the Spirit is already here for Christians. While Paul’s imminent eschatology did not change drastically, he adopted elements of realized eschatology in dealing with local congregations. In the end, Paul’s eschatology may be characterized by the “already but not yet” slogan.


2. The Two Dispensations: Paul thought about his relationship with Judaism through these two dispensations: Judaism and Christianity. The logic is that if one is right, the other must be wrong. Law is good because it is God’s gift, but it must be bad because it is not Christ.


3. Erga nomou (“Works of the law”) in Gal 2:16 and elsewhere does not refer to the Torah in general or to good deeds, but it refers to specific laws that regulate matters of Jewish identity; for example laws regarding circumcision, food, and the Sabbath. That is, a different gospel preached at Galatia, according to Paul, is a strings-attached gospel. What is wrong with this attachment is not because it is law but because gentiles are forced to become Jewish. Compulsion is a problem because such laws are not essential to the Gentiles.


4. Pistis christou: As I mentioned before, Sanders persistently translates this famous phrase (e.g., Rom 3:21-26 and Gal 2:16) as “faith in Christ” (an objective genitive sense). This decision by Sanders has to do with his view of the Two Dispensations.


5. Dikaiosyne theou (“the righteousness of God”) in Rom 3:21-26 and Gal 2:16 is understood as individual righteousness (so the objective genitive meaning). Otherwise, he does not talk about God’s righteousness (the subjective genitive).


6. Soma christou (“The body of Christ”) is found in 1 Cor 6:15-16; 10:16; 12:27, and Rom 7:4. Sanders clearly connects “the body of Christ” in 1 Cor 12:27 to an organism metaphor. However, “the body of Christ” in 1 Cor 6:15-15; 10:16, and 12:27, in particular, has more to do with “union with Christ,” which requires participation in Christ in some way that he does not specify.


7. Christology: In Rom 1:4, Jesus is “declared to be the Son of God,” which implies that Jesus was adopted as the son of God. This language of adoption seems to be Paul’s main Christology. At other times, however, his Christology is high, as he employs the Christ hymn in Phil 2:6-11.


8. The role of the Spirit: Sanders articulates Paul’s diverse expressions of the Spirit. The Spirit is the Spirit of God, and at other times it is also the Spirit of Jesus. The Spirit is responsible for Christian life from beginning to end. The Spirit language also has to do with sonship: children of God are those who are led by the Spirit.


9. The role of Jesus’ death: In Rom 3:21-26, Jesus’ death is necessary for the redemption of Christians once and for all. There will be no salvation without Jesus’ death.


10. Resurrection body in 1 Cor 15: Paul’s view of the resurrection body is not a resurrection of the flesh, but it is a spiritual body, an oxymoronic expression.


11. Place of Israel: Paul defends the place of Israel (Rom 9-11): “All Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26); similarly, Paul says, “For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.” This sounds like universal salvation in the end.


12. Law: Paul’s view or use of the Law is mixed and conflicting: 1) according to the two dispensations, the Law must be bad because there is a new way of Christ which is through faith in Christ; 2) but it must be good as well because it is God’s gift. Yet, there are other kinds of good ethical laws that must be kept all the time (for example love of God and love of neighbor), whereas some laws (“works of the law”) are not essential to keep for the Gentiles.


Third, Sanders’ strong points in this book will be briefly mentioned. He is most erudite in the area of Second-Temple Judaism’s literature and its intersections with Paul’s life and thought. Part 1, Paul’s Life (about 140 pages, a book length), is, in my view, the treasure of the book because there are ample information and discussions about Paul’s life. Overall, Sanders’ reading of Paul’s method is very convincing; that is, he argues that Paul starts with local contextual issues and draws conclusions first, followed by his various supportive arguments, sometimes with terminological arguments. In that sense, Paul’s scriptural interpretation method is not unique but similar to other Jews. The only difference with his contemporaries is that he has his Christ-leaned conclusions already. So Sanders is right when he says that Paul is not a systematic theologian but a minister-theologian (traveling) who deals with everyday issues throughout his Gentile mission.


