Meditation on 1 Cor 12:12-27: Deconstruction and "the Body of Christ"

My alternative interpretation of 1 Cor 12 may be summarized as follows: 

Paul's point is not that the church is the body of Christ but that "you (ὑμεῖς, plural "you") are the Christic body." The key is the ethical union with Christ, not merely existential or mysterious relationships with him. That is, the Corinthians must follow Christ and honor one another. Then, they can maintain a Christ-like community. Christ is not the owner of the church, but its foundation. The point is not mere membership to the church but impregnable participation in Christ and his faith. --From my talk on "Deconstruction and the body of Christ"

Also see my books: Christ's Body in Corinth and How to Read Paul.

Cross-cultural Wisdom

Simple truth
-Jesus: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you, for this is the Law and the Prophets" (Golden Rule, Matt 7:12).
-Hillel: "What is hateful to you, do not do to others. This is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary" (Talmud Shabbat 31a).
-Confucius: Zi Gong asked: “What is the single word that we can take as a moral guide for our whole life?” Confucius said, “Is it not reciprocity? What you don't desire don't impose on others” (Analects 15:24). 子貢問曰。有一言而可以終身行之者乎。子曰。其恕乎。己所不欲、勿施於人。

Human-centered thought:
-Jesus: “The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28).
-Confucius: The person unfolds the way; it is not the way that unfolds the person" (Analects 15:29). 子曰。人能弘道、非道弘人。

The Surgeon General’s Framework for Workplace Mental Health and Well-Being

I made the acronym SABAD (Security, Accomplishment, Belonging, Autonomy, and Dignity) to remember this diagram "The Surgeon General’s Framework for Workplace Mental Health and Well-Being," which was released by the US Surgeon General. 

*Source  

Paul's Gospel, Empire, and Race/Ethnicity: Through the Lens of Minoritized Scholarship

I am excited to finish editing the volume and submitted the final submission files to the publisher. I wrote in the Introduction: "Contributors to this volume represent diverse cultures and perspectives of Asian descent, African American heritage, and Latin American culture. This collective volume is the clarion call that biblical interpretation is not an arcane genre in the ivory tower but engages current issues in the real world of America, where we must tackle racism, the Western imperial gospel, and the rigid body politic." I hope many readers across the board will benefit from this book.

A Peek into the Table of Contents

 

1. Introduction
Yung Suk Kim

Part I. Paul, Gospel, and Empire
2. The Politics of Interpretation: Paul’s Gospel, Empire, and Race/Ethnicity
Yung Suk Kim
3. Paul the Apostle of the Nations and Pedro Albizu Campos, the Apostle of Puerto Rican Independence: A Comparative Study of Empire & Resistance
Efraín Agosto

Part II. Paul, Empire, and Race/Ethnicity
4. “Let This Mind Be in You”: Paul and the Politics of Identity in Philippians—Empire, Ethnicity, and Justice
Demetrius K. Williams
5. Mainstreaming the Minoritized: Galatians 3.28 as Ethnic Construction
Sze-kar Wan

Part III. Paul, Empire, and Community
6. The Pursuit of Impossible Hospitality: Reading Paul’s Philoxenia with Jacques Derrida
Jeehei Park
7. From Alienation to Inclusion: Reading Romans 3:21-26 from a Diaspora Lens
Ekaputra Tupamahu

New Testament Theology

In the gospels, Jesus's death is not for the forgiveness of sins. In Mark, forgiveness is possible through water baptism and repentance. Jesus was put to death by Rome because he challenged the status quo. His radical teaching of the kingdom of God, which embraces the most marginalized, brought him to death. He came to serve, not to be served (Mk 10:45). In Luke, Jesus's death is prophetic death, seeking out and saving the lost. In Matthew, Jesus's death is the result of his radical teaching of the law and his fearless proclamation of the kingdom of God. In John, Jesus's death is the result of his truth-speaking and living. See more about my view of Jesus and the New Testament: Resurrecting Jesus.

