New video: How can we read the Bible transformatively?

In A Transformative Reading of the Bible, Yung Suk Kim raises critical questions about human transformation in biblical studies. What is transformation? How are we transformed when we read biblical stories? Are all transformative aspects equally valid? What kind of relationships exists between self, neighbor, and God if transformation is involved in these three? Who or what is being changed, or who or what are we changing? What degree of change might be considered "transformative"? Kim explores a dynamic, cyclical process of human transformation and argues that healthy transformation involves three kinds of transformation: psycho-theological, ontological-theological, and political-theological transformation. With insights gained from phenomenological studies, political theology, and psychotheology, Kim proposes a new model for how to read the Bible transformatively, as he dares to read Hannah, Psalm 13, the Gospel of Mark, and Paul as stories of transformation. The author invites Christian readers, theological educators, and scholars to reexamine the idea of transformation and to engage biblical stories from the perspective of holistic human transformation.

My translation of the Dao De Jing

Dao De Jing is a classical wisdom book rooted in Laozi. It is one of the most-read books in the world today. It comprises 81 short poems. In some sense, it is close to Jesus's parables. My translation is for you for free and in the public domain.  

"To return is the movement of the Way." Daodejing 40

"To be weak is the function of the Way." Daodejing 40

From Lament to Advocacy: Black Religious Education and Public Ministry

A brief review of this book by me:

 
From Lament to Advocacy: Black Religious Education and Public Ministry is an edited volume by Anne E. Streaty Wimberly, Annie Lockhart-Gilroy, and Nathaniel D. West, and it includes eight contributions covering a wide array of topics concerning Black religious education and public ministry. The volume's purpose is to provide a viable, timely resource for a variety of Black educators, community leaders, and all like-minded people working for the empowerment of Black people in today's hostile environments. In doing so, the contributors touch on two fronts of the urgent issues concurrently: religious education and public ministry, which are often separated from each other. As the editors note, what this volume attempts to do is to bridge the gap between these two fronts and find a way to do effective, holistic education and ministry both within and outside the Black churches and communities. This is a marvelous attempt that does not separate what is happening to the community or church from what is happening in society.

In chapter 1, “Religious Education and Lament: Inviting Cries from the Heart, Guiding the Way Forward,” Anne Wimberly articulates the importance of expressing grief and lament as part of a grieving process and argues that lament or grieving should lead to meaning-making ultimately so that the grieving may be empowered to survive and envision a God-given future. In chapter 2, “Religious Educators Public Ministry Leaders,” Nathaniel West focuses on the role of the religious educator as public theologian, who must engage with the community and society at the same time to advocate for the downtrodden and the marginalized in the community and society. He argues that public theologians must be equipped well with Afrocentric practices and justice-seeking spirits. In chapter 3, “Religious Education and Communities of Learning and Practice: Inspiring Advocacy in Public Ministry,” Mary Young zeroes in on the role of religious education and the importance of the faith community, which must be the catalyst for the lives of Black people who need empowerment. In chapter 4, “Religious Education in Response to Black Lives Matter: A Case for Critical Pedagogy,” Joseph Crockett analyzes The Black Lives Matter movement and proposes that religious education along with critical pedagogy is needed to strengthen such a social movement. In chapter 5, “Religious Education and Womanist Formation: Mothering and the Reinterpretation of Body Politics,” Nancy Westfield discusses the importance of a womanist approach to religious education and emphasizes the role of African American Christian mothers who care for their children through caring spirit. In chapter 6, “Religious Education and Prison Ministry: Where Public Theology and Public Pedagogy Meet,” Sarah Farmer proposes a way of religious education that may help to improve criminal justice for the Black community. In chapter 7, “Religious Education and the Public Role of the Sister’s Keeper: A Historical Correlational Method,” Richelle White introduces two Christian educators from the early-twentieth-century: Nannie Helen Burroughs and Mary McLeod Bethune, who had exemplary works on fostering the education of Black girls. Finally, in chapter 8, “Religious Education for Making It Out of ‘Da Hood’: Spiritual Retreat Encounters for Youth and Young Adult Resilience and Spiritual Formation,” Cynthia Stewart discusses her experience with youth in the inner city of Chicago and emphasizes the importance of youth advocacy.

