Meditation on 1 Cor 12:12-27: Deconstruction and "the Body of Christ"

My alternative interpretation of 1 Cor 12 may be summarized as follows: 

Paul's point is not that the church is the body of Christ but that "you (ὑμεῖς, plural "you") are the Christic body." The key is the ethical union with Christ, not merely existential or mysterious relationships with him. That is, the Corinthians must follow Christ and honor one another. Then, they can maintain a Christ-like community. Christ is not the owner of the church, but its foundation. The point is not mere membership to the church but impregnable participation in Christ and his faith. --From my talk on "Deconstruction and the body of Christ"

Also see my books: Christ's Body in Corinth and How to Read Paul.

Cross-cultural Wisdom

Simple truth
-Jesus: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you, for this is the Law and the Prophets" (Golden Rule, Matt 7:12).
-Hillel: "What is hateful to you, do not do to others. This is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary" (Talmud Shabbat 31a).
-Confucius: Zi Gong asked: “What is the single word that we can take as a moral guide for our whole life?” Confucius said, “Is it not reciprocity? What you don't desire don't impose on others” (Analects 15:24). 子貢問曰。有一言而可以終身行之者乎。子曰。其恕乎。己所不欲、勿施於人。

Human-centered thought:
-Jesus: “The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28).
-Confucius: The person unfolds the way; it is not the way that unfolds the person" (Analects 15:29). 子曰。人能弘道、非道弘人。

2 Corinthians: Contextual Critical Commentary

A peek into the Table of Contents

1:1—2:13 (+7:5–16; +13:11–13)  A Letter of Reconciliation  

1:1–2  Salutation

1:3–11  Blessing and Thanksgiving

1:12—2:13  Reflection and Advice

7:5–16  Joy of Ministry

13:11–13 Final Greetings

2:14—7:4  A Letter of Defense of Paul’s Ministry

2:14–17  Thanksgiving

3:1–18   Ministers of the New Covenant

4:1—5:10  Assurance of the Gospel

5:11–21  Ministry of Reconciliation

6:1—7:4  Exhortations 

8:1–24  A Letter of the Collection 

9:1–15  Another Letter of the Collection  

10:1—13:10  A Letter of Tears  

10:1–18  Defense of Paul’s Ministry

11:1–15  False Apostles

11:16–33  The Fool’s Speech 

12:1–13  Weakness and the Power of God

12:14—13:10  Final Appeal 

The Surgeon General’s Framework for Workplace Mental Health and Well-Being

I made the acronym SABAD (Security, Accomplishment, Belonging, Autonomy, and Dignity) to remember this diagram "The Surgeon General’s Framework for Workplace Mental Health and Well-Being," which was released by the US Surgeon General. 

*Source  

Paul's Gospel, Empire, and Race/Ethnicity: Through the Lens of Minoritized Scholarship

I am excited to finish editing the volume and submitted the final submission files to the publisher. I wrote in the Introduction: "Contributors to this volume represent diverse cultures and perspectives of Asian descent, African American heritage, and Latin American culture. This collective volume is the clarion call that biblical interpretation is not an arcane genre in the ivory tower but engages current issues in the real world of America, where we must tackle racism, the Western imperial gospel, and the rigid body politic." I hope many readers across the board will benefit from this book.

A Peek into the Table of Contents

 

1. Introduction
Yung Suk Kim

Part I. Paul, Gospel, and Empire
2. The Politics of Interpretation: Paul’s Gospel, Empire, and Race/Ethnicity
Yung Suk Kim
3. Paul the Apostle of the Nations and Pedro Albizu Campos, the Apostle of Puerto Rican Independence: A Comparative Study of Empire & Resistance
Efraín Agosto

Part II. Paul, Empire, and Race/Ethnicity
4. “Let This Mind Be in You”: Paul and the Politics of Identity in Philippians—Empire, Ethnicity, and Justice
Demetrius K. Williams
5. Mainstreaming the Minoritized: Galatians 3.28 as Ethnic Construction
Sze-kar Wan

Part III. Paul, Empire, and Community
6. The Pursuit of Impossible Hospitality: Reading Paul’s Philoxenia with Jacques Derrida
Jeehei Park
7. From Alienation to Inclusion: Reading Romans 3:21-26 from a Diaspora Lens
Ekaputra Tupamahu

New Testament Theology

In the gospels, Jesus's death is not for the forgiveness of sins. In Mark, forgiveness is possible through water baptism and repentance. Jesus was put to death by Rome because he challenged the status quo. His radical teaching of the kingdom of God, which embraces the most marginalized, brought him to death. He came to serve, not to be served (Mk 10:45). In Luke, Jesus's death is prophetic death, seeking out and saving the lost. In Matthew, Jesus's death is the result of his radical teaching of the law and his fearless proclamation of the kingdom of God. In John, Jesus's death is the result of his truth-speaking and living. See more about my view of Jesus and the New Testament: Resurrecting Jesus.

