Sacrifice and sin-offering

Moral sacrifice means someone dies as a result of his/her opposition to power and his/her advocating for the poor and the oppressed. Jesus's death is close to this type. Sin-offering or sin sacrifice means that something is offered to God, usually animal sacrifice, to atone for sins. In the Old Testament, there has never been human sin-offering. Humans are atoned for their sins through the rituals of Yom Kippur and through their repentance. Except for Hebrews or some later epistles in the New Testament, there is no sense that Jesus's death is considered a sin offering. In the Gospels and Paul's authentic letters, Jesus's death is close to moral sacrifice. For example, in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus's death is not needed for the forgiveness of sin since people can repent at baptism. His death is the result of his proclaiming God's good news and his kingdom, not Rome's good news or Caesar's kingdom. The exception to this is seen in Heb 10:9-12 where Jesus's death is a sin offering:

9 He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. 10 And it is by God’s will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands day after day at his service, offering again and again the same sacrifices that can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, “he sat down at the right hand of God.”

Pistis christou texts and translation

διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (dia pisteos Iesou Christou) is a serious matter of translation. Whose faith Paul talks about? Through Christ's faithfulness or faith in Christ?


Both the NRSV and NIV are united to mislead us about the translation of pistis christou in Gal 2:16, 20, and Rom 3:22. They treat this genitive phrase as an objective genitive. But this translation does not seem to fit Paul's thought and his gospel.

In Gal 2:16, one's justification (not in the sense of imputed/imparted righteousness) means that he/she stands in a right/good relationship with God. Paul says that this right relationship with God is possible through Christ's faith (pistis christou). It is not by "faith in Jesus." In other words, if one lives by Christ's faith, he/she is in a good relationship with God. That is what justification (dikaiosyne) means by Paul. The similar idea of this is also found in Rom 1:17 (c.f., Hab 2:4): "The righteous one shall live by faith."

This righteous relationship with God is not by particular law, works, or any tradition, but through living in Christ or following his faith. In this light, justification is not made once and for all. It must be sought and lived out until the end.


With this above understanding, Gal 2:16 is translated as follows: "yet we know that a person is justified not by (from) the works of the law but through Jesus Christ's faithfulness. And we have come to trust Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by Christ's faith, and not by doing the works of the law because no one will be justified by the works of the law."

ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,


The importance of Jesus Christ's faith is further emphasized in Gal 2:20 in which Paul says that he wants to live by Jesus Christ's faith. This verse is also translated as follows: "and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

Pistis christou is also important in Rom 3:22, in which Paul summarizes his threefold gospel: God's righteousness, Christ's faith, and Christian participation in his faith.


Translation issues in Rom 3:21-26 and Gal 2:20

Rom 3:21-26

New Revised Standard Version:

21 But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24 they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; 26 it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.
The most neutral translation of a genitive case phrase is to provide "of" between the head noun and the substantive. That is, when we translate dikaiosyne (righteousness) theou (of God), we can translate it as "the righteousness of God." By this English readers may know this is a genitive phrase, which must be carefully interpreted. We find this kind of "of" combined genitive in English Bibles: for example, the body of Christ, the love of God, the body of sin, the blasphemy of the Spirit, the sin of the world, and etc. In each case of a genitive, we have to say which genitive meaning is meant. Sometimes, the use of a genitive is obvious in a sentence: "Who shall separate us from the 'love of Christ'? (Rom 8:35). Here the "love of Christ" means Christ's love (not your love for Christ); so this is a subjective genitive meaning. Now when it comes to "pistis christou" (the faith of Christ), another Greek genitive, the NRSV didn't follow the neutral policy of translation as it did with "the righteousness of God." Instead, the NRSV translated it as an objective genitive: "faith in Christ" (see 3:22 and 26). This is a problem of inconsistency about the translation. In order to be consistent, the NRSV should have translated "pistis christou" as "faith of Christ," whose genitive meaning needs interpretation. I am certain that both of these genitive phrases mean the subjective sense: God's righteousness and Christ's faithfulness. Among many evidence that I may find from Paul's undisputed letters, the most decisive evidence is this: If Paul had intended "faith in Christ" in the above passage, he could have used the prepositional phrase with "en": "pistis en christo" instead of the genitive case because "pistis en christo" clearly conveys believer's faith in Christ. But Paul used a genitive phrase in Romans and elsewhere in the undisputed letters. Therefore, we can safely say that here the genitive "pistis christou" must mean Christ's faithfulness. Actually, if we read Romans as a whole (or Galatians), we can further feel confident that Paul means a subjective meaning of Christ's faithfulness through which God's righteousness is revealed for all who have Christ's faith. You may wonder then why the NRSV is inconsistent in its translation of a genitive.


