Time

What is time? Are there past, present, and future, each separated from the other? But strictly speaking, time is not separated. There are no three distinct realities of time. Stephen Crites writes: "Only the present exists, but it exists only in these tensed modalities." [See Stephen Crites, "The Narrative Quality of Experience," The Journal of the American Academy of Religion 39 (1971): 291-311 (301)]. He goes on to say: "They are inseparably joined in the present itself. Only from the standpoint of the present experience could one speak of the past and future. The three modalities are correlative to one another in every moment of experience." [Ibid.] 

Jerome Bruner writes: "Narrative imitates life and life imitates narratives." [J. Bruner, "Life as Narrative," Social Research 54.1 (1987): 11-32]. Jocelyn Bryan similarly observes: "We are living narratives." [J. Bryan, Human Being: Insights from Psychology and the Christian Faith (London: SCM, 2016), 44; 51-74]. 

I agree that there is no past or future separated from the present. We only live in the moment, while reflecting on the past and the future. Namely, "our narrative of the past and our imagined future narrative impact on our every moment." [Jocelyn Bryan, "Narrative, Meaning Making, and Mental Health," in The Bible and Mental Health: Towards a Biblical Theology of Mental Health, edited by Christopher C.H. Cook and Isabelle Hamley (London, SCM: 2020), 4]. 

I cannot change the past. But it affects me today. I can change the future because I can reimagine myself today. We live in the present as always.  

Language of "world"

We often talk about the "world" in an educational setting. 

Do you work for what kind of world? 

Is it for today's world or tomorrow's world? For instance, when we educate people or develop leaders, are we preparing them for today's ever-changing world or for tomorrow's world? 

I argue that it must be today's world because tomorrow is naught without today. While we may say we prepare next-generation leaders, it is odd to say we develop them for tomorrow's world because their workplace for transformation is in the here and now, which is none other than today's world.  

Trails

I love to walk in a forest. Usually, I take a paved trail when I walk and meditate. But at times, I have a tendency to deviate from the main path and walk the small, often unprepared or untrodden, trails. From a paved route, I see the tall trees and all the visible beauty displayed above the ground. But with an intentional detour, I am just surprised at the devastated fallen trees and other remnants of the dead plants. The trees and plants also die. Some trees lay down with roots up. Other trees leaned on the branches of other small trees. Storms, winds, rains, snow, and all kinds of natural forces affect the life of a forest. My ultimate question is philosophical: How can human societies live, as we think about forests? 

Stand on God's side

People say they love God but we must check whether their way of loving is truly the love of God that God affirms. We must stand on God’s side by studying what God wants. Don’t simply have God by your side to magnify yourself or your community only.

"O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" (Mic 6:8)

 

Podcast for this episode

Love builds up

What makes us whole or holistic is not knowledge but love. Love empowers others and ourselves. It never brings us down but lifts us up. Paul says, "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up" (1 Cor 8:1). Love is neither like engulfing waters nor like dreadful lightning. It is like the streams of water, which look weak but strong. It nourishes life without roaring or striving. Love is life. No love, no life. Those who seek more knowledge, wealth, and power without love will crush into their vanity like moths flying toward the light.

Podcasters

Five religious responses

There were five religious responses to anomalies in the first century Palestine under the Roman imperial world. 

1. Essenes withdrew to a desert called Qumran, waiting for their own messiahs in the near future. The characteristics of this group are twofold: apocalyptic orientation plus sectarian in nature. 

2. Jewish aristocrats (Sadducees and Jewish elite) accommodated foreign domination and maintained their prerogatives. They sought their prerogatives and kept their status by cooperating with the imperial power.

3. Pharisees emphasized Torah observance with a coexistence mode with the power. They were moderate reformers who did not directly oppose the imperial government.

4. Militant opposition groups such as Zealots formed armed resistance against the empire and took revolutionary action.

5. Jesus (also John) focused on the moral and spiritual transformation of people.

The above types of reaction are not limited to first-century Palestine. In different ways, they may be seen in other cultures throughout history: 1) an apocalyptic-emphasis group denying this world and leadership; 2) local leaders and elites seeking to maintain their status; 3) educated middle-class people seeking to reform society with co-existence with the power; 4) radical activists and reformers; 5) those who seek non-violent transformation of people and society. 

 

new interest

I am reading this book now. Someday, I will forge a new book on the topic of mental health and the Bible.

A brief analysis of Gal 2:20 translations

According to the Bible Gateway, there are sixty-two English translations of Gal 2:20, and 49 out of them show the objective genitive translation of the Pistis phrase: "by faith in the Son of God." Only 13 of them, as in the table below, have the subjective genitive translation: "by the faith of the Son of God." Among these 13, two of them (see "red" color below in the table) translate the preposition "en" as "in or within." The other noticeable thing is the NEB translates the preposition as "because of." Some translations emphasize the adjectival form of the noun "faithfulness" in place of the simple noun "faith." What do you think is the best translation?

Version	Translation
KJ21 (21st Century King James)	I live by the faith of the Son of God,
BRG (Blue Red and Gold Letter)	I live by the faith of the Son of God,
CEB (Common English Bible):	I live by faith, indeed, by the faithfulness of God’s Son,
CJB (Complete Jewish Bible):	I live by the same trusting faithfulness that the Son of God had,
ISV (International Standard Version):	I live by the faithfulness of the Son of God
JUB (Jubilee Bible):	I live by the faith of the Son of God,
KJV (King James Version):	I live by the faith of the Son of God
NET (New English Translation):	I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God
NMB (New Matthew Bible):	I live by the faith of the Son of God
NRSVue (New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition):	I live by the faith of the Son of God
NTE (New Testament for Everyone):	I live within the faithfulness of the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
VOICE (The Voice Bible):	I live by the faithfulness of God’s Son,
WYC (Wycliffe Bible):	I live in the faith of God's Son

For more about translation matters in the New Testament, see Chapter 8 in Toward Decentering the New Testament.