Paul deals with sin's problem in Romans. It may be overcome when persons die to it through "the body of Christ" (Rom 6:4). Here, "the body of Christ" may be understood as Christ's crucifixion. In other words, through the way of Christ who lived faithfully to embrace the love and justice of God, one can live away from sin or its power. Otherwise, Paul never says that Christ's death alone resolved sin's problem. Rather, Paul's logic is because Christ died, all who follow Jesus have to die with him. Then sin's power will be dismissed. Paul says in 2 Cor 5:14: "For the love of Christ urges us on, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died." For more see Rereading Romans from the Perspective of Paul's Gospel or Rereading Galatians from the Perspective of Paul's Gospel. Jesus's death is the result of his faithful obedience to God, which means the cost of demonstrating God's righteousness (Rom 3:22). Also, see my latest book: How to Read Paul.

The Johannine Jesus is portrayed highly as close to divine. But the Fourth Gospel never claims that Jesus is God. Rather, Jesus says the one who sent him is greater than he. Also, he always makes it clear that he does the work of God. He does not do his work. His primary identity is the Son of God. Even when he says "the father and I are one," this does not mean that he is the same as God. It means "union" relationship between the two. If I say our family is one, it does not mean all members of my family are the same. The point is our family is united with the same love and solidarity. In the Fourth Gospel, there are lots of "embodiment" language by Jesus that can be understood metaphorically as his living of the Logos. That is, he embodies God's love in the world. "I am" sayings of Jesus, accordingly, must be understood as the description of his work, rather than as signs of his divinity. For more, see my book: Truth, Testimony, and Transformation.

How to read "difficult stories" in the Bible

 [Courtesy of FreeBibleImages.org]

Do you try to justify a complex story or explain it away? Or do you find a way to understand it critically?

How can you read Joshua's conquest narrative with the story of liberation (Exodus)?

God liberated oppressed Israelites from slavery in Egypt. That is an Exodus story of liberation. But soon, they became oppressors of Canaanites because God told them to take the land by destroying everything. Is this a good story? Whose story is this? Who is happy? Can you shut your eyes to the cries of many innocent people in Canaan?

Robert Allen Warrior, an American Indian scholar, laments the popular reading of Joshua's conquest narrative because there is no justice for those who are oppressed. He says European settlers came to America to seek freedom from oppression or persecution from their countries. At the same time, they thought God gave them America as a promise and turned into oppressors, expelling many American Indians. You might find his article: "Canaanites, Cowboys, and Indians: Deliverance, Conquest, and Liberation Theology Today."

How can "freedom-seeking people" become oppressors of other people? Do you think God is such a callous deity to the deaths of innocent people? Is the God of Jews a tribal god?

Some people read the story of promise and conquest together to support the covenantal theology manifest in Abraham's story. But that cannot justify the innocent deaths in Canaan. Others may read the whole narrative to undergird Jewish political power or independence. Still, others read it spiritually, as some Christians do these days. But that does not mean that "others" can be sacrificed in the name of God. No one is predestined for damnation. Aside from this, we must note that there are no historical records evincing Joshua's conquest narrative. Often, the story is composed to communicate a message to the audience. Then, all "objective" readers are to be mindful of the story that is told from one side only.

God is beyond the Bible, cannot be stuck in frames of the story, and is above human thoughts. With this in mind, biblical stories need critical evaluation rather than uncritical acceptance. Perhaps, if not the best, we can appreciate God's care for his covenanted people.

How about Matthew 15:21-28?

In this story, does Jesus test the Canaanite woman's faith? I would say "no." What is harsh is harsh. Jesus said derogatory things. He was mean to the woman and said he was not for the Gentiles. Earlier, in 10:5-6, he limited his mission to the Jews only.

But she challenges Jesus kindly and humorously and stays with him until she gets what she needs. Her faith is that God loves her and her daughter. She also deserves food and care. Her faith is "really" a challenging faith.

Finally, Jesus gives in to her and allows for her daughter's healing. We don't know whether Jesus changed his mind.