However, there are a few weaknesses in his arguments. First, there is no consideration of the subjective genitive meaning of pistis christou (“faith of Christ”) in his interpretation of Paul. In fact, as many scholars already pointed out the importance of the subjective genitive meaning (Christ’s faith), the subjective interpretation makes more sense than the objective one. Second, likewise, dikaiosyne theou (“the righteousness of God”) was understood as an individual righteousness. But in fact, Paul’s gospel begins with God (“the good news of God” in Rom 1:1; 15:6). So it would be certainly very plausible to read the dikaiosyne theou phrase as a subjective genitive (God’s righteousness) because it is God’s initiative of love and justice, which is shown in the world through Christ’s faithfulness (Rom 3:22). This subjective meaning makes a smoother and more logical sense than the other. This understanding seems clear in Rom 3:22: “God’s righteousness through Christ’s faith for all who have faith.” Look, what Paul says here is that God’s righteousness coming through Jesus’ faith may reach people who also have faith like Jesus or like Abraham (I may call this kind of Paul’s gospel “threefold theology of Paul”). Third, Sanders’ interpretation of soma christou (“the body of Christ”), as I stated before, is very limited because the body metaphor can be read as a living metaphor. He is actually close to that possibility of reading in 1 Cor 6:15-16 and 10:16 where he talks about unity and participation in Christ. It would have been better if Sanders had thought about a “living” metaphor—so “the body of Christ” as a Christ-like body because the body is a site of living. Fourth, the Two Dispensations theory is weak because, for Paul, Christ can be understood as fulfilling the law as in Rom 10:4, not replacing it. The problem is not the Torah itself but the crooked human heart, the misuse of the law, or the narrow interpretation of the law, which is shown for example on the issue of circumcision in Galatians.

Before closing, I like to mention the book’s stylistic issues. There are too many repetitions and/or redundancies of the same ideas or words throughout the book; I read the author’s excuses about this in the Introduction. But those excuses cannot justify this. Chapters in Part 2 may need a clearer structure than the current one because there are some topics that keep coming up throughout. I also have to say that I noticed an embarrassing error in the middle of the book; there are four columns of translations (four different versions), but they were completely messed up with the author’s translation missing and with mistaken headings of versions (512).

Even if there are some limitations in his arguments or things to which I cannot agree, there is no question that I owe Sanders a lot in my in-depth understanding of Paul. I admire his critical spirit and rigorous approach to Paul and his letters that defy an easy compromise with any. I thank him for this lengthy, yet informative book on Paul that will last long for generations to come. I have no hesitation that I will highly recommend this valuable book to anyone who wants to engage Paul in his historical context, especially in view of first-century (and Second-Temple) Judaism and Jewish Diaspora experience.

Basics about Biblical Interpretation

Click on the picture below and you will see a PDF.  

7 Steps for Biblical Interpretation

Click on the picture below and you will see a PDF. 

Bible and Human Transformation

The Nature of the Bible

The Bible is composed of many books of different genres, written and rewritten over more than a thousand years, “interpreted and reinterpreted, in different times and places, and thus contains many views or theologies,” as I wrote in the Journal of Bible and Human Transformation (JBHT), a new peer-reviewed online journal started a few years ago. Therefore it is very difficult to articulate what it is, let alone what it means. By and large, it can be read as history, theology, and myth. All biblical writings, albeit in a different way, have a mixture of history, theology, and myth. 1-2 Kings and 1-2 Samuels can be read as history and inform us of ancient Israel’s political events. However, even these purported historical writings are written not to record what exactly happened as modern historians attempt to do but to deal with particular life issues in the community.


Accordingly, the Bible includes divergent perspectives of theology or ideology; for example, there are four sources (J, E, D, and P) or traditions about God in the Torah, which reflect four different views of God and the world. In a similar fashion, there are four gospels in the New Testament that interpret Jesus' tradition differently in view of his significance in their lives. In addition, the Bible also contains myths of shared beliefs or traditions about the desired life in a community.


