Likewise, we can say that God is great not because he is simply sovereign or because he has absolute power as such – in ways that anything would be possible. In fact, that kind of thought is very dangerous because God's name or power can be misunderstood or misused in the wrong context. God (heaven) is great because of its impartiality. God follows the way! Interestingly, this idea of God following the way is also found in Lao-tzu's writing, a famous wisdom book written in 5th- 6th century BCE China, the Tao Te Ching which I translated into English. Lao-tzu says, "Heaven follows the way." His idea of heaven following the way lies in heaven's impartiality. Heaven is great because it runs with impartiality.
If we understand heaven or God this way, God is great because of his impartiality. Any God-talk or theology that does not operate with this mode would seem vague at best or dangerous at worst. The bottom line is that even God cannot do everything; if he does so, he is a despot. Even God follows the way!
Jesus' parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16) shows this point of God's impartiality. As opposed to the popular reading that God can do anything with his power, my reading of this parable emphasizes the character of God's impartiality with which early birds and late birds receive the same "usual daily wage." The owner of this vineyard represents the impartial God who sees the need of both the early and late birds. The landlord knows that all need work and equal pay for their families. Their needs are the same. By the way, according to the story, the late birds are not lazy people; simply, they couldn't find a job early enough. Interestingly and expectedly, the early birds complained to the owner of the vineyard about equal pay. These people did not understand what the contract was; the landlord promised a usual daily wage. Otherwise, they did not see the need for other fellow workers.
God is great not because he can do anything but because he is impartial. Great does not mean that anything is possible. The notion of greatness does not depend on manipulative power but on impartial love for all. All under the sun are to be equally respected and cared for. If that happens, we say God is great. If that happens, we say that we follow the way of heaven – the way of God.
"Doctor, cure yourself" (Luke 4:23)
Sometimes students read a biblical text out of context. One case in point comes from Jesus's saying of a proverb, "Doctor, cure yourself" (Lk 4:23). They argue that the preacher who has all kinds of maladies/sins can use this text for preaching healing and self-care. But this text is about neither healing nor a sound doctor.
The meaning of Luke 4:23 or the whole passage can be decided at two levels which must be distinguished in a critical study: from the historical Jesus and the Jesus reflected in/by Luke (the Lukan Jesus). If Jesus told this saying (4:23), including all he said in this passage (4:16-30), we have to wonder about the possibilities of meaning he wanted to communicate. One possibility is that given his village people’s disbelief about him (“Is not this Joseph’s son?” 4.22), he retorts them and rejects their view that he is incompetent or inconsistent as a teacher, as a similar case can be made with a bad doctor. This is the context where Jesus uses this proverbial saying, “Doctor, heal yourself.” However, this exact form of proverb has not been discovered in both classical and Rabbinic literature. The approximate form of reference has to do with “a bad doctor,” who is unable to function well for various reasons in various contexts. There are many texts and contexts which address various issues regarding a bad doctor.
Otherwise, this proverb that Jesus used should not be taught apart from the context which he addresses. His concern here is not the doctor’s ability to cure others or the importance of self-care or perfection before helping others. The problem is that his village people do not believe his teaching/preaching.
From the Lukan perspective, regardless of where this material of Lk 4:16-30 comes from, there are clear Lukan emphases in this passage. This is Jesus’s first public teaching/preaching which happens in his hometown, in the very synagogue. He did a great job, and his hometown people were amazed at his gracious words. But still, they did not have trust in him because he was from a meager family they all knew so well (Mary and Joseph). So the Lukan Jesus says: “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, 'Doctor, cure yourself!' And you will say, 'Do here also in your hometown the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.'" The problem is that they cannot believe that Jesus is the Messiah. In this context, “cure yourself” is a pejorative saying that rejects Jesus. Interestingly, because of the Jews’ disbelief or rejection of Jesus, the gospel moves to the Gentiles. That is a logical conclusion that Luke-Acts follows. So, right after this saying, Jesus preaches about God’s preferential option for the Gentiles. Elijah and Elisha were involved in the salvation of non-Israelites.