We need to consider two different contexts to understand this story. One is about Jesus's own time and his work. The other is about the Matthean community's time and issues. You might read him as the one who struggles to open the good news of God to the Gentiles because he is a Jew like others who believe that God is for them first. Reading him in such a context does not mean we must accept his attitude toward the Gentiles and a woman. Others think this story of Jesus's encounter with a woman reflects Matthew's context. In fact, Matthew edited Mark 7:24-30 (a Syrophoenician woman) and added details about the Jewish exclusivist position through the mouth of Jesus and that of the disciples. The pressing issue for the community was the boundary of the community. So, Jesus here in this text represents the community's struggle with whether they must open the door for the Gentiles. If they have to do it, what might be the condition? Even with this context, the harsh treatment of a woman or Jewish exclusivist thinking is problematic.

Mary Magdalene

To understand who Mary Magdalene was, we need to find the closest or earliest sources about her. But there are no earlier sources about her than the canonical Gospels, which came 40-60 years after Jesus died. Mary is recorded very briefly in several places of the four canonical Gospels (Matt 27:56, 61; 28:1; Mk 15:40, 47; 16:1, 9; Lk 24:10; Jn 19:25; 20:1, 18). In these Gospels, she appears to be a strong follower of Jesus, a witness to his crucifixion, burial, and resurrection. Jesus drove the seven demons from her (Lk 8:1-3; Mk 16:9). Other than the above, we don't have information about her.

For a long time, however, the Western church has colored Mary Magdalene as a sinner and a prostitute, considering the repentant sinner in Luke 7:36-50 as Mary Magdalene. But this reading is baseless.

In the 2nd-3rd-century apocryphal gospels such as the Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of Philip, which are Gnostic-leaning documents, Mary is portrayed differently as a companion of Jesus (Gosp. of Philip) and the one Jesus loved and kissed (Gosp. of Mary). Later, she stood tall as a very influential figure in Gnostic Christianity.

Otherwise, Da Vinci Code's claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene is baseless. There is no historical evidence evincing such a case.   

Derrida's Différance and Biblical Interpretation

Yung Suk Kim

Derrida's deconstruction theory challenges readers to rethink meaning altogether. He argues that there is no absolute unity or coherence in the text, which is an entangled web of various signifiers/significations that defy one single meaning. Derrida coins différance to connote the double meaning of differing and deferring. The signified is not fixed once and for all and must be different because the signifiers are like drops of water in the ocean. Likewise, we should delay meaning forever. Derrida differs from Saussure, who believes that even though there is no one-to-one link between the signifier and the signified, the signified is achieved in a given system of relations. 

A common misunderstanding about Derrida is he undermines faith and relativizes truth, promoting "anything goes." That is not true because deconstruction challenges the orthodoxies that subjugate the marginalized or voiceless. It defies "closure" in the text and sees new voices of fairness and justice. A parable is a type of deconstruction literature that resists conventional wisdom and helps readers to see something differently, subverting their world. 

As a case in point, we can take 1 Cor 12:27: "You are the body of Christ and individually members of it." The traditional interpretation focuses on the body's metaphorical organism: "You are the members of the body, which is the church, whose head is Christ, and individually, you are members." Here, the body is an organism metaphor, and the achieved meaning is unity in Christ and membership in him. But in fact, there is an alternative reading that resists the tradition. I read the body of Christ as the "Christic body" in the sense that the Corinthians must embody Christ, individually and communally. Here, the body is a metaphor "for a way of living" (for example, see 1 Cor 6:15-20). 1 Cor 6:15 reads: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I, therefore, take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! " (NRSVue). Paul’s point is the body is for God, which means they must embody Christ in their lives.

If we translate the body of Christ as “Christ-like body,” this use of the genitive case is called an attributive genitive. We see this example in "the body of sin” (Rom 6:6), which we understand as "the sinful body." 

The alternative interpretation underscores the ethical union with Christ and the diversity of the community. That is the Corinthians must follow Christ and honor one another. Then, they can maintain a Christ-like community. Christ is not the owner of the church, but its foundation. The point is not mere membership to the church but impregnable participation in Christ and his faith.

*Note: I have argued for an alternative reading of "the body of Christ" through a number of articles and books. My debut book is Christ's Body in Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor (Fortress, 2008). The most recent book on Paul is How to Read Paul: A Brief Introduction to His Theology, Writings, and World (Fortress, 2021).

Kant, Modernity, and Biblical Interpretation

Yung Suk Kim

Kant's perspicacious analysis of human capacity and limitations is notable. As a pioneer of modern philosophy, he sees in humans both the power of reason and its limitations. Reason-based, duty-driven, universal law is remarkable in that we may bring about change for all human beings universally. His vision is idealistic, yet we cannot ignore his passion for the universal significance of ethics. Kant also argues that we are limited beings who can understand or perceive only things as they appear to them. He distinguishes between noumenon ("the thing-in-itself") and phenomenon ("the thing as it appears to an observer"). The former is unknowable by humans while the latter is perceived. If we recognize this difference and walk a tightrope between the two, we are "modern."