The Bible and Human Transformation

No matter how disparate biblical writings may be, the bottom line is that they are life stories involving some sort of change, whether it is personal or communal change: a change in terms of human behavior, a change in terms of human attitude, or a change in terms of society. When there is a split in the community, it needs restoration for which new knowledge or exhortation, for example, is provided to members of the community. For example, the post-exilic Jewish community (as seen in Nehemiah and Ezra) is exhorted to return to God, purifying their lives and renewing the Mosaic covenant. When there is a personal tragedy, he or she needs comfort, strength, and encouragement to continue life. Here the needed change is trust in God without falling prey to despair. Psalm 13, a shortest yet typical lament, deals with such a terrible life experience. The psalmist begins with the three times “how long” questions: “How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me? How long must I bear pain in my soul, and have sorrow in my heart all day long? How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?”


In sum, biblical writings or stories, although to a different degree or in kind, can be read as stories of changes that biblical audiences were in need of Ancient Jewish prophets call for a change in terms of seeking God (shub in Hebrew as “turn to God”). Jesus asks for a change of the heart (metanoia in Greek, Mark 1:15), and Paul for renewal of the mind (Rom 12:2).


What Kind of Human Transformation Do We Expect?

As we have seen, the Bible can be read with a focus on change or transformation. All change is transformation, but not all transformation is equally valid or helpful to readers. On the one hand, we need to explore the positive side of transformation in the Bible; for this purpose, we will look into Jesus’ parables (in Part 2 of the blog) and miracles (in Part 3 of the blog). On the other hand, we also should be aware of the negative aspects of transformation in the Bible. For example, conservative gender ideology reflected in 1 Tim 2:11-15 is resisted because it is the voice of patriarchal church leaders, and a more egalitarian voice in Gal 3:28 is reaffirmed to promote gender equality. So the critical issue is how to discern sound transformation.


To help explain what I mean by sound transformation, my personal observation will suffice now. One day there was an opening worship service at a conference, and the preacher read the text from Acts 3 and preached about it. The text is about Peter and John who walk up to the Temple to pray and heal a lame beggar in the name of Jesus Christ. The speaker’s point was simple and clear: These disciples received transforming power from God and therefore they could do anything in Jesus’ name. The speaker asked the audience to receive the same power from God and asserted that they could live a powerful transformation life. However, I felt uneasy and questioned how God or Jesus could be different from shamans or other deities who proved to be powerful enough to give healing to the devotees. If what really matters is only power from God, and for that matter, people are required to pray to receive such power, Christian good news would hardly be different from other religions or shamanistic rituals. In such good news, there is not much ethics or human transformation other than receiving power from God. Rather, I am more interested in what motivated these disciples to move toward the beggar or what may have happened to this beggar when he listened to them. Therefore, we have to ask many transformation questions, as I suggested in my book, A Transformative Reading of the Bible (2013); below are some questions we have to ask in the study of transformation in the Bible:


What kind of transformation occurs, from what to what?

How can we balance different, difficult life experiences?

Who or what is being changed or who or what are we changing?

What does transformation look like if it happens to self, neighbor, and God?

What roles do these subjects (self, neighbor, God) play in transformation?

What degree of change might be considered “transformative”?

Are all transformative aspects equally valid in all situations?

What is the method to get there?



Parables and human transformation

The Nature of Jesus’ Parables

A parable (parabole in Greek) is a fictional story about everyday life; para means alongside, and bole comes from ballo (meaning “to cast”). Literally, it means a story thrown alongside life. About one-third of Jesus’ teaching in the synoptic gospels is done through parables and his teaching focus is about “God’s rule” (basileia tou theou) in the world, the recurrent theme of the gospels. Jesus’ parables invite the audience to see something radically different from the status quo of society or community.


Because of the parable’s nature as such, it has a double entendre. On the one hand, a parable must be easy to understand because it is taken from everyday life (as shown in the parables of the sower and the mustard seed). On the other hand, however, it is very difficult to understand because the parable involves figurative language which needs careful attention and skill from the reader.


Meaning of a Parable as Engagement

Since the meaning of a parable is not self-evident and the parable is open-ended, hearers always have to struggle and interpret it for themselves by drawing on metaphors or symbols in it. For example, in the parable of the sower (Mark 4:1-20; Matt 13:3-23; Luke 8:5-15; Thom 9), there are at least four metaphors that we have to interpret: the sower, soil, the seed, and the harvest. The interpretive task and question is how can we relate God’s rule with each of these metaphors? That is, how can we understand a link between God’s rule and each metaphor? It is like swimming in a deep sea where readers have to decide what to do and what to explore in such a place. What follows is an illustration of human transformation in the parable of “the seed growing secretly” found in Mark 4:26-29.