Common English Bible:

21 But now God’s righteousness has been revealed apart from the Law, which is confirmed by the Law and the Prophets. 22 God’s righteousness comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who have faith in him. There’s no distinction. 23 All have sinned and fall short of God’s glory, 24 but all are treated as righteous freely by his grace because of a ransom that was paid by Christ Jesus. 25 Through his faithfulness, God displayed Jesus as the place of sacrifice where mercy is found by means of his blood. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness in passing over sins that happened before, 26 during the time of God’s patient tolerance. He also did this to demonstrate that he is righteous in the present time, and to treat the one who has faith in Jesus as righteous.
Now compare NRSV with CEB. The immediately noticeable things are clear; CEB translates "dikaiosyne theou" as "God's righteousness" which is a subjective genitive. Likewise, "pistis christou" as "the faithfulness of Jesus" which is a subjective genitive meaning (Jesus' faithfulness). Yet CEB is also inconsistent in its translation; for example, "faith in him" (v.22) is an interpretation of "those who believe." There is no "in him" in Greek. More surprisingly, "faith in Jesus" (v.26) is also an interpretation of the genitive "pistis christou," which can be a meaning of either subjective or objective genitive. In order to be consistent, the CEB could translate like this: "the one who has the faithfulness of Jesus." In the end, what it did in verse 26 is to confirm the doctrine of justification by faith: "to treat the one who has faith in Jesus as righteous." Rather, the plain meaning of this is: "God justifies the one who has the faithfulness of Jesus" which is coherent with "pistis christou" in v.22.


New International Version (old version):

21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.


NIV renders the Greek genitive cases of "the righteousness of God," and "faith of Christ" as the objective meaning. It interpreted for readers that these genitive cases are meant to be objective meaning. I disagree! Paul's gospel is not about "how I am saved" but about "how we become children of God." What you see here in this translation is an imputed or imparted righteousness to believers. It is like God having lots of righteousness and distributing to believers once and for all. This is a forensic salvation perspective or old perspective on Paul. Again, I don't think Paul is concerned about the Western-view of an individualistic justification. He is a thorough community person. He says in Rom 9:2-4: "I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel." His vision is the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles. Another problem is found in v.26. Why does NIV change righteousness to justice because the same Greek noun "dikaiosyne" was used here? "His justice" is chosen here to evoke the satisfaction theory of atonement in which God's moral justice is satisfied by Christ's sinless death. That is something we don't see in the text though it is not impossible to read that way. Likewise, God is "just" instead of "righteous." "Pistis christou" is also interpreted as "faith in Christ" throughout.


Galatians 2:20:


New Revised Standard Version:

20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.


"en pistei zo te tou hioue tou theou" in Greek means "I live in the faith of the Son of God" (genitive phrase). Paul simply says here: "I live in Jesus' faith" if this means a subjective genitive. Paul says now Christ lives in him, and therefore, he lives with Christ's faith. That is the most natural flow of meaning. But NRSV takes this as an objective genitive meaning, so making Paul put his faith in Jesus. This is very awkward.


Common English Bible:

20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. And the life that I now live in my body, I live by faith, indeed, by the faithfulness of God’s Son, who loved me and gave himself for me.


CEB does a great job in this verse because it clearly designates faith here as Jesus' faith.

For more about the above, see my book, A Theological Introduction to Paul's Letters.

What kind of Christology?

In 2016, I published Messiah in Weakness: A Portrait of Jesus from the Perspective of the Dispossessed (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2016). The book's synopsis is as follows:

Kim raises a perennial question about Jesus: How can we approach the historical Jesus? Kim proposes to interpret him from the perspective of the dispossessed--through the eyes of weakness. Exploring Jesus' experience, interpretation, and enactment of weakness, understanding weakness as both human condition and virtue, Kim offers a new portrait of Jesus who is weak and strong, and empowered to bring God's rule, replete with mercy, in the here and now. Arguing against the grain of tradition that the strong Jesus identifies with the weak, Kim demonstrates that it is the weak Jesus who identifies with the weak. The paradoxical truth with Jesus is: "Because he is weak, he is strong." In the end, Jesus dies a death of paradox that reveals both his ultimate weakness demands divine justice, and his unyielding spirit of love for the world and the truth of God.

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.


There are historical facts about Jesus's crucifixion that cannot be fabricated or oversimplified. History is one thing, and what it means to people after the event is another thing. We must know why he was brought to death. The main reason is that he said and did something against Rome. He could not overcome violence and torture.


Now all those who hear the story of Jesus and his crucifixion are challenged to live differently because of his tragic death. On the one hand, people must say his death is a tragic one and wrong. Evil and torture are wrong. How can an innocent person be crucified? Injustices must be named and those who were responsible for his death must be judged and condemned. It is not God's character that allows his innocent Son to be killed for vicarious death paying for sins. On the other hand, Jesus's terrifying death is a holy sacrifice of love for God and the world because he did not spare his life to proclaim the good news of God in the world.

Therefore, the statement "Jesus died for us" (Rom 5:8; 2 Cor 5:14) can be understood as a moral challenge, as opposed to the payment understanding of sins. Namely, the challenge is that people must live a moral life of justice for others, moving away from an egoistic lifestyle.


We need a correct interpretation of Jesus’s death. In other words, not all interpretations are valid. Especially, the problematic interpretation is found in the following lyrics, which show a most selfish form of religion: "The Lamb of God in my place, your blood pour out, my sin erased. It was my death you died. I am raised to life; Hallelujah, the Lamb of God." In other words, the point of the song is simple: “Jesus died for me, and I don't die. I am raised to life. All done and no worries."