 

Resurrecting Jesus: Mock Interview

I was quoted in someone's blog post. Below is an excerpt from it.

Today, as Christianity stagnates in Europe and North America, the most vibrant expressions of faith are to be found in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The Korean New Testament scholar Yung Suk Kim was asked what he thought was the primary work of Jesus. Here is how he replied. I love how he translates the two verses from Mark. Below is Kim's reply:

I believe that Jesus’ primary message is well summarized in Mark 1:14-15: “After John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and God’s rule has come near; change your heart and believe in the good news.” As we see here, Jesus proclaims the good news of God; it is God’s good news. Good news is about God. God’s time and God’s rule has come in the here and now (perfect tense). For God’s time and rule to be effective, people have to accept it by changing their minds, which is what metanoia means.

Note the differences between his translation of Mark 1:14-15 from the more conventional translation in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible: "Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.” Note how Kim renders the words in the RSV which I have italicized.

*Note: My reply quoted above is not in a book. It is part of a book promotion mock interview. 

For more about that idea of mine, see Resurrecting Jesus: The Renewal of New Testament Theology.

FULL CONTENTS OF THE MOCK INTERVIEW

1. Your book title "Resurrecting Jesus" is very interesting. To be blunt, why did you write this book?

I wrote this book to emphasize the importance of bringing the historical Jesus back into our discussions of New Testament theology. Traditional New Testament theology needs to take the work of the historical Jesus seriously. For example, people often overlook the question of what led to his death. His crucifixion was the result of his actions. We need to understand what he preached and why he was willing to die. After all, he was not born just to die. Jesus is a historical figure who should not be confined or misrepresented by anyone.

2. What do you think is the primary work of Jesus?

I believe that Jesus' primary message or teaching is well summarized in Mark 1:14-15: "After John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and God's rule has come near; change your heart and believe in the good news." As we see here, Jesus proclaims the good news of God; it is God's good news. The good news is about God: God's time and God's rule have come in the here and now (perfect tense). For this God's radical time and rule to be effective, people have to accept it by changing their minds, which is what metanoia means. So it is impossible to talk about Jesus without God-talk in first-century Judaism. New Testament theology would be misleading if we do not look at God to whom Jesus points his finger. Jesus does the works of God, not his own.

3. As you know, there is a big divide between history and theology, or between the historical Jesus and New Testament theology. For example, some historians say that the New Testament is not based on the historical Jesus. How is it possible for you to do theology by drawing attention to both of these seemingly irreconcilable areas of study?

I believe that it is possible by redefining New Testament theology in which we can engage the historical Jesus. I broadly redefine New Testament theology as our explorations about God, the Messiah, and the world. New Testament theology is not constructed deductively (from heavenly revelation, for example), but can be constructed by readers who critically reevaluate not only the work of the historical Jesus but also various writings in the New Testament. So in my book, I define New Testament theology as follows:

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. Consequently, New Testament theology is constructed by the reader who deals with both the divergent texts of the New Testament and the historical Jesus to whom they refer. By carefully sifting through the layers of NewTestament witnesses while acknowledging unbridgeable gaps between them and the historical Jesus, the reader, in view of all aspects of life in the first century CE and today, has to explore relevant relationships among God, the Messiah, and the world.

4. Once again, why is the historical Jesus important to your New Testament theology?

Let me use a body analogy. Just as the body without the spirit is dead, New Testament theology without the historical Jesus is dead because the former is built on the work of the latter. No matter how many gaps exist between the historical Jesus and the New Testament, New Testament theology needs a solid understanding of the historical Jesus.

5. Can you give us a few examples of your critically reconstructed contents of New Testament theology?

Yes. For example, the"righteousness of God" will be redefined as God's righteousness rather than as an individual justification. "Faith of Christ Jesus" will be also redefined as his faithfulness through which he proclaims and embodies God's rule in the here and now. Accordingly, "the kingdom of God" will be redefined as God's rule in the here and now that challenges Rome's rule or any obstacles that occlude the flow of God's justice. In the end, Christians will be redefined as Christ-followers who do the works of God.

6. What do you want to say to your readers if they ask why this book should be a must-read?

I like to list three important benefits for readers:
-Getting a better, clearer understanding of the historical Jesus and the New Testament writings that refer to him. 
-Exploring the significance of Jesus' life, teaching, and death, based not on doctrine but on his work of God in first-century Judaism and Palestine.
-Redefining New Testament theology as a process of discerning and engaging the historical Jesus and the New Testament writings.

 
7. Do you believe your newly defined New Testament theology can help improve human conditions?

Yes, very much so. We can learn from Jesus and follow his footsteps that embody God's presence in the here and now. Jesus' death is the result of his costly proclamation of God's rule in the here and now. It is not somewhere else than here. However, there are lots of people who see Jesus' death merely as salvific, vicarious atonement that does not look into the evil hands responsible for his crucifixion. By the way, Jesus' death is the form of crucifixion, capital punishment by Rome. So when we see Jesus' crucifixion, we have to see both God's love that he embodies at the risk of his life and God's judgment that brings evil people and power to justice. Condoning evil is not the point of Jesus' crucifixion.