Three moments of human experience and transformation

 

Where should we start as we think about human transformation? I argue that it is marginality. As I wrote a book back in 2013, A Transformative Reading of the Bible, I still hold the view that authentic human transformation needs a moment/attitude of "I am no-one." "I am no-one" is a locus where I find the love of God. With God's grace, I would say "I am some-one." I am that I am. I am confident in myself. I love myself. Then, I may love others. "I am one-for-others." The transformation experience is not a linear movement but a circular one. 

Liberate the Bible

Many read the Bible as a single book, treating it as a metanarrative. But the Bible was written not as a single book and it is a collection of various writings produced in different times for over a thousand years. It involves a multitude of authors or editors, disparate communities, and eclectic ideas. It is necessary to liberate the Bible and put it back in its place. We must interpret various parts of the Bible from diverse perspectives.

Strictly speaking, the Bible does not talk to us. The Bible does not mean, but we (as readers) mean with the text. So we need critical engagement with the text, considering various writings in the Bible seriously, and taking a stand about our interpretation.

Authority is not encoded in the text. It is not knowledge or information. It is the power of God that transforms people and the world. It becomes the catalyst for a new humanity. Through the reader's conscientious engagement, the authority of the scriptures may come alive. That is, through our endless, careful interpretation, the word of God for our time can be unlocked, activated, and communicated to the world.

Eccl 3:1-8 and Hebel

NRSV Eccl (Qohelet) 3:1-8

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
2 a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
3 a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 a time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to throw away;
7 a time to tear, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace.

Eccl 3:1-8 should not be understood as fixing God's individual plan for each person. Qohelet does not talk about determinism, so to speak. Hebel (vapor/breath) presupposes all kinds of uncertainties and possibilities in our lives. That is, anything can happen to anyone anytime, be it good or bad. The life of hebel is reminiscent of the Buddhist teaching of annica, which means everything changes. Likewise, there is another similar teaching of Buddhism, which is dukkha ("all are involved in suffering"). While Buddha focuses on suffering, the sheer reality is we live a life of pain and suffering because we are hebel--which is nothing wrong. We need to accept who we are in light of hebel. Do not bother with many things that are not going well. Rather, focus on yourself from a bigger, godly perspective and live a simple life.  

전도서에서 "헤벨"(hebel)의 인생은 결국 불교적으로 표현하면 제행무상(諸行無常)과 일체개고(一切皆苦)와 관련이 있다.  모든 것이 변한다. 만사에 고통이 있다. 전도서에서 만사에 때가 있다는 것이 개별적으로 미리 정해진 운명이 있다는 뜻이 아니라 여러가지 일이 다양하게 일어나며 나의 통제안에 있지 않음을 말한다. 그러니 어떤 개별 사건에 너무 집착말고 크게 보고 나에게 집중하고 소박하게 살라는 것이 전도서의 교훈이 아닐까.

hebel is not the same as a worthless or useless thing

The issue is how we understand things that exist and disappear, including humans. Ecclesiastes (Qohelet) talks about this. However, many misunderstand "hebel" in Eccl 1:2 and translate it as vanity. The literal meaning of the word is vapor or breath. Vapor represents something evanescent. But simply because something is short-lived or disappears eventually, that does not mean that something is useless or vanity. What is discussed in Qohelet is the sheer reality of not-permanent-being. The question is then: How should we live with this reality that seems to be vanity?

I posted a piece of writing on my wall to remind me of this lifelong question.

Faith and Science

There are things we can or must do. We walk and breathe. We are responsible for our lives, working hard, and caring for others. But there are also things that we cannot do or control because we are weak dust. We are dust from the perspective of science. We realize that we are so small compared with endless space. This world or universe seems hollow and worthless. In a "meaningless" world, how can we live or reinvent ourselves? How can we reimagine this world with hope? We need conscientious faith to live well. But blind faith is harmful or dangerous.

What do I care about?

I care about ancient history, literature, and culture. But what I care more about is not the past but the lives of people today, here and globally. I study and teach because of this.

 

An Asian Introduction to the New Testament

I contributed a chapter entitled "An Introduction to Asian Biblical Hermeneutics" to the following book edited by Johnson Thomaskutty (available around Nov. 2021).

Tomorrow is an extension of today

What remains as I am getting older is the sheer reality of an ailing body, spirit, and soul. But it is also true that what I have done will outlive me. So, I exercise every day to keep healthy and try to produce something, amusing myself with new ideas, brushing up on new vocabulary, brainstorming about future research topics. At the root of my concerns lies the very fact that I will not be here forever. I will do what I can today. That is something I can achieve. Tomorrow is not mine, and if it comes, that is an extension of today.

"Nacham" (Job 42:6) as "to repent" or "to comfort"?

In Job 42:6, did Job repent or comfort himself after/because of God's appearance? The verb in the issue is nacham, נָחַם. Except for the Common English Bible and the Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary, almost all English translations go with "repent," which seems absurd, given the Joban perspective in that the issue is not sin but innocent suffering. Eventually, what Job urgently needs is not the logical answer to why he suffers--about which God did not answer him at all--but God's presence and comfort. 

-The Complete Jewish Bible has it: "Therefore I despise [my life], and I will be consoled on dust and ashes."

-CEB: "Therefore, I relent and find comfort on dust and ashes."

-NRSV: "Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”

-The Hebrew text: עַל־כֵּ֖ן אֶמְאַ֣ס וְנִחַ֑מְתִּי עַל־עָפָ֥ר וָאֵֽפֶר: 

-The root verb in the issue is nacham, which means to comfort (in many places in the Hebrew Bible, including Job) or to be sorry. 

“‘Therefore I retract my words, and I am comforted concerning dust and ashes’ (i.e., the human condition)” (Newsom, The Book of Job).

***

I am reading this interesting article: "Advice to Job from a Buddhist Friend" by Sandra B. Lubarsky. [Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies, Volume 17, Number 3, Spring 1999, pp. 58-68 (Article) Published by Purdue University Press]

"God comes to Job and Job feels God as personally present, as one who knows and cares for him. It may be that the "answer" to such a fundamental question as suffering finds expression in relational terms because the existential need that arises from suffering is ultimately for relationship and care, not for logic. Perhaps it is the case that though there is much that we do not understand, this much we can understand--that we are connected, each to each, to all of creation and (for Jews) to the Creator and that that connection is permeated with God's presence and care. Here Judaism and Buddhism meet--though the one is theistic and the other not--in the belief that the heart of understanding is relationality."

Interpreting Job

I am reading this interesting article: "Advice to Job from a Buddhist Friend" by Sandra B. Lubarsky. [Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies, Volume 17, Number 3, Spring 1999, pp. 58-68 (Article) Published by Purdue University Press]

"God comes to Job and Job feels God as personally present, as one who knows and cares for him. It may be that the "answer" to such a fundamental question as suffering finds expression in relational terms because the existential need that arises from suffering is ultimately for relationship and care, not for logic. Perhaps it is the case that though there is much that we do not understand, this much we can understand--that we are connected, each to each, to all of creation and (for Jews) to the Creator and that that connection is permeated with God's presence and care. Here Judaism and Buddhism meet--though the one is theistic and the other not--in the belief that the heart of understanding is relationality."