The Seed Growing Secretly (Mark 4:26-29)

Jesus’ parables are a perfect place for studying human transformation. At each step of the metaphoric interpretation of a parable, our understanding and challenge about God’s rule are indescribably big. Mark 4:26-29 reads:


26 He also said, "The kingdom of God is as if someone would scatter seed on the ground, 27 and would sleep and rise night and day, and the seed would sprout and grow, he does not know how. 28 The earth produces of itself, first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head. 29 But when the grain is ripe, at once he goes in with his sickle, because the harvest has come."


In this parable, we can identify several metaphors: the sower (someone scattering a seed), the seed, the ground or the earth, and the harvest. One caveat is that this parable should not be read as an allegory although such an interpretation has been popular and practiced for so long beginning with the early church. The reason is clear: an allegorical interpretation of the parable deprives not only the diversity of meaning but also very challenging metaphoric messages hidden in the story, which readers have to struggle to understand; that is possible only by readers’ engaging the parable.


First of all, we can think about God’s rule and its relationship with the sower, which, in theory, can be variously compared to God, Jesus, Jesus’ disciples, or any person. But God and Jesus may not be a good option because verse 27 says the sower does not know how the seed would sprout and grow. Readers assume that God and Jesus must know how the seed grows. Then another option may be that Jesus’ disciples take the role of the sower, who plants the seed and waits patiently for the harvest. The transformative lesson is that the disciples have to endure until harvest while doing good works of planting. In addition, we may think of the sower as any person like a farmer, who may realize that he or she cannot have a harvest without good weather. Here the transformation is the recognition that we cannot live alone without God.


Second, we can relate God’s rule with the seed, which is sown on the ground and grows. At least, there are two metaphorical relationships between them. On one level, the seed’s mystery can be looked at and the seed grows because of it. The seed is certainly not human-origin and it can be understood variously as God’s power, grace, word, or teaching. So the lesson about human transformation is that we depend on the seed as a source of life: God’s healing presence (not human-made presence), God’s grace (not human efforts), God’s word and teaching (not human wisdom or philosophy). The caution is that this parable assumes that the seed itself is good. In the real world, there may be bad seeds that may bear bad fruits. But that issue is not dealt with in this parable. This means a parable does not deal with all situations; therefore, it should be interpreted in context, however complex or diverse it may be.


On another level, we may think about the seed’s sacrifice. The seed must die and bear fruit. Jesus teaches the way of the cross in Mark 8:34-38, and his followers (his disciples and the crowd) must deny themselves to follow him, taking up their cross: “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it” (Mark 8:34-35). So the transformative lesson is: “Die like the seed and bear fruit.”


Third, we can relate God’s rule to the ground or the earth. Once the seed is sown on the ground, it sprouts and grows. The seed alone cannot do anything unless sown on the ground. It is the ground that accepts the seed and supports it with calmness and sincerity. In this sense, the ground is a God-given blessing. In theory, we can think of various conditions of soil as shown in Mark 4:10-20, which is an extended interpretation of the parable proper in 4:1-9. But the proper context of this parable limits us to focus on the theme of God’s grace, which is compared to the image or metaphor of “the seed growing secretly.” That is to say, the ground represents the gift of God along with the seed. Once sown on the ground, the seed will sprout and grow. What we can do is to scatter or plant the seed and wait until the harvest. There are things we can do and there are things we cannot do. What we cannot do is God’s part. So the transformative lesson is to turn to God for life. Our job is not to create or manipulate God’s world but to care for it.


As we see above, the meaning of a parable is not fixed but very invitational and challenging precisely because God’s rule involves complex realities and diverse ongoing participation. The other important thing is the fact that parables are open-ended, and therefore hearers/readers have to come up with their own responses to the unfinished or unanswered questions with metaphoric links in the parable. Readers are often surprised, challenged, and awakened to a new awareness of God’s rule or presence in the world. In this regard, the parable does something to us to the extent that we are asked to re-create our own transformative stories in accordance with God’s rule in the here and now.

