Body metaphor

Are those who insist that Paul's body metaphor is about unity/concord (homonoia) different from white supremacists? Does Paul talk about unity at all? Or does he talk about the status of a union that embraces solidarity and diversity?

   

Faculty Spotlight Interview

 

Yung Suk Kim is Associate Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology, Virginia Union University. Dr. Kim received a Ph.D. in New Testament study from Vanderbilt University and an M.Div from McCormick Theological Seminary. He was a recipient of the Lilly Theological Scholars Grant for research on John's Gospel in the context of pluralism (2011) and also received a research fellowship from Wabash Center and researched transformation and the Bible. In 2013, he also received a presidential citation for outstanding service and unselfish commitment from the VUU (2013). He also received the Scott & Stringfellow Outstanding Professor Award from Virginia Union University (2019). Dr. Kim is the author of 15 books and edited two volumes. His most recent book is How to Read Paul: A Brief Introduction to His Theology, Writings, and World (Fortress, 2021). He also co-authored Toward Decentering the New Testament with Mitzi Smith (Cascade, 2018). This is the first introductory text to the New Testament written by an African American woman biblical scholar (Mitzi J. Smith) and an Asian-American male biblical scholar.

QUOTES from Yung Suk Kim

"A good teacher satisfies students, a wonderful teacher teaches what they need, and an ideal teacher teaches them with love, helping them to teach themselves" (Yung Suk Kim, 4/8/2021).

"A good student follows the teacher's instruction, a remarkable student asks critical and self-critical questions, and a formidable student knows that learning is limitless" (Yung Suk Kim, 4/8/2021).

"A good author satisfies readers, an admirable author stimulates their interest, and an exceptional author creates new needs for them" (Yung Suk Kim, 4/7/2021).

"I am not a pure academician who is merely digging in the past as if I have the truth about it. Even history is not obvious; it must be interpreted carefully. I am a bit of everything: historian, theologian, humanist, realist, lover of wisdom, and advocate of justice and love." --from my YouTube video: https://youtu.be/VRF4zmee5uE

"I don't admire an ivory tower thinker, let alone a shallow thinker with a big mouth" (Yung Suk Kim, 4/15/2021).

“Truth is more than trustable knowledge; it is deeply experiential, confessional, and contextual. It should be engaged in a community that he or she lives, embodied in a world ... requires a life that engages the way.” --Yung Suk Kim, Truth, Testimony, and Transformation (Cascade Books, 2013).

What is New Testament Theology?

 

“New Testament theology involves both what the New Testament says about God, the Messiah, and the world, and how the reader evaluates, engages, or interprets diverse yet divergent texts of the New Testament, including difficult, sexist, and oppressive texts. The reader’s task is not merely to discern what is good and acceptable in the New Testament, but also to surface its limitations by examining early Christians’ disparate positions about God, the Messiah, and the world.” --Yung Suk Kim, Resurrecting Jesus: The Renewal of New Testament Theology

"I am not a pure academician who is merely digging in the past as if I have the truth about it. Even history is not obvious; it must be interpreted carefully. I am a bit of everything: historian, theologian, humanist, realist, lover of wisdom, and advocate of justice and love." --from the video

Textual criticism matters!

Textual criticism matters! An example is John 1:18: “No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known” (NRSV). In this verse, there are variants of a Greek phrase; so "God the only Son" is not the only option. Variants include:
(1) ho monogenēs huios (“the only begotten son”)
(2) monogenēs theos (“the begotten God”)
(3) ho monogenēs theos (“the only begotten God”)
(4) ho monogenēs (“the begotten one”)


Which one do you go for? Why?


I prefer option (1): ho monogenēs huios (“the only begotten son”)


1. This form of “the only begotten Son” goes well with 3:16 & 3:18.


“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life” (3:16).


”Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (3:18).


2. This form also fits the Johannine theology of Jesus's embodiment of the Logos (1:14; 3:16; 14:6).


-The Logos became flesh (1:14), which means Jesus embodies the Logos.
-Jesus as the Son of God was sent by God to do the work of God: “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (3:16).
-“I am” sayings of Jesus as the description of Jesus’s work (for example, 14:6).


Regarding my view of Christology in John's Gospel, see my book Truth, Testimony, and Transformation.

"It is finished"

Jesus said the last word in John 19:30:

"When Jesus had received the wine, he said, 'It is finished.' Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

What is finished? How? This is a critical interpretation question. What do you think? My interpretation is to read Jesus as the Logos incarnate.

Walking Trails and Thanking God

 

I love to walk trails and listen to birds singing. I walk and feel pensive. Sometimes I write a book while walking. I thank God for seeing the beauty of nature and walking peacefully without falling down. I notice colorful flowers and fallen trees and logs. Nothing in nature stays the same. They all change according to seasons. We also change.