Monotheism, Biblical Traditions, and Race Relations

Forthcoming
Monotheism, Biblical Traditions, and Race Relations
Cambridge University Press, Feb 2022
Pre-order: Cambridge || Amazon
In the Hebrew Bible, various aspects of theism exist though monotheistic faith stands out, and the New Testament largely continues with Jewish monotheism. This Element examines diverse aspects of monotheism in the Hebrew Bible and their implications to others or race relations. Also, it investigates monotheistic faith in the New Testament writings and its impact on race relations, including the work of Jesus and Paul's apostolic mission. While inclusive monotheism fosters race relations, exclusive monotheism harms race relations. This Element also engages contemporary biblical interpretations about the Bible, monotheistic faith, and race/ethnicity.

"To believe" in John's Gospel

"To believe" (pisteuo) in John's Gospel is more than to believe something or someone. Rather, it means to believe in God and also in Jesus. This means trusting and following them wholeheartedly. By the way, in this Gospel "to believe" occurs more than 80 hundred times while there is no occurrence of the word faith at all. Faith is expressed in all verbal forms. John takes 80-90% of the total occurrences of "to believe" expressions among the four Gospels. In John, trusting God requires to trust his Son. To trust his Son means to hear him and abide in his teaching. So he says like this in John 8:31-32: "Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, ‘If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.’"
Similarly, he also says in 10:37-38: "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand* that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.’"

John 14.11 also strikes a similar chord: "Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves."

"Believe" in John (59 matches):
1:7, 50; 3:12, 18; 4:21, 42, 48; 5:38, 44, 46; 6:29f, 36, 40, 64, 69; 8:24, 45; 9:18, 35, 38; 10:25f, 37; 11:15, 25, 42, 48; 12:36f, 39; 13:19; 14:1, 10, 29; 16:9, 30; 17:20f; 19:35; 20:25, 27, 29, 31

"Believed" in John (24 matches):
1:12; 2:11, 22-23; 3:18; 4:39, 41, 50, 53; 5:46; 7:5, 31, 48; 8:30-31; 10:42; 11:40, 45; 12:38, 42; 16:27; 17:8; 20:8, 29

Doing theology in times of science and climate crisis

Science reveals to us many things. We no longer think the earth is the center of the universe. Our planet is like one dot, like the dust, compared with the still-expanding universe in which there are about 200 billion galaxies in 2021. Each galaxy has about 100 billion stars. We belong to the Milky Way. We no longer think of two dimensions of heaven-and-earth. Scientists say Earth is 4.54 billion years old. According to big bang scientists, there was a big bang 13.8 billion years ago, which is the beginning of the current time.  The modern human species, homo sapiens, appeared around 200,000 years ago.

Our planet stands at the brink of collapse because of the climate crisis, which is human-made. What can we do? What theology do we need to explore? Enigmatic questions ensue. 

Adieu 2021

This year is special to me. I was promoted to Full Professor at my school. I reflect on the past 30 years of my relentless journey apart from Korea, my mother country. 

 

Teaching Philosophy

TEACHING PHILOSOPHY

I foster and teach to engage in the knowledge of who we are in this world in which we see our diversity and differences. In my teaching, diversity is not a given but a source of critical engagement with each other. I value both a critical and self-critical stance toward any claim of knowledge, truth, and reality. I emphasize the following as pedagogical goals: learning from others, challenging one another, affirming who we are, and working for common humanity in differences. In my teaching, all in all, I communicate critical diversity and transformative identity in a variety of life contexts.

Life is a vapor, yet it is not vanity

Since 1991

In 1991, I never knew that I would live permanently in a foreign land. 

It has been thirty years during which I kept finding myself adrift. 

A life uprooted from the mother country is an agony that defies any treatment.

Against the tide of uncertainties and delays in my life, 

I have voyaged disparate seas of Panama due to my business assignment, 

Miami for my reassignment in business, 

Chicago for theological study in my second career, 

Nashville for a doctoral program, 

and Richmond for my first second-career job.

Through the hump and bumps, I have walked a tightrope. 

Thank God. I am here. I love what I am. 

Life is a vapor, yet it is not vanity.

Live in the Present (Poetry book)

 

Monotheism, Biblical Traditions, and Race Relations

Coming soon, Feb 2022

Pre-order: Cambridge || Amazon

 

Monotheism, Biblical Traditions, and Race Relations

In the Hebrew Bible, various aspects of theism exist though monotheistic faith stands out, and the New Testament largely continues with Jewish monotheism. This Element examines diverse aspects of monotheism in the Hebrew Bible and their implications to others or race relations. Also, it investigates monotheistic faith in the New Testament writings and its impact on race relations, including the work of Jesus and Paul's apostolic mission. While inclusive monotheism fosters race relations, exclusive monotheism harms race relations. This Element also engages contemporary biblical interpretations about the Bible, monotheistic faith, and race/ethnicity.