The birth metaphor in John 3:1-21

As is often the case, people have a hard time understanding the birth metaphor in John 3:1-21 (Nicodemus episode). You may want to read my article concerning this issue: "The Johannine Realism about the Kingdom of God: "Born from Above, Born of Water and Spirit" (John 3:1-21)."  You will grapple to understand the meaning of "born again or born from above." Which one is correct? Or, how do you understand the meaning of birth here? Here is the abstract of my article:

John emphasizes the realism of the kingdom of God in the present. Given the Johannine community’s expulsion from the synagogue due to its faith that Jesus is the Messiah, the members of this nascent community need assurance about their new place in Christ. They are comforted and encouraged to live as children of God. They are born from above and experience a new life through the Spirit. To maintain their discipleship with Jesus, they must keep his word and stay in the light. The Advocate will come to them after Jesus is gone, and God’s reign continues to be seen, touched, and experienced in the present. As Jesus sends his disciples into the world, the Johannine community receives a new mission to love the world, testifying to the truth of God, following Jesus’ word.

tips for success in academic study

I talked with one of my students through Teams, who asked me about tips for success in academic study. My advice was like this: "Be critically engaged and informed, yet find your own authentic voice. Be who you are. Don't mimic others."

"Monotheism, Biblical Traditions, and Race Relations"

Excerpts from Yung Suk Kim, Monotheism, Biblical Traditions, and Race Relations (Cambridge University Press, 2022)

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Theism and Race Relations in the Hebrew Bible
3. Monotheism and Race Relations in the New Testament
4. Contemporary Biblical Interpretation about Others, Race, and Ethnicity
5. Conclusion.

Race relations are an increasingly important topic – more now than ever before. Racism is not merely a lack of love or a deficiency of intellect, but it is a cancerous evil. On the one hand, there are myths about race or “others,” and on the other, there are prejudices and animosity against different races and cultures. People often categorize others, based on race or ethnicity, and rank them by their intellect or culture. Racism begins with a notion that human races are discernibly distinct or differentiated and that some races are superior to others. But this notion is an illusion because dividing lines between races are ambiguous or unscientific.1 Excellence in human capacity or virtue is widespread among different races or cultures. What constitutes excellence in humans or culture is a matter of debate. No single standard or factor can determine a person or culture’s excellence.

Humans have existed for a long time and maintained diverse cultures, living in many regions of the world. So, naturally, their looks and culture have been differentiated, but these differences should not overthrow the singularity of humans who share more similarities than differences. Given the common humanity of homo sapiens, while we look different and think differently, we can seek the common causes of justice, peace, and prosperity. In the story of Genesis, God blesses humans and invites them to be fruitful and to multiply so that they may live fully in wider, different places.2 God’s design for humanity is diversity, not homogeneity. Against God’s wish, as the episode of the Tower of Babel shows (Gen 11:1–9), people did not scatter but gathered to make a big city, speaking one language. This episode sheds new light on how people must think about race or ethnicity. That is, race, ethnicity, or culture should not be a hiding place or a haven where people stay together among themselves only without engaging others. Race or culture matters not because it is the source of identity or pride but because it is an expression of diversity in God’s creation. Like a flowing stream or river, race or ethnicity must be the concept of flexibility that engages otherness and other people. In doing so, people in any culture or ethnicity may learn from others. Since no humans are perfect, they need to help one another, learning from others, while maintaining both the singularity of human character and the diversity of culture.

An Introduction to Asian Biblical Hermeneutics

I contributed the chapter entitled "An Introduction to Asian Biblical Hermeneutics" (pp. 29-44) to the volume, An Asian Introduction to the New Testament. My chapter is redable online from the Google Book sample pages (go to page 29).

Discussion about John 14:6

This morning I talked about the Fourth Gospel in my class, and my students were asked to discuss it in their group: "How can you interpret John 14:6 ("I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me")? Does it exclude other people or other religions? Or, is there a way we can interpret it differently, finding a space for interfaith dialogue and public moral engagement with them?" Long ago, I grappled to answer these questions and wrote a deceptively slender book (see below). Or read the chapter on John in my co-authored book: Toward Decentering the New Testament.

I have long thought that John 14:6 has been greatly misunderstood. For me, John 14:6 is not a divine confirmation statement excluding other religions or people but a Christological (Messianic) functional statement pointing to his work of God. Along the same lines, all the seven "I am" sayings of Jesus must be understood as the description of his work of God, as he testifies to the truth of God (18:37), delivering the word of God (ch 17), embodying the invisible word/truth of God (1:14). 

Political philosophy

I took pains reading a thick book about political philosophy --specifically about the theories of justice. It was a bit hard to grasp the first few chapters. But I went in high gear since then. I wrote notes freely on the pages, exclaiming aha moments a lot, learning new concepts and conceptions of political philosophy vocabulary such as moral individualism, egalitarian liberals, hypothetical contract, and the common good. In my next book project, I will read the parables of Jesus through political philosophy that engages various theories of justice. The title: "What is Justice? A Political Philosophy of the Parables of Jesus." I hope to finish writing the first draft of the manuscript by June this year.

Because of some brainstorming with my reading of the above book, I reworked and streamlined my book proposal about justice and parables. Now it has five chapters only (previously, eight chapters) with a sensible flow of the contents. A good author goes slow, thinks deep, and writes concisely. I feel good because it is better than before.

Marketing excerpts

Here are marketing excerpts of "Monotheism, Biblical Traditions, and Race Relations" (Cambridge Univ Press, forthcoming Feb 2022) for your preview. Pre-order: 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.

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."