The conclusion is that, from the Lukan Jesus perspective or from the historical Jesus’s, “cure yourself” must be interpreted in its literary context. In my view, one cannot dissect this saying from the entire text/passage and explore the importance of perfection or self-care for the preacher before helping others. That is an overstretch or some people say it is an eisegesis.
Poetic imagination (Amos 5:21-24)
I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream (Amos 5:21-24).
Amos uses his poetic imagination to challenge Israelites to live by justice and righteousness. Justice must run like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. Justice must sound bigger than any other thing. The prophet says that God does not want festivals, burnt offerings, or noisy music. Rather, God wants to hear a big sound of justice rolling like a river. Justice must be heard everywhere and it requires a fair distribution of wealth, and economic justice for all. Waters symbolizes the vibrant, dynamic power of justice effective to all.
Then, the prophet gives us another poetic image of the stream and relates it to righteousness. A stream lies in the lowest valley and flows steadily and quietly. And the source of a stream is rain from above. This image of a stream, "flowing like an ever-flowing stream" must mean that we must be humble before God and others because who we are is possible because of God's grace. In this regard, righteousness is a relational language that seeks God's way in everyday life as in a never-drying stream.
In the end, the prophet says we need both water and a stream in our lives. We need big waters of justice in society. Yet a big river is not made on its own. It is the result of many streams. But even a stream is not possible without rain from above. Thus a justice without righteousness would be noisy music.
Charity ends, but love (agape) never ends (1 Cor 13)
Apostle Paul says in 1 Cor 13 that love never ends. True love is based on the needs of others. It is other-centered love and action. It is an expression of love for God and others. It is a humbling attitude that no one can live without others. But this other-centered love does not simply mean that one must sacrifice himself/herself for others. The love must be authentic and voluntary. There must be a good balance between the following three loves: "love of the self, love of neighbor, and love of God."
While love does not end, charity ends. It is often not an expression of true love. It may be selfish love. It may be a way out of personal guilt. A giver may feel good about it and expect others to be like him/her. In addition, charity often works with binary constructions between the haves and the have-nots, between the rich and the poor, between the poor and not-so-poor, and between the abled and the disabled. Here people ask questions like "Who is my neighbor?" or "Who is worthy to be loved?" But love breaks down all these binary constructions and asks the issue of justice for all. It is like the justice found in the parable of the vineyard (Matt 20:1-16). God's vineyard needs full employment and adequate pay for all.
Gifted people such as those who speak in tongues or prophesy or have charity organizations may fall into the trap of self-promotion. That is why Paul wants to show "a more excellent way," which is agape. Before doing anything or giving anything, one needs to check his/her motivations.
"If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of the angels, but do not have love (agape), I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal" (1 Cor 13:1).
Incarnation (John 1:14)
Usually, the Fourth Gospel is called the Gospel of high Christology, which means that Jesus is God. So much so that the Johannine Prologue (1:1-18) is also read from that perspective of high Christology. That is, God became Jesus, quite literally (1:14: "The Logos became flesh"). The Logos (word) in the Prologue is equated with Jesus, who was with God from the beginning. Jesus is also the preexistent Logos. However, this view of high Christology is not well supported by the text, as opposed to a common understanding. First, in John 1:1-13, the Logos does not refer to Jesus. While the Logos is God's word or wisdom or spirit in the Hebrew Bible, it is Reason in Greek philosophy. It may have to do with Jesus implicitly in these verses, but he is not clearly mentioned or explored therein. All things in those verses are about the Logos.
Second, finally, in John 1:14, readers come to think about the Logos and its relation to Jesus because 1:14a says: "The Logos became flesh and lived among us." But even here the meaning of the Logos becoming flesh is not self-evident because this sentence has a metaphoric statement, which must be understood metaphorically, not literally. Interestingly, 1:14a does not say that the Logos became Jesus, but flesh, which evokes the image of flesh as a concrete life in the world or of flesh as a vulnerable world. The point is that the invisible word of God (or the truth of God) became visible and touchable through flesh, which happened to be Jesus and his life. In this regard, Jesus incarnates the Logos; otherwise, these two are not the same. Jesus delivers God's word (17:1-14) and testifies to the truth of God (18:37).