Understood this way, postmodernity, if it exists at all, is not a blow to the Kantian modern sensibility. Instead, it is an heir to modern philosophy in ways that we can embrace lofty standards of universal law coupled with self-critical observations about our world.  

Likewise, in biblical interpretation, we can distinguish between the knowable and the unknowable. The former is a rough representation of reality reflected in ancient texts, communities, societies, and empires. Otherwise, reality itself is unknowable. So, what we need is a humble spirit as well as a critical mindset.

Collapse of Logocentrism: From Kant to Saussure to Derrida

Yung Suk Kim

From Immanuel Kant to Ferdinand de Saussure to Jacques Derrida, there is a common thread that they all seem to reject logocentrism that has been dominant for far too long in Western tradition and philosophy. Logocentrism regards words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality. 

But Kant (1724-1804), well known for his transcendental philosophy, points to human limitations to knowledge/reality and distinguishes between noumenon (“the thing-in-itself”) and phenomenon (“the thing as it appears to an observer”). While noumena are unknowable, we experience or perceive phenomena only. So, for example, the "war" as a fight between two countries is noumenon, which is unknowable; we only perceive its phenomenon. If the word "war" is a sign of that reality, it must be also unknowable because reality itself is unknowable. In his transcendental idealism, language belongs to the subjective human experience. Accordingly, logocentrism has no place with him because language or words are within "the arbitrariness of subjective empirical consciousness" (see note 1). 

Saussure (1857-1913), a founding figure of modern linguistics, argues there is no one-to-one link between the signifier (word) and the signified (an actual thing). That is, he disputes the logical connection between them. The signifier must be imperfect and what comes out of it is multiple. For example, the "war" in a certain context signifies myriad things.

Derrida (1930-2004) more forcefully challenges logocentrism in his deconstruction theory. That is, no literature can set forever meaning to readers because there are internal systems of collapse within the literature. All in all, meaning is not fixed once and for all, as his coined term différance conveys meaning's difference and deferral. 

*Note 1: Yaron Senderowicz, "Language and reason in Kant's epistemology," Histoire Épistémologie Langage Année 1997 19-1 p. 147 (135-148).

"Test everything" (Biblical Interpretation)

 

In some sense, biblical interpretation is about testing. "Test everything," says Paul in 1 Thess 5:21. After testing, you can "hold fast to what is good." Until then, you must test everything: the text itself, interpretations of others, and your view. A real fight in biblical interpretation is a fight against yourself. No one is exempt from testing.

Key Concepts in Tanakah

חֶסֶד (hesed): mercy, kindness, love
God is hesed. Therefore, people should be also kind and loving to one another.
 

שׁוּב (shuv): to turn back
Because God is the way, people should turn back to him. That is what "repentance" means. The equivalent word in Greek is metanoia (μετάνοια).
 
צְדָקָה (tsedaqah): righteousness
God is the one who is righteous, the basis of human existence and action.

מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat): justice
Because God is righteous, people should seek justice in all spheres of life.

TaNaKh: Torah (תּוֹרָה), Neviim (נְבִיאִים), Ketuvim (כְּתוּבִים‎)

What am I?

People get their impressions of me based on what they see from me. While my colleagues tell me I am a writing machine or a prolific writer, students think I am thoroughly prepared. But I see myself differently. I'm always conscientious and feel like walking a tightrope. The other day I wrote about myself below:

Like a vapor, I am evanescent.
Like a reed, I am wavering.
Like dust, I am small.
But I'm not vanity.
I am a gift of God.

Interpolation (1 Cor 14:33-36)

1 Cor 14:33b-36 is considered an interpolation by many scholars. I told my students that this passage was out of the blue. It is not connected with all previous chapters and all the following. This passage is abrupt. It is said that women should not speak in the church and if they have questions they must ask their husbands at home.

But this above advice to women is untrue and impractical because not all women are married. Some may have lost their husbands already. Even if they had their husbands at home, their husbands would not know all the answers.

If Paul prevented women's participation in the church, he must have been conflicting himself or schizophrenic because elsewhere he advocated women's leadership and their free participation in worship. All men and women in the church equally received the gift of the Spirit. Therefore, we can hardly believe that Paul wrote the above passage.

 

My YouTube Channel

These days I don’t have much energy to make new videos for my YouTube channel. But I can do so anytime if I want. There are 66 videos on my channel with 204 subscribers. Someday I will come back to make more.