Paul deals with sin's problem in Romans. It may be overcome when persons die to it through "the body of Christ" (Rom 6:4). Here, "the body of Christ" may be understood as Christ's crucifixion. In other words, through the way of Christ who lived faithfully to embrace the love and justice of God, one can live away from sin or its power. Otherwise, Paul never says that Christ's death alone resolved sin's problem. Rather, Paul's logic is because Christ died, all who follow Jesus have to die with him. Then sin's power will be dismissed. Paul says in 2 Cor 5:14: "For the love of Christ urges us on, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died." For more see Rereading Romans from the Perspective of Paul's Gospel or Rereading Galatians from the Perspective of Paul's Gospel. Jesus's death is the result of his faithful obedience to God, which means the cost of demonstrating God's righteousness (Rom 3:22). Also, see my latest book: How to Read Paul.

The Johannine Jesus is portrayed highly as close to divine. But the Fourth Gospel never claims that Jesus is God. Rather, Jesus says the one who sent him is greater than he. Also, he always makes it clear that he does the work of God. He does not do his work. His primary identity is the Son of God. Even when he says "the father and I are one," this does not mean that he is the same as God. It means "union" relationship between the two. If I say our family is one, it does not mean all members of my family are the same. The point is our family is united with the same love and solidarity. In the Fourth Gospel, there are lots of "embodiment" language by Jesus that can be understood metaphorically as his living of the Logos. That is, he embodies God's love in the world. "I am" sayings of Jesus, accordingly, must be understood as the description of his work, rather than as signs of his divinity. For more, see my book: Truth, Testimony, and Transformation.

Critical Reflection on Biblical Stories and Their Interpretations

 [Courtesy of FreeBibleImages.org]

Yung Suk Kim

Do you attempt to justify a complex story or simply explain it away? Or do you seek to understand it critically?

How can you read Joshua's conquest narrative alongside the story of liberation in Exodus?

God liberated the oppressed Israelites from slavery in Egypt—an Exodus story of freedom. Yet, shortly after, they became oppressors themselves, commanded to conquer Canaan by destroying everything. Is this a "justice" story? Whose story is it? Who benefits? Can we ignore the cries of innocent people in Canaan?

Robert Allen Warrior, an American Indian scholar, criticizes the popular reading of Joshua’s conquest because it overlooks justice for the oppressed. He points out that European settlers arriving in America sought freedom from oppression but instead perceived God’s promise of a new land as justification for oppressing Native Americans. He discusses this in his article, "Canaanites, Cowboys, and Indians: Deliverance, Conquest, and Liberation Theology Today."

How can "freedom-seeking people" become oppressors? Do we think God is callous enough to endorse the deaths of innocent people? Is the God of Israel a tribal deity?

Some interpret the promise and conquest stories to support covenantal theology, as in Abraham’s story. But such interpretations fail to justify the innocent deaths in Canaan. Others read these stories to bolster Jewish political power or independence. Some Christians today view them spiritually. However, this does not justify sacrificing “others” in God's name. No one is predestined for damnation. Furthermore, there are no definitive historical records of Joshua’s conquest—these stories are often crafted to convey a message. Objective readers must remain aware that these narratives may represent only one side of the story.

God is beyond the Bible; God cannot be confined to a particular story or human understanding. With this in mind, biblical stories demand critical evaluation rather than uncritical acceptance. Perhaps, even if imperfect, we can discern God's care for his covenant people.


Matthew 15:21-28 — A Critical Look

Does Jesus test the Canaanite woman’s faith? I would say "no." The story illustrates Jesus's harshness, as he makes derogatory remarks, treats the woman unkindly, and initially claims that his mission is exclusively for the Jews. Earlier, in Matthew 10:5-6, Jesus limited his mission to Israel.

However, the woman challenges Jesus gently and persistently, maintaining her faith that God loves her and her daughter. Her faith is truly challenging, rooted in the belief that she deserves God's help. Ultimately, Jesus grants her request, healing her daughter, though whether this indicates a genuine change of heart remains uncertain.

To understand this story, consider two contexts: Jesus’s own time and mission, and the context of the Matthean community. In his historical setting, Jesus, as a Jew, was grappling with expanding God's good news to the Gentiles. Reading the story this way means acknowledging his struggle, yet not accepting his harsh attitude toward Gentiles or the woman. Some scholars suggest that Matthew, in editing Mark 7:24-30 (the story of the Syrophoenician woman), added details reflecting Jewish exclusivism, highlighting the community’s challenge in including Gentiles. The community’s main concern was the boundaries of their fellowship—whether to open the door to outsiders. Even so, the harsh treatment of the woman and the exclusivist attitude are troubling.