Third, even in 1:14b ("we have seen his glory, the glory like or as of (hos) a father's only son, full of grace and truth"), the Logos is not equated with Jesus. We should take note of "hos" the particle of comparison, which means "like" or "as." John says that "his glory" (ten doxan autou, i.e., the glory of the Logos) is compared to the glory of a father's only son (doxan hos monogenous para patros). The glory of the Logos is seen in Jesus because the Logos is embodied through his life, full of grace and truth. Thus, John 1:14b is the language of comparison, not of equality. The Logos and Jesus are not the same.
A threefold gospel (Rom 3:22)
I remember visiting the web page of the prominent Seminary in the U.S. and found a brief mission statement of the school that emphasizes the mission of spreading "the gospel of Christ." Many mainline seminaries include this kind of wording in their mission statements. Then I wondered what that "gospel" really means and how it is communicated to students. But in fact, the gospel relates to God first; that is, "the gospel or good news of God" must be a starting point for the mission, as both Jesus and Paul begin their ministry with this "gospel of God" (Mark 1:14 or in Rom 1:1). Even before we talk about the gospel of Christ, we should talk about the good news of God, which is none other than God's good news. God is the good news. God is righteous. God's righteousness is being revealed (Rom 1:16-17; 3:21-26). God is the center of Paul's theology.
Now "the good news of God" was manifested through Christ's faithfulness. This is another aspect of good news about Jesus. The good news is not that he died for you or instead of you but that he brought God's righteousness to the world. Therefore, Paul talks about the gospel of Christ in his letters (1 Cor 9:12; 2 Cor 9:13; Gal. 1:7; Phil. 1:27; 1 Thess. 3:2). Christ is the foundation of the church because he laid the foundation of love and faith. The church is being built not by the human commission or from any human authorities, but by the love that is shown by Jesus.
Finally, this good news of God proclaimed by Jesus cannot become a reality for people unless they change their minds toward God or Jesus. That is metanoia in Greek, which means to change a mind, and also the Hebrew verb shub, which means to turn back to God. So Paul tried to spread this good news to all and asked them to trust God and Jesus. All people, Jew and Gentile, can become children of God through faith, which is to follow the way of God or to imitate Jesus. That is his gospel (Rom 2:16;16:25). Christians are a letter of Christ to others. They should be good news for them. Their good news is not by word only but by the power of the Spirit. Who can have this power? Paul answers in Rom 8: 13: "Those who put to death the deeds of the body."
This three-fold structure of Paul's gospel is clearly seen, if rightly understood, in Rom 3:22: "God's righteousness through Christ Jesus's faith for all who have faith." We must bring God's good news, informed and exemplified by Jesus, through our life.
For more about this thesis of three participatory aspects of Paul's gospel, read
A Theological Introduction to Paul's Letters.
Jesus's mission (John 18:37)
In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus is better compared to Moses than to God. While in Matthew's Gospel, Jesus appears as a great teacher like Moses, in the Fourth Gospel, he appears as a great liberator/leader like Moses. Moses is sent to Pharoah like God (Exod 7:1; c.f., 3:10-11). His mission is to liberate the Israelites from their bondage in Egypt. For this purpose, he is given power and authority. He is thoroughly an emissary sent by God.
Interestingly, in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus almost always emphasizes that he is sent by God to do the work of God, which is none other than to bring life and light to people in a chaotic world. He is given power and authority to do this mission. Otherwise, he never claims that he is equal to God. The opposite is true. He says that God is greater than he (John 14:28). At other times, he says, "The father and I are one" (John 10:30). What he means is that he does the work of God; they are united with the common work. This is not the language of mutual equality. If I say that my family is one, I do not mean that all members are the same or equal. I mean that all are united in a family, loving and working together. Jesus's relationship with God is similar.