This book is worth reading each chapter like a book since it conveys volumes of insights about religious education and public ministry, and it can be studied on its own since there are tons of issues that need further discussion and reflection. Overall, this book attempts to bridge a gap between local church and society, between religious education and public ministry, between sacred and secular, and between academia and church. The point is that the lives of the Black do not stay in one place; they got stuck everywhere, so to speak. Therefore, what is needed is a holistic, comprehensive, new approach to matters of education and advocacy in church and society. I highly recommend this book not only to those who work for justice and transformation of the Black people but also to those who wish to understand the issues of religious education and public ministry in the African American context. As an Asian American biblical scholar, I am interested in cross-cultural transformative religious education, if any, and for this purpose, scholars of color can gather together to explore ways in which we can improve our understanding of religious education and public ministry in a global context.

The cross of Jesus is not itself good news

 

[Courtesy of FreeBibleImages.org]

Jesus did not volunteer to die on the cross. He was arrested, tortured, and crucified as a criminal because of his words and deeds. His death itself is never good news. In fact, there is no word of "the gospel (good news) of the cross" in the New Testament. But the message about the cross is the power of God, as Paul says in 1 Cor 1:18: "For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." What is the power of God working through the cross of Jesus?

The cross of Jesus is a symbol of love for the oppressed and the marginalized (1 Cor 1:17-31). That is, Jesus did not spare his life to advocate for them. Jesus' death is not a substitutionary sacrifice that one can say: "Thank you for dying instead of me." On the contrary, Paul's logic is that because Christ died for all, all have died with him (2 Cor 5:14). His death alone is not enough. Dying with Christ means to live by his faith and to be led by the Spirit (Rom 8:13; Gal 2:20).

The good news is that God raised Jesus from the dead and vindicated him.

• The good news is that justice reigns.
• The good news is that God is faithful to humanity.
• The good news is that Christ proved God's love through his faith.
• "The good news is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith" (Rom 1:16).
• The good news is that the Spirit is with the children of God.
• The good news is that all may live by the power of God.

Jesus also proclaimed "the good news of God" (Mark 1:14).

The good news becomes powerful and effective to those who accept the rule of God and change their mind to seek the way of God (Mark 1:15).

Atonement Theories and Jesus

Traditional Atonement Theories

Penal-substitutionary theory (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."

What is biblical interpretation?

Yung Suk Kim asks important questions in Biblical Interpretation: Why do we care about the Bible and biblical interpretation? How do we know which interpretation is better? He expertly brings to the fore the essential elements of interpretation--the reader, the text, and the reading lens--and attempts to explore a set of criteria for solid interpretation. While celebrating the diversity of biblical interpretation, Kim warns that not all interpretations are valid, legitimate, or healthy because interpretation involves the complex process of what he calls critical contextual biblical interpretation. He suggests that readers engage with the text by asking important questions of their own: Why do we read? How do we read? and What do we read?

Exploring a threefold theology/gospel of Paul

This video is about Paul's threefold theology/gospel, which involves a tripartite relationship between God, Christ, and humanity. If you feel bored with the traditional theology of Paul, you must see this approach. Please don't forget to like this video or subscribe to my channel.

Body means complex things

I have a video presentation about the body of Christ. Do you want to know more about this? Watch my video. Don't forget to like it or subscribe to my channel. 

What is "the body of Christ" (soma christou) in 1 Cor 12?

What is "the body of Christ" in 1 Cor 12:27?
How can we read it?
Why is the Western, hegemonic reading of "the body of Christ" problematic?

Please subscribe to my channel. More good videos to come! 

The interpretation of the "body of Christ" in 1 Corinthians is a pressing concern in the present context of a diversified global church because its predominant interpretation as an ecclesiological organism characterized by unity and homonoia (concord) serves as a boundary marker that tends to exclude the voices of marginality and diversity. 

This traditional reading, while plausible, ignores a deeper, ethical meaning of the "body of Christ" as re-imagined through his body crucified, which questions an ideology of hegemonic power in both the Corinthian context and today. From the perspective of a different conception of community and of soma christou in the image of Christ crucified, this metaphor of soma christou becomes a metaphor for a way of living through which the Corinthian community is expected to live as a Christic body, identifying Christ's body with the most vulnerable and broken bodies in the community and in the world, an issue that we are to grapple with and resolve. 

Read this way, Paul's theology continues the legacy of Jesus tradition in terms of deconstruction (critique of religion and culture) and reconstruction (advocacy of the beloved community for all). Paul's theology should be reclaimed as such so that we might truly appreciate what he lived for. That is why I wrote this book.