3Cs for success in class

Communication

Check with the instructor and talk with fellow students as often as possible. Keep the conversation open throughout the course.

Commitment
Plan things and set aside time for reading. 

Day and night, read, think, and read. 

Stay the course.  

Confidence
Believe in yourself. You can do it, and it can happen.

Trust your instructor and fellow students.

"Conscientious"

What adjective best describes you? 

At the university conference a week ago, I said my adjective is "conscientious." 

I listen to my inner voice before and after I do something. 

I am meticulous with something often impatient, and make mistakes. 

Yet I am resilient and don't stop coming back to do better and more.

Atonement Theories and Jesus

 Traditional Atonement Theories

• Penal-substitutionary atonement (including the concept of propitiation and expiation): God's wrath is dealt with by propitiation; sins are cleansed.
• Ransom theory deals with one's bondage to sin or evil. Jesus's death is a ransom, and the price is paid to the devil. As a result, sinners are released from bondage.  
• Satisfaction theory: Jesus's death is a sinless sacrifice that satisfies God's justice.

But the traditional atonement theories do not consider seriously the question of why Jesus was put to death in a historical, political sense. According to the Gospels and Paul's major letters, Jesus's death has to do with his radical message of God's rule in the here and now.

The challenge for us is interpreting various passages regarding Jesus's death in the New Testament. The following translations are from the NRSVue.

Mark 14:24: "“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many."

1 Cor 5:7: "Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch of dough, as you really are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed."

Matt 26:28: "for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

c.f. Matt 8:17: "This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah, 'He took our infirmities and bore our diseases.'"
 

2 Cor 5:21: "For our sake God made the one who knew no sin to be sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Rom 3:25: "whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement (hilasterion) by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed;"

*Note: Hilasterion may be translated or interpreted variously; it may be a propitiation, sacrifice of atonement, or mercy seat. In the Septuagint, hilasterion is the translation of the Hebrew Kaporet, which means the cover of the ark of the covenant on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur).

  
Rom 5:6-10: "For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. 8 But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. 9 Much more surely, therefore, since we have now been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life."

Gal 1:4: "who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,"

Heb 10:12: "But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, 'he sat down at the right hand of God,'"

1 John 2:2: "and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." *atoning sacrifice (hilasmos)

1 John 4:10: "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins." *atoning sacrifice (hilasmos) 

1 Pet 2:23-24: "When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed."

*This posting appeared in my other blog. 

Eremos in Luke 15:4 and translation

Jesus tells the parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15:3-7 (Matt 18:12-14). In Luke 15:4, a man leaves the ninety-nine in the ἔρημος (eremos) and searches for the lost one. The NRSVue translates "eremos" as "the wilderness." This translation is good. But the NIV goes with "the open country," and CEB has "the pasture." Both of these translations do not convey the sense of danger in the desert. The plain meaning of eremos is wilderness or desert, an unsafe place where predators may appear. Why do the NIV and CEB choose the open country or the pasture? The reason is probably to give you the impression that the shepherd did not put his sheep in harm's way while searching for the lost sheep. But this parable is not a traditional moral story but a seemingly nonsensible, paradoxical story that we cannot sacrifice one sheep because of the majority.

NRSVue
Luke 15:4 “Which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it?

NIV
15: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?

CEB
15:4 “Suppose someone among you had one hundred sheep and lost one of them. Wouldn’t he leave the other ninety-nine in the pasture and search for the lost one until he finds it? 

NRSVue made big improvements

As a critical interpreter of Paul's letters, I have long argued for the subjective genitive reading of the pistis christou phrases. Finally, the NRSVue (updated edition) reflects this reading. I am convinced that Paul's theology stands on two cornerstones: God's good news and Jesus Christ's faithfulness.  

• Rom 3:22: "faith in Jesus Christ" (NRSV); "faith of Jesus Christ" (NRSVue)
• Rom 3:26: "faith in Jesus" (NRSV); "the faith of Jesus" (NRSVue)
• Gal 2:16: "faith in Jesus Christ" (NRSV); "the faith of Jesus Christ" (NRSVue)
• Gal 2:20: "by faith in the Son of God" (NRSV); "by the faith of the Son of God" (NRSVue)

Three Pauline adjectives, vital for our transformation

κενός (kenos) means "empty," πλήρης (plērēs) means "full", and κοινός (koinos) means "common." Kenosis (the act of emptying) is the first thing we need before God. It is our humility. Then, we will be filled by the Spirit. With this Spirit, we can share a fellowship (koinonia) with others, based on common sense that we are all weak.  