 
Miracles and human transformation

The Nature of Miracles

What do miracles in the Bible have to do with us? If we read them only as God’s power, we would miss the point of the transformation we need today. As we hear of miracle stories in the Exodus event (such as the parting of the water or striking the rock to get water), we are challenged to rethink about miracles because they call for certain actions with faith. Similarly, if we read the story of Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes in the wilderness, we are challenged to think and act differently than is normally thought of. Here the point is not simply that Jesus could do anything as the Son of God. In fact, miracle stories are placed in particular literary or historical contexts in which biblical audiences have to deal with their life circumstances. Otherwise, they are not told in a vacuum. In this sense, a miracle is not merely about God or Jesus but about people in the world who face various life struggles and difficulties. In the following, we will briefly look into transformative lessons from the exodus miracle and Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes.


The Exodus Story (Exod 7-12)

Scholars believe that the early stage of the exodus story begins with a few hundred Hebrew slaves in the Nile Delta area (Ramses) who flee Egypt for their liberation at all risks. These slaves believed Yahweh would help them. They were on foot and could cross the marsh reeds or shallow lakes (not the Red Sea; the Hebrew word yam suph means “sea of reeds”) without being struck down by the Egyptian chariots. The Egyptians gave up chasing them because they could not enter the lakes with chariots. Moreover, a few hundred slaves were inconsequential to the Egyptian economy. But to a group of these slaves, their escape was nothing short of a miracle. Reflecting on and remembering what just happened to them, these slaves firmly believe that this event is none other than a miracle, possible only through God’s power and grace. The Lord (Yahweh) made it happen and their faith confirms it. This experience gives them words of confession and encouragement that God is the source of everything.


Actually, this miracle would not have been possible if they had not left a place of shackles in Egypt for a new home of freedom and justice. It was a miracle not because supernatural things happened but because what they thought was impossible came true in their eyes. They could have been captured and killed, but in fact, they were saved.


The transformative lesson is clear: we can break the shackles of oppression by trusting God. Hebrew slaves did not wait for angels to come to rescue them in prisons or their workplaces. If they had stayed in their place with fear and despair, they would not have enjoyed freedom. Scholars believe that as time goes by, this seemingly simple story of faith that calls for action for liberation has been embellished and expanded. But the whole point of the story is not about the graphic, majestic description of how fleeing Israelites crossed the sea by the miraculous act of God, but about people’s courage, faith, action, dream, and hope for a free home even with the cost of death on their run.


Feeding the Multitudes

Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes appears in all four gospels (Matt 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15) and has similar transformative lessons for us. The power of this miracle story does not lie in the supernatural power of Jesus as if Jesus could provide anything for the needy but lies in a little child's faith and action through which many people are supposedly motivated to give their own, too. Imagine people gathering in a dry, sunny wilderness. Even a little bread amounts to tons of bread for the hungry bodies and souls. A little thing of sharing could ignite others to do the same. Sharing is a miracle! This miracle story is a symbolic, moral story that challenges others to do the same as a little child and those who gathered and participated in the boy’s faith and action. Otherwise, if we focus only on Jesus’ power that feeds the five thousand people, we would miss this important aspect of a sharing miracle sparked through a little child and completed through the participation of the crowd in the desert.


In this sense, a true miracle in this story has to do with a change of heart – from a self-feeding attitude to an other-feeding attitude by sharing a little thing. This miracle is not merely about the power of God or Jesus who does supernatural things like changing the tree, the stone, or the wind. Many people are starving to death even today not because the food is short in the world but because people are as dull and hard as not to break their hearts for others. A miracle begins with one’s heart and with small things.

 

Sewol Tragedy

Yung Suk Kim

Note: I wrote this post right after the incident in April 2014.



My mind has been restless for the past few days as I cannot stop thinking about the tragic incident of the Sewol ferry disaster. The ferry was carrying 476 passengers from Inchon to Jeju Island in Korea, out of which more than 370 were high school students on a school trip. Unfortunately, the ferry sank, and only about 170 passengers managed to be rescued while over 181 bodies have been found so far. There are still 121 passengers missing, most of whom are young high school students in their teens. Despite the ongoing rescue efforts, their survival remains uncertain. As I was grieving this tragedy, I came across various news reports detailing the extent of the disaster.