Scriptural Notes and Sermonic Ideas

[Courtesy of FreeBibleImages.org]

• Transformation (Acts 3)
• Joseph's Dream (Gen 37:1-11)
• Impartiality (Matt 5:45)
• Doctor, Cure Yourself (Luke 4:23)
• Poetic Imagination (Amos 5:21-24)
• Love Never Ends (1 Cor 13)
• Incarnation (John 1:14)
• A Threefold Gospel (Rom 3:22)
• Jesus's Mission (John 18:37)
• A Story of fear or faith (Gen 22) 
• Preaching out of selfish ambition? (Phil 1:16-17)
• The good news begins with God (Mark 1:14-15)
  
• Reader-response questions (Luke 5:1-11)
• Reader-response questions (Matt 14:22-23)

Transformation (Acts 3)

Over the years, I have heard two very different types of sermons about Acts 3. In the text, Peter and John go up to the Temple to pray and meet a beggar who is asking for alms. One type of sermon emphasizes God's power, the Spirit, or Jesus' name. Peter and John are equipped with the power of the Spirit and they could help the beggar to rise against the crippling conditions. This kind of religion or spirituality looks like Shamanism. In fact, this type of preaching is so popular in the church that we hear something like this: Jesus is the solution; there is no other name than Jesus. But this kind of preaching is very superficial and misses out on the transformative faith shown by Peter and the beggar.

But today I heard a very different sermon full of transformative points in that the preacher talked about Peter's former dysfunctional life and his experience of transformation. He was ready to serve others because he had been there, seeing the same dysfunction in other's life; therefore he challenged the beggar to see beyond his meager conditions. Peter did not give him what the beggar wanted but what he needed. Thus he challenged the beggar to expect more, that is to live like a normal person as God wants him to be, a person who can walk freely without begging anymore.

We also need to see how the beggar is transformed through faith. He listened to Peter and followed what he was told. He tried to stand up by moving his legs and feet through faith. He saw a miracle for himself. Even though the sun is available in the world, a person cannot benefit from it unless he or she comes out to it. Transformation is possible through faith.

Joseph’s Dream (Gen 37:1-11)

In the Old Testament, there is a famous story about Joseph's dreams (Gen 37:1-11). All the family members bow down to him. Even the sun, moon, and the stars bow down to him. The focus of his dreams is self-aggrandizement: To be the center of the family and the universe. He is a naive person. Ambition without a good purpose in life may be dangerous.

Because of his naive and self-centered dreams, his brothers did not like him. One day, he was sold into slavery and taken to Egypt. There he realized he was nobody, getting through all kinds of ordeal and difficulties. In Egypt, he probably learned new life lessons that he was nothing. He realized his dream was wrong. His change of mind makes him a great person who serves people in Egypt.

Impartiality (Matt 5:45)

Look up to heaven, and you will marvel at its incalculable size and no-end space. At the same time, you will be dumbfounded at its relentless impartiality under which everything, human or not, is treated the same. That is what Jesus also acknowledges: "So that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45). This saying follows the command of "love your enemies." The sun shines equally on all, the good or bad. So we exclaim that the heavens or the skies are great not because they are simply big but because they are impartial, not adopting a tactic of favoritism.

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.

Preaching out of selfish ambition? (Phil 1:16-17) 

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).

The good news begins with God (Mark 1:14-15)

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.

Luke 5:1-11 and Reader-response questions

The following is a list of reader-response questions based on Luke 5:1-11:

• Why does Jesus stand at the lakeside?
• Why are the crowds thirsty for the word of God? What is the word of God that Jesus preaches?
• Why does Jesus use boats to teach them?
• Why does Jesus use Peter's boat?
• Why does Jesus ask Peter to go to the deep water and let down the nets? (Deepwater as a difficult place or as an abundant place?)
• Why is there an irony between the success of many fish and the crisis that boats begin to sink?
• Why does Peter say "I am a sinful man!"? (Is he saying that 'I am nothing'?)
• What would be Peter's response to Jesus' word: "Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching people"?
• What causes Jesus' disciples to leave everything and follow him? To do what? 

You must come up with your own list of questions!!!

Then the text will be alive to you and do something to you.

Matt 14:22-33 and reader-response questions

Reader-response questions and comments:

1. Jesus does not ask Peter to come out of the boat and walk on the water. It is Peter who asks Jesus for his walking on the water. Why does he want such a thing?

2. In fact, the sea is not a place on which to walk. It is a place of danger. The boat must be in a safe place. Thus he has to wait there. Isn't he reckless?

3. There are other disciples in the boat who are in fear and wait to be saved. What is his thought about them?

4. Once he was on the water, he walked with faith but soon failed. Why?

5. The wind ceased when Jesus and Peter got into the boat, which is a safe place. What does this imply to the readers?