Cascade Contextual Critical Commentary

The final version of the 2 Corinthians commentary is in my hand now. One of my colleagues took pains to read the entire manuscript. I cleaned it up. I feel like I am done with this. Sooner or later, I will submit it to the series editor (Cascade Contextual Critical Commentary).

2 Corinthians (Cascade, 2024 est)

 

Table of Contents

1:1—2:13 (+7:5–16; +13:11–13)  A Letter of Reconciliation  

1:1–2  Salutation

1:3–11  Blessing and Thanksgiving

1:12—2:13  Reflection and Advice

7:5–16  Joy of Ministry

13:11–13 Final Greetings

2:14—7:4  A Letter of Defense of Paul’s Ministry

2:14–17  Thanksgiving

3:1–18   Ministers of the New Covenant

4:1—5:10  Assurance of the Gospel

5:11–21  Ministry of Reconciliation

6:1—7:4  Exhortations 

8:1–24  A Letter of the Collection 

9:1–15  Another Letter of the Collection  

10:1—13:10  A Letter of Tears  

10:1–18  Defense of Paul’s Ministry

11:1–15  False Apostles

11:16–33  The Fool’s Speech 

12:1–13  Weakness and the Power of God

12:14—13:10  Final Appeal 

Mock Interview: Rereading Galatians

Rereading Galatians from the Perspective of Paul's Gospel
A Literary and Theological Commentary
(Cascade, 2019)


Presskit





Buy at Amazon

1. Why did you write this commentary on Galatians?

This book is a short literary and theological commentary. I don't repeat lots of the good stuff from the traditional commentaries. I read Galatians from the perspective of Paul's gospel that emphasizes God's gospel, Christ's gospel, and the Christian gospel. I hope readers may understand this letter freshly, seeing the importance of Christ's faithfulness and Christian participation in the gospel.


2. What is the method that you applied to read the letter?

My main method is a literary reading of the letter. I don't follow a typical rhetorical analysis. I explore the theme of the gospel in Galatians: "the origin of the gospel; the clarification of the gospel; the root of the gospel; the advantage of the gospel; the mandate of the gospel." These are five features of the gospel in Galatians.


3. Why do you think Paul wrote this letter to the Galatians?

Some in the church confused the gospel of Christ he proclaimed. They claimed that Jewish elements such as circumcision should be a mandate to become children of God. But Paul argues that the gentiles don't need circumcision because it is a cultural, religious thing that is not essential to the faith. His point is faith is what all people need. This fact has been true ever since Abraham trusted God. Otherwise, Paul does not argue that his gospel is law-free. Rather, the law is fulfilled through Christ who loved his neighbor (see Gal 5:14: “For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’”). Paul does not attach any strings or conditions to his gospel other than faith, which has been working since Abraham.


4. How different is your interpretation from others?

My interpretation is different from the traditional one. I argue that "pistis christou" is Christ's faithfulness. Christ revealed God's love and justice and he was obedient to God. Accordingly, his sacrifice is the result of his faithfulness for God’s love. It is not a vicarious redemptive death that he died instead of sinners. Likewise, Gal 2:16 is interpreted differently: "We are justified not by the works of the law, but through Christ's faithfulness." Here justification requires Christian participation in Christ.


5. What can you talk about "justification by faith"?

Strictly speaking, "justification by faith" is a correct one that is argued by Paul. But the question is by whose faith or what kind of faith. Primarily, the needed faith is Christ's faith, which is the basis for Christian faith. Then the content of faith is not merely to accept Christ's vicarious death but to imitate him.


6. You also read Romans from the same perspective of Paul's gospel. Are there common themes between the two letters?

Although the context of Romans is different from Galatians, Paul's view of the gospel is the same. Likewise, in Romans, we see the importance of the gospel involving three aspects: God's gospel, Christ's gospel, and the Christian gospel. The concept of faith and justification in Romans is congruous with Galatians. There is no conflict about Paul's theology.


7. Can you talk about your book briefly? What is it about?

This book approaches Galatians from a threefold-gospel perspective: God, Jesus, and those who live faithfully. For Paul, the good news is rooted in God’s promises to Abraham and confirmed through the faith of Christ Jesus. Those who share his faithfulness are set right with God and become children of God. All the above is the good news that Paul preaches to the Galatians.

Mustard Seed

The parable of the Mustard Seed is not about ambition or success. It teaches that small should not be ignored. We should note that Jesus uses a mustard seed as a metaphor for the reign of God. It grows to become bushes, serving birds and people who need them. He would have used a cedar tree, a symbol of glory and success, for the reign of God. But he chooses a tiny seed of mustard to show that marginalized persons have the potential to realize.   

John 3:3: born again or born from above?