1. In 2012, a ferry was brought over from a Japanese shipping company. It had been in operation for 18 years and was close to retirement in Japan. Before 2012, the official retirement age for a ferry boat in Korea was 20 years old. However, this age limit was changed under the Lee Myung-bak government, allowing for a 30-year-old ferry boat to continue operating. This decision was made as a result of Lee's promotion of new capitalism with deregulation policies during his presidency. Unfortunately, due to this law change, the current ferry was imported in 2012 as a used vessel, which had already been in operation for 18 years. This decision is frustrating and unfortunate, as it was a result of the senseless government and Sewol's choice to import such an aging ferry for Korean passengers. 

2. It is reported that the ferry boat has been imported and rebuilt to increase its passenger capacity and space. However, it is important to ensure that the rebuilding was carried out by the safety codes. Additionally, a thorough investigation of the ferry's technical issues is necessary. The government's official inspection agency should also be investigated to ensure safety standards are met. 

3. On the day the ferry sunk, there were two inexperienced crew members in charge - one controlling the ferry and the other navigating. Both had less than a year's experience. The captain, Lee Joonsuk, who was 69 years old, had left them in charge for a while. It is unclear how many containers and cars were on board or whether they were properly secured. Reports suggest that many containers fell when the ferry suddenly tilted to the left and began to sink. It should be noted that Lee was a replacement for the regular captain who was on vacation. Unfortunately, the situation only got worse.





4. A terrible incident occurred when a ferry began to tilt and sink for 90 minutes. If the captain, Lee, had made the right decision to evacuate all passengers immediately upon sensing that something was wrong with the ferry (due to a loud roaring sound), most passengers could have been saved. However, crew members repeatedly told passengers to stay calm and stay inside the ferry, leading to a waste of critical time. Most students stayed inside, trusting in vain. It is unclear why the captain did not ask all passengers to immediately wear life-saving jackets and prepare life-saving boats for evacuation. According to one report, only two life-saving boats were working. It is also unknown whether there were enough life jackets for all passengers. Captain Lee and other crew members abandoned the ferry and passengers in danger of their lives, leaving their posts to be among the first group of people rescued by the rescue team. Even after being rescued, Lee tried to hide his identity and acted like a passenger. This incident is deeply distressing.

5. However, there is one young lady named Ms. Park Ji-Young in her early twenties, who was a crew member for passengers. She helped young students escape from the sinking ship, but unfortunately, she was unable to rescue herself. Her story brings tears to my eyes. 

6. It seems that the high school where the students came from is partly responsible for the unfortunate incident that took place. The school authorities should have conducted a thorough assessment of the safety of the ferry trip. Unfortunately, the ferry had set sail several hours behind schedule due to adverse weather conditions. Moreover, it is with great sadness that I learned about the Vice Principal's tragic death by hanging himself on a pine tree. The Vice Principal was a chaperone of the trip and had been rescued from the accident. However, he was unable to cope with the pressure and guilt of the incident. 

7. The overall emergency response and rescue efforts made by the government have been disappointing. There are lots of concerns, inefficiencies, and complaints about this rescue operation. I understand that it's not easy to handle situations during emergencies. However, we should learn from past tragedies and try to implement those learnings in the present. The current government's leadership is being questioned due to this. There were enough lessons learned from past experiences, but are we implementing them today? My heart goes out to all those affected by this senseless tragedy. They are constantly in my thoughts and prayers. 

8. Conclusion
It is tragic to note that this accident could have been prevented, or many lives could have been saved. The accident was caused by human error, which is morally unacceptable. There was a system failure that involved various parties, including the government (both former and current) and its overseeing agencies, who did not perform their duties appropriately. The ferry company was also at fault for importing an old ferry and renovating it carelessly, adding more space while neglecting proper management. The crew members were unprepared in case of an emergency, which made the situation even worse.
 