"racist" thinking dormant in scholarship

These days I am thinking about the implicit language of "racist" thinking dormant in scholarship under the guise of objectivity or unity. When it comes to interpreting "the body of Christ" metaphor 1 Cor 12 or Rom 12, the unity-driven, metaphorical organism reading has been dominant. For almost twenty years, I have challenged this reading. I say to myself: "Are those who insist that Paul's body metaphor is about unity/concord (homonoia) different from the white supremacists? Whose unity? Is the body metaphor an organism or something else? What is Christ to the body/community? Does Paul talk about hierarchical unity? Or does he talk about the status of a union that embraces solidarity and diversity? What is necessary for having such a status?"

From my debut book Christ's Body in Corinth (2008) to my recent book How to Read Paul (2021), I have made every effort to challenge this "unity" reading that is based on the metaphorical organism and homonoia. My alternative reading is ethical in that, for example in 1 Cor 12:27, the Corinthians must embody Christ, individually and communally.

2008

2021

How to translate the pistis Iesou Christou-related texts in Galatians and Romans

  

When the Greek genitive case of pistis Iesou Christou is used in Paul’s letters, we should be careful about whose faith Paul talks about. Technically, the genitive phrase means either “believer’s faith in Jesus Christ” or “the faith of Jesus Christ.” But whose faith does Paul talk about? Please watch this video if you are really interested in Paul's theology of Christ and faith.


Quote from this video:

In Gal 2:16, the issue is by whose faith one is justified. The Greek genitive phrase, "pisteos Iesou Christou" means, technically, either “faith in Jesus Christ” or “the faith of Jesus Christ.” “Faith in Jesus Christ” means a believer’s faith in Jesus, which we call the objective genitive case (Jesus is the object of faith). “Faith of Jesus Christ” means Jesus’s faith, which we call the subjective genitive (Jesus is the subject of faith).


“Faith of Jesus Christ” makes better sense for two reasons: (1) Throughout Galatians and Romans as well, Paul first emphasizes Christ’s work and his faith and then asks believers to participate in Jesus’s faithfulness. Otherwise, if Paul had meant believer’s faith in Jesus Christ, he could have used the prepositional phrase, something like "pisteos en Iesou Christo"; (2) In Paul’s theology, it makes better sense that justification happens through Jesus Christ’s faithfulness, which involves believer’s participation in Christ’s faithfulness.

Jesus as the Locus of Reconciliation: Paul's Theology of Atonement

 

ebook (Kindle)

The radical concept of atonement requires human participation in Jesus’s life and death. Jesus is the locus of reconciliation. His sacrifice is not required for atonement (reconciliation); it is unwanted yet unavoidable because of his testimony to God’s righteousness.

This book explores an alternative understanding of atonement in Paul’s undisputed letters. In doing so, it distinguishes Paul’s theology from later writings such as Deutero-Pauline letters, Pastoral letters, or Hebrews and interprets the cause of Jesus’s death differently. Traditionally, as we saw before, Jesus’s death has been understood as vicarious suffering, which deals with the guilt of sin, God’s punishment, God’s moral justice, or liberation from sin’s power. In an alternative understanding of the atonement, sin’s problem, or the fundamental issue for humanity is disobedience or unfaithfulness to God, which is the cause of estrangement between God and humanity. This problem or issue is resolved when one repents (change of a mind) through participating in Jesus’s faithfulness that ended up his crucifixion—a multifarious, climatic event that reveals God’s righteousness and Jesus’s grace. On one hand, God dealt with the past of humanity, infused with sins of disobedience, because of Jesus’s faithfulness and his sacrifice, and on the other hand, he opened a new path of reconciliation/atonement to those who participate in Jesus’s life and death. Often people think that Paul cares about Jesus’s death only, which is understood as no more than a vicarious sacrifice. Subsequently, they do not consider Jesus’s faithfulness and his obedience to God’s will that all humans need a recovery of faith. They seem to think that Jesus came to die for them. But if we read Paul’s undisputed letters, Paul’s view of Jesus’s death is deep and complex in that Jesus’s crucifixion is the result of his life-risking challenge to the wisdom of the world. What is needed is faithful living. The radical concept of atonement requires human participation in Jesus’s life and death. Jesus is the locus of reconciliation. His sacrifice is not required for atonement (reconciliation); it is unwanted yet unavoidable because of his testimony to God’s righteousness. We need an alternative view of atonement where sins are forgiven not because Jesus died for sinners but because they repent of their sins, looking to his cross and all his faithful journey toward God’s righteousness.

 

Paperback