The conclusion is that the Fourth Gospel does not portray Jesus as God. Rather, he is better compared to Moses, who was sent by God to Pharaoh to deliver the Israelites from their bondage to Egypt. Jesus was also sent by God to do God's work in a dark world: to bring life and light to the world that God loved so much. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah who came to testify to the truth of God (John 18:37).
Jesus was crucified by weakness (2 Cor 13:4)
I have an issue with the "strong" Messiah, which is the Western view of Jesus characterized by triumphalism, colonialism, and supersessionism. In this view, he is fully divine and all-powerful. He defeated death and evil and completed salvation for humanity through his voluntary redemptive suffering. This is the Western Jesus of triumphalism. In this Western view, Jesus also appears as a colonial ruler who is the way. Likewise, John 14:6 ("I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me") is interpreted exclusively. All countries and cultures must accept him as the way and the truth. Non-Christians and their countries are forced to convert to the Western gospel of Jesus. It is our known history in the 19th and 20th centuries that commerce and Christianity went to other countries hand in hand. Colonialism and Christianity are hardly distinguishable in many colonized countries in Africa and the Caribbean. Similarly, this kind of triumphant, colonial Messiah opposes Judaism or Israel. Namely, the issue is supersessionism or Antisemitism in that Jesus replaces the old covenant with Israel. Jesus's sacrifice is perfect once and for all and completes salvation. The law's time ended with Israel. Now is the new time for the church through Jesus. Old religion and tradition are rejected and relegated to inferior things.
But Jesus was born into a poor abnormal family and experienced weakness as a poor Galilean Jew. He did his best to proclaim God's good news and was executed by the Roman authorities. He showed God's way and truth; nevertheless, his work is not complete. The end did not come yet with his resurrection, and his work must continue with his followers.
Jesus was a devout Jew who never denied his Jewish identity and his loyalty to God. He affirmed the law and prophets. He did not preach about the heavenly kingdom of God. Rather, his primary concern was the rule of God in the here and now. His claim is God rules, not the Roman emperor. He proclaimed "the good news of God," not that of Rome. He broke the laws of Sabbath and purity to advocate for the sick and the marginalized. This led to his death. In other words, he did not come simply to die for sinners but to testify to the truth of God (John 18:37). His death is the result of what he said and did in proclaiming God's rule, not Caesar's. His "dangerous" teaching and action cost him a life.
The Western view of Jesus with an emphasis on his power and glory is in error because we ignore his humanity with weakness in first-century Palestine where so many people suffer, including Jesus. There are physical ills, social ills, famine, economic exploitation, and slavery. Why should we deprive him of his humanity and his weakness? Why do we not talk about his struggle to understand the chaotic world lacking God's rule?
In 2 Cor 13:4a, Paul also admits the fact that "he [Jesus] was crucified 'by or from weakness' (
eks astheneias)." That is, he insinuates that Jesus could not avoid or overcome Roman violence because he had to continue preaching God's kingdom against Rome. In this regard, the often-made translation of "in weakness" for
eks astheneias does not convey Paul's meaning. In fact, Paul contrasts
eks astheneias ("by or from weakness") with
ek dunameos theou ("by or from the power of God") with that phrase. Paul's point is clear in 2 Cor 13:4: 1) Jesus was crucified because of his humanity, which is weak; 2) But he lives because of the power of God.
A story of fear or faith? (Gen 22)
In Genesis 22, some hear a story of faith while others question it. Some admire Abraham, who acts upon a seemingly impossible, insensible, insane command of God that his only son Isaac be sacrificed as a burnt offering. Is this story a story of faith?
What is the purpose of this story? Who tells it for what purpose?
What kind of God is this one asking for a human sacrifice?
What kind of father is this one not asking God to explain about this?
He had to protest against this absurd command.