*Last-minute text messages sent by students trapped in the sinking ferry:









(Photo courtesy of Newsis)

 

My Reflection

The tragic incident of the Korean ferry Sewol has left deep scars on the hearts and minds of the Korean people, which may take a long time to heal. The case was an unprecedented failure of both the government and private sectors. The ferry was carrying over 470 passengers, mostly high school students on a trip to the remote southern island of Jeju. Unfortunately, only 174 passengers were rescued, and the rest were confirmed dead or still missing. Unfortunately, everything went wrong, contributing to the disaster. First, the ferry company, Chungjin Haewoon, violated several safety codes and regulations, such as overloading containers and cargo, rebuilding the boat without proper safety measures, not providing adequate safety training for the crew, ignoring repair requests from the staff, and hiring a temporary captain on the day of the incident. It is shameful to hear about all these unethical practices of the company and its owner, as well as other interest groups involved. 

Second, there were no immediate and organized responses from the government to address the disaster. The sea police, for instance, were unprepared and lacked the necessary training to deal with the situation. Prompt action could have saved many lives, but unfortunately, they were unable to act fast enough. Additionally, there were inadequate manual and rescue equipment, as well as personnel. Even the emergency control and surveillance systems in the sea failed to function effectively. 

Third, the majority of the crew members (excluding the service crew such as Park Ji-Young and another man who risked their lives to save other passengers) abandoned the ferry without taking any action to rescue the hundreds of passengers on board. Despite being instructed to remain calm and in their designated areas, the passengers were left stranded without any assistance. There is a suspicion that the ferry company may have instructed its crew members, including the captain, to deliberately sink the ferry with all the passengers on board, to claim a large insurance payout and compensation. This possibility must be thoroughly investigated. Failing that, some suggest that the crew members' behavior remains inexplicable, as they had plenty of time to send out an emergency signal before leaving the ship. 

It is believed that many lives could have been saved if the passengers on the boat had been advised to wear their jackets and move to the deck of the boat. Unfortunately, due to an announcement instructing them to "stay where they are", many students remained in their cabins or rooms as the ship began to sink. Even in this dire moment, the students appeared to be unaware of the severity of the situation and continued to chat and take pictures, leaving messages for their parents. They trusted the repeated announcement and believed that they would be rescued. However, this trust ultimately proved to be misplaced. 

At different points during the ferry accident, the students heard an announcement instructing them to stay inside the boat. One of the students in the boat recorded the incident using his smartphone. Unfortunately, the student who recorded the video was found dead, and his father recovered the memory chip from the phone and sent it to the news agency. The video shows that the students were waiting for rescue before the ferry completely submerged. It is heartbreaking to see that they followed the instructions carefully but couldn't be saved in time.

 
In Korean culture, obedience is highly emphasized, and as a result, some students may not have learned how to respectfully disagree or disobey certain things. During critical situations, such as a sinking boat, these students may have felt compelled to ask questions like, "Why should we stay inside?" or "Why should we believe what you said?" It's not always easy to challenge authority, but blind obedience can be dangerous. If obedience is considered a virtue, then so too is healthy skepticism.

My signature articles in biblical studies

There were times I could put all energy and effort to write something. If I still feel great about what I wrote and think they represent my scholarship very well, that may be called signature articles. I have a few of these (2 from OT; 2 from NT). I don't know whether I can write more than these signature ones.

1) Lex Talionis in Exod 21:22-25 (Journal of Hebrew Scriptures)
2) The Story of Hannah from a Perspective of Han (The Bible and Critical Theory)
3) ““Imitators” (Mimetai) in 1 Cor. 4:16 and 11:1: A New Reading of Threefold Embodiment,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 33.2 (2011): 147-170. (ATLA accessible)
4) “Reclaiming Christ’s Body (soma christou): Embodiment of God’s Gospel in Paul’s Letters,” Interpretation 67.1 (2013): 20-29. (ATLA accessible)

Evaluation of Biblical Studies course

Mid-term Evaluation (BS500): Intro to Biblical Studies

Virginia Union University 

Dr. Yung Suk Kim 

9/2/2020 

Below is my mid-term evaluation of this course. After the last four weeks’ class, with many communications with you, I thought I need to clarify the course purpose, my expectations about your work, and your assignments.