How can we translate and interpret the Greek adverb anothen (ἄνωθεν) in John 3:3? Technically, it means either "again" or "from above." Does Jesus talk about birth again or birth from above? "From above" is a better translation. It is Nicodemus who understands anothen as "again" and asks: “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” (John 3:4).

Then, Jesus answers him again and restates birth from above: "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit" (John 3:5). "Being born of water and Spirit" may be understood in the context of water baptism when one receives the Spirit from above.

Here, the kingdom of God is the reign of God in which people abide, depending on God or the Spirit to continue to live a new life. Birth from above means spiritual birth, which needs a constant connection with the Spirit.

The spiritual birth (from above) is not complete once and for all. It requires a constant commitment to God, seeking the truth of God. It differs from physical birth that has a birthdate. In this regard, the popular evangelism question "Are you born again?" seems weird and judgmental.

True wisdom?

True wisdom begins with self-realization that we are small and evanescent. Qohelet and Daodejing are full of this idea.

Black Seminary and Experience

Yung Suk Kim

Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity

Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology

Virginia Union University

I am an Asian American scholar with Korean heritage—a Diaspora living in America as a citizen. With my hybrid identity, I enjoy teaching in a predominantly African-American school in the South—Richmond, once the capital of the Confederacy and the current capital of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

As a minority scholar within the minority culture, I often hear the importance of the black seminary and the black experience and ask the following questions: Is the black experience shareable with other cultures and people? Does blackness come from a collective or personal experience? Is it a human condition or a unique hermeneutical lens? African American seminary has an unparalleled role for “black” people and churches. The black seminary provides care to students in a more sustainable culture and community. It can be a safe place for their identity formation or reformation, deeply rooted in African-American heritage, culture, and experience. By being authentic to African American spirit and experience, a black seminary can foster critical spirituality and solidarity with others.

But critical questions remain to be answered down the road. In my view, the biggest challenge would be how the HBCUs set their position in changing contexts. How much can they adapt to fast-moving trends and conditions while keeping their traditions? What model of transformation or success can they establish?  

Redaction criticism (the water baptism of Jesus)

Redaction criticism seeks to answer why the author (the evangelist) changed the source material. To do so, readers must find changed parts. For example, in the baptism of Jesus, Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source and edited it, respectively. The changes or differences in Matthew and Luke reflect their community issues or theological perspectives. In other words, Matthew and Luke are not mere collectors of the source but redactors or theologians who are concerned with their communities.

Why does Matthew explain the need for Jesus' water baptism? What is going on with this community of Matthew? What kind of theology does Matthew advocate?

There are at least two plausible concerns or questions raised by some members of the Matthean community:

1) Why does Jesus need the water baptism by John since his baptism is for the forgiveness of sins?

2) Is Jesus's authority lower than John's since he was baptized by John?

   

Jesus's explanation is simple. His baptism is necessary for fulfilling the righteousness (of God), which is a prevalent theme in Matthew, not to mention the Hebrew Bible. Baptism means a surrender to God, a new start for his public ministry, and his commitment to advocating the justice of God. Otherwise, his baptism is neither about the forgiveness of sins nor about a matter of authority or ranking.   

The long conversational style of the Matthean baptism story is consistent with the didactical style of Matthew’s Gospel, composed of plenty of teaching materials such as the Sermon on the Mount and parables of Jesus.  

When it comes to Luke, why does Luke emphasize people's presence at Jesus's baptism and prayer of Jesus? Indeed, the Gospel of Luke as a whole is imbued with this theme of the down-to-earth ministry perspective along with the importance of prayer. Why did Luke omit baptism details from Mark? It would be hard to know. Perhaps, one plausibility is that in Luke's mind, those details are considered not crucial to the gentile audiences.  

Definition of Research in Humanities

"Research means digging into subjects deep and wide, connecting them with today's world, and thinking together about the future that is yet to unfold. Good or bad, all research projects involve certain levels of ideology. What we need is not so much objectivity as responsibility." (Yung Suk Kim, PhD)

Jesus and Confucius: "Human-centered thinking"

I am amazed at the great thinkers' concise, easy-to-understand expressions of truth. I find the examples in Jesus and Confucius, who lived at different times and in different cultural contexts. Both expressed the importance of human-centeredness with chiasmus.

Jesus: "The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27).

Τὸ σάββατον διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐγένετο, καὶ οὐχ ὁ ἄνθρωπος διὰ τὸ σάββατον·

Confucius: "The person widens the way; it is not the way that widens the person" (Analects 14:35).