We have to remember how Abraham acted in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. He questioned God's action toward those cities. He tried to save the cities and negotiated with God. Seemingly, he cared about the innocent people there. But now he is silent about God's order to kill his innocent son.
Did Abraham believe that God would provide at the last moment and save Isaac? If he believed so, why did he not talk to his son? If he did so, Isaac would engage with his father. He could express his willingness or resistance to his father's plan. But Abraham lied to his son.
Abraham bound his son and took a sword to strike against him. He did so, but he was stopped by God. From Abraham's point, he already killed his son in a way. Does a father have the right to kill his child for God? What is the place of Isaac in this story? Is he a victim or a cooperative son? How could he remember this awful moment from later days in his life?
Even if Abraham believed that God would resurrect his son after his sacrifice, Isaac would not be the same person anymore. Irreversible damage incurred to him already. How hard will it be to remember all lies, blind faith, the uncaring mind of his father! Though Isaac was saved from being killed, he suffered too much already. From Isaac's point, even such faith in the resurrection is not the right explanation for him. Who can speak for Isaac?
What this story means is up to the reader! Is this the story of faith or that of fear and blind obedience? Readers have to engage with this difficult text without explaining it away. Biblical texts are not treasures by themselves nor fossilized remains that do not have value. Let this story tell its own to each differently.
If interested in my book on biblical hermeneutics, see this book,
Biblical Interpretation.
Does Paul justify selfish ambition because the gospel is proclaimed? The answer is no because the ends cannot justify the means.
Paul talks about various motives for spreading the gospel in Phil 1:16-17: "Some proclaim Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from goodwill. These proclaim Christ out of love, knowing that I have been put here for the defense of the gospel; the others proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but intending to increase my suffering in my imprisonment." Finally, he also says: "What does it matter? Just this, that Christ is proclaimed in every way, whether out of false motives or true; and in that, I rejoice" (Phil 1:18). Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of spreading the gospel. Otherwise, he does not say the ends justify the means. Selfish ambition is a bad thing even though the gospel is proclaimed. The content of preaching may be justified, but not the preacher's selfish ambition.
In fact, later in the letter, in 2:2, Paul exhorts the Philippians to "be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind." He goes on to say: "Do nothing from selfish ambitions or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves" (Phil 2:3). The hymn of Christ in 2:6-11 is also a reminder to those who proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition.
Jesus also acknowledges the Pharisees' good teaching but never praises what they do, because they don't do what they teach. "Therefore, do whatever they [Pharisees] teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach" (Matt 23:3).
For most Christians, the gospel (euangelion, good news) is equated with Jesus. Or, easily, they say "Let's spread the gospel of Christ." What they mean is as follows: Christ died for sinners and he dealt with sins. His redemptive death resolved the problem of sin. So he is the savior who made a perfect sacrifice for humanity. Salvation is done once and for all. It was "my death" that he died. Whoever simply believes this and repents will be saved once and for all.
But he did not simply come to die. Rather, he came to testify to the truth (John 18:37); he came to serve, not to be served (Mark 10:45); he came to save the lost (Luke 19:10); he came to fulfill the righteousness (Matt 5:17). For Paul, the gospel of Christ has to do with what Jesus did for God; namely, he revealed God's righteousness to the world through faith (Rom 3:21-26).
Strictly speaking, however, the good news begins with God. All good things about God constitute the good news (euangelion). According to Mark 1:14, Jesus as the Son of God began to proclaim "the good news of God" of which details are in Mark 1:15: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news." In Rom 1:1, Apostle Paul also says that he is an apostle called (like a prophet) and "set apart for the gospel of God." Then, in verse 2, he relates God's gospel to Jesus, who was declared to be the Son of God with power because of his faith.
Eventually, this gospel of God proclaimed by Jesus must continue with his followers. I am still convinced that Paul's theology is thoroughly theocentric, Christ-exemplified, and Christian-imitated. The church is God's, not Jesus's.
Then the text will be alive to you and do something to you.