This course has a focus on “biblical interpretation” in that you are learning various interpretive methods ranging from the historical-critical approach to the literary and reader-oriented approach. So, I laid out the overview of biblical interpretation in the very first class. Read my book, Biblical Interpretation, or the introduction chapter in my co-authored book with Mitzi Smith. I told you that biblical interpretation involves three layers of difficulty: text, translation, and interpretation. The first two things relate to textual criticism, which we do not cover in this course. For that matter, you need to study biblical language courses or related courses. However, I alerted you already that biblical texts you read are not based on the copy of the original text and that translation is also a hard task. While no translation is perfect, I recommended you use the NRSV for study because it focuses on a literal translation.

With these caveats in mind, our course focuses on the third layer of difficulty in biblical interpretation: “interpretation,” which means explaining a text. Even with a good secure text (Greek or Hebrew), and a good translation of a text, your job is not done because you must explain the text you are reading. This act of explaining is called “interpretation,” which involves three choices (again, read my book, Biblical Interpretation): the textual choice (how to read); the contextual choice (why do I read?); and the hermeneutical choice (what to read?). The textual choice concerns approaching methods of the text: Traditionally, we classify them variously, such as the historical-critical methods (seeking meaning behind the text), as the literary approach as in the structural criticism and narrative criticism (seeking meaning within the text), or as the reader-oriented, critical approach as in the reader-response criticism (seeking meaning in front of the text). Thus far, we have covered the first two textual approaches. For the next two weeks, we will cover the reader-oriented approach and post-modern approach. The contextual choice is seen by all interpreters; some are explicit about it while others are not. No matter what, all interpreters have ideology and interest in the text. The matter is not about whether you are objective. Regardless, even a historian may discover his or her interesting thing from the past, sometimes with biases, and most of the time from his or her perspectives. The bottom line is whichever method or approach you to employ you are contextually embedded and interested in the text. Your interest may be historical knowledge or seeking moral guidance. The hermeneutical choice has to do with the possibility of diverse lenses on a given text or theological topic. For more about this, read my book, Biblical Interpretation.

Re. Exegesis, Eisegesis, and Interpretation: Sometimes people think that exegesis is science and that trained students may get the same meaning of the text. That is an illusion. Exegesis is not science; it is an act of human interpretation, which involves various decisions, as I hinted above. In general, in biblical study, exegesis has been understood as the historical approach to the text. But nowadays, it may be understood broadly as “interpretation” whose task is to pull meaning out of the text. So, exegesis needs all methods. In my class, therefore, exegesis and interpretation are interchangeable. I would say exegesis paper or interpretation paper. On the other hand, “eisegesis” is understood in opposition to exegesis. The former occurs when the reader reads something, not in the text. While the reader’s role is important, as I stressed above, he or she cannot go beyond the text or manipulate it. In this sense, eisegesis is a thing of the past and it must be a problem. But do not be confused that I am not saying the dispassionate reading is possible. Strictly speaking, every reading is reader-engaged or interested. That does not mean his or her reading is eisegesis. Otherwise, the generally accepted good term for the reader’s act of reading a text is “interpretation.”

I expect that you will take and learn all the above seriously. In your group discussion or in your response paper or in your reading journal, and in your Group Project, finally, in your Interpretation Paper, I will love to see whether you learned all the above and applied them to your work in one or another.

It's time for you to start thinking about your group project. Read all required, assigned readings on Week 7 and prepare your individual worksheets and share them with your group members by uploading them online at “Files” on the Teams group. If you are ready and want to check with me about your paper, send me the following information via email: paper title, abstract, and outline. Your final paper must be yours, containing your words, thoughts, thesis, and arguments. Make sure about citation if you use others’ work; plagiarism of any sort is a crime in the academic world. Document your paper properly according to the guideline (Turabian manual). I need a quality paper that considers all the above matters in biblical interpretation. Also, refer to my document titled “Tips for Final Paper,” waiting for you at “Files” on the Team. I shared this with you already via email too. I am here to help you grow and learn new things or unlearn things you already know.

You may have a taste of an academic paper that I wrote in 2008. This is about Hannah. This paper represents my critical study of the text, reflecting my issues and hermeneutical lens.