人能弘道、非道弘人

Confucius and Francis Bacon: Inductive reasoning

Analects 14:35

下學而上達。知我者、其天乎。
"Study from below and reach the top. Who knows me except for Heaven?" (trans. by Yung Suk Kim).

See also Analects 15:29

人能弘道、非道弘人
"The person widens the way; it is not the way that widens the person" (trans. by Yung Suk Kim).

Confucius's point is each person must begin with oneself, studying and reasoning from everyday life. This idea evokes Francis Bacon's empiricism and inductive reasoning.

Confucius's practical approach to justice

Analects 14:34

或曰。以德報怨、何如。子曰。何以報德 以直報怨、以德報德。

Someone said: "How is repaying resentment with virtue possible?" Confucius said: "What then will you repay virtue? Repay resentment (or harm) with justice (lit. 'straightforwardness'). Repay virtue with virtue" (trans. by Yung Suk Kim).

My comments:

Repaying harm (resentment) with justice (straightforwardness) sounds contrary to Jesus's teaching that one must love one's enemy. But Confucius's teaching is practical and necessary because wrongs must be dealt with rather than condoned. Injustices cannot go unpunished or unchecked. So, we must consider the enemy situation and the nature of love. Otherwise, we cannot use Jesus's love command of the enemy apart from the context. Some might even ask: Is loving an enemy psychologically or morally salutary? Is it possible at all?

Summary of Confucius's Thought

I found a plausible room for a new interpretation of Confucius' thoughts against the traditional one, which begins with ren (love) and yi (righteousness), followed by zhi (knowledge or wisdom) and li (propriety). This tradition derives from Mencius (4th century BCE), a great interpreter of Confucius. In my critical reading of the Analects, however, I see a different key to interpreting Confucius. That is, Confucius begins with zhi and ren at the same time (for example, see Analects 4:1, 6:23, 15:33, 17:6, and 19:6), and his point is these two elements must be balanced in human behavior, just as the mind and heart go together. Otherwise, yi (righteousness) and li (propriety) are part of zhi and ren. In Analects 6:23, knowledge is compared to water while love is to the mountain. Knowing involves dynamic flow like water, and love is calm like the mountain. Knowledge must be flexible, nourishing, and reflexive. Love must be big and enduring. Below is Ana. 6:23.

The Master said, "The wise find pleasure in water; the virtuous find pleasure in hills. The wise are active; the virtuous are tranquil. The wise are joyful; the virtuous are long-lived." (trans).

Analects 13:23

“The most profound person (lord's son, kunzi) seeks harmony, but maintains differences. The small person is aligned with others (crowds), but does not seek harmony” (Analects of Confucius 13:23, trans by Yung Suk Kim).

Key phrases from Kongzi (Analects)

Translated by Yung Suk Kim, Ph.D

Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity

Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology

Virginia Union University

Analects (Ana.) 6:23: "The knowing person likes water; the humane person likes mountains. The former is advancing and exciting, and the latter is calm."

Ana. 11:12: "Chi Lu asked about serving spirits. Kongzi said: "If you cannot serve humans yet, how can you serve the spirits? The disciple dared to ask about death. The master said: "If you do not know life yet, how can you know death?"

Ana. 13:23: "The most profound person (lord's son, kunzi) seeks harmony, but maintains differences. The small person is aligned with others (crowds), but does not seek harmony."

Ana. 15:24: "Zi Gong asked: “Tell us with one word as to how we can live during our whole life?" Kongzi said, 'Isn't it reciprocity?' Do not impose on others what you do not want for yourself."

  

Three Virtues in 1 Cor 13:13

Yung Suk Kim, Ph.D.

Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity

Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology

Virginia Union University

"And now faith, hope, and love remain, these three, and the greatest of these is love" (1 Cor 13:13).

What is faith? Is it simply a will to trust God? Is it some form of conviction that God exists? Is it the knowledge or confession that Jesus is the savior? Or is it holistic faithfulness that seeks to imitate Jesus? How does faith relate to hope and love?

What is hope? Is it only personal emotion or feeling about security in Christ or God? Is it only future eschatological hope completed in the future? Is it manifested in the present even dimly?

What is love? Why is it the greatest among the three? What is love's relationship with faith and hope? Is love a charity? What does it say about the love of God and the love of neighbor? Does this love include the love of the self?

Which virtue comes first? Does Christian life begin with faith? Or with hope? Or with love? Or all at the same time? Thomas Aquinas thinks love is a charity that sustains faith and hope. For him, faith is a will or knowledge in God; hope is essentially the thing of the future; charity is a driving force that one can engage in the world, embracing the love of God for others. But for me, faith, hope, and love are inseparable. Whatever we do, our actions must be consistent with these three virtues in balance.