In both contexts, the story invites us to reflect on the struggle to expand God's inclusive love, while also questioning the ways exclusion and harshness are portrayed.

Mary Magdalene

To understand who Mary Magdalene was, we need to find the closest or earliest sources about her. But there are no earlier sources about her than the canonical Gospels, which came 40-60 years after Jesus died. Mary is recorded very briefly in several places of the four canonical Gospels (Matt 27:56, 61; 28:1; Mk 15:40, 47; 16:1, 9; Lk 24:10; Jn 19:25; 20:1, 18). In these Gospels, she appears to be a strong follower of Jesus, a witness to his crucifixion, burial, and resurrection. Jesus drove the seven demons from her (Lk 8:1-3; Mk 16:9). Other than the above, we don't have information about her.

For a long time, however, the Western church has colored Mary Magdalene as a sinner and a prostitute, considering the repentant sinner in Luke 7:36-50 as Mary Magdalene. But this reading is baseless.

In the 2nd-3rd-century apocryphal gospels such as the Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of Philip, which are Gnostic-leaning documents, Mary is portrayed differently as a companion of Jesus (Gosp. of Philip) and the one Jesus loved and kissed (Gosp. of Mary). Later, she stood tall as a very influential figure in Gnostic Christianity.

Otherwise, Da Vinci Code's claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene is baseless. There is no historical evidence evincing such a case.   

Derrida's Différance and Biblical Interpretation

Yung Suk Kim

Derrida's deconstruction theory challenges readers to rethink meaning altogether. He argues that there is no absolute unity or coherence in the text, which is an entangled web of various signifiers/significations that defy one single meaning. Derrida coins différance to connote the double meaning of differing and deferring. The signified is not fixed once and for all and must be different because the signifiers are like drops of water in the ocean. Likewise, we should delay meaning forever. Derrida differs from Saussure, who believes that even though there is no one-to-one link between the signifier and the signified, the signified is achieved in a given system of relations. 

A common misunderstanding about Derrida is he undermines faith and relativizes truth, promoting "anything goes." That is not true because deconstruction challenges the orthodoxies that subjugate the marginalized or voiceless. It defies "closure" in the text and sees new voices of fairness and justice. A parable is a type of deconstruction literature that resists conventional wisdom and helps readers to see something differently, subverting their world. 

As a case in point, we can take 1 Cor 12:27: "You are the body of Christ and individually members of it." The traditional interpretation focuses on the body's metaphorical organism: "You are the members of the body, which is the church, whose head is Christ, and individually, you are members." Here, the body is an organism metaphor, and the achieved meaning is unity in Christ and membership in him. But in fact, there is an alternative reading that resists the tradition. I read the body of Christ as the "Christic body" in the sense that the Corinthians must embody Christ, individually and communally. Here, the body is a metaphor "for a way of living" (for example, see 1 Cor 6:15-20). 1 Cor 6:15 reads: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I, therefore, take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! " (NRSVue). Paul’s point is the body is for God, which means they must embody Christ in their lives.

If we translate the body of Christ as “Christ-like body,” this use of the genitive case is called an attributive genitive. We see this example in "the body of sin” (Rom 6:6), which we understand as "the sinful body." 

The alternative interpretation underscores the ethical union with Christ and the diversity of the community. That is the Corinthians must follow Christ and honor one another. Then, they can maintain a Christ-like community. Christ is not the owner of the church, but its foundation. The point is not mere membership to the church but impregnable participation in Christ and his faith.

*Note: I have argued for an alternative reading of "the body of Christ" through a number of articles and books. My debut book is Christ's Body in Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor (Fortress, 2008). The most recent book on Paul is How to Read Paul: A Brief Introduction to His Theology, Writings, and World (Fortress, 2021).

Kant, Modernity, and Biblical Interpretation

Yung Suk Kim

Kant's perspicacious analysis of human capacity and limitations is notable. As a pioneer of modern philosophy, he sees in humans both the power of reason and its limitations. Reason-based, duty-driven, universal law is remarkable in that we may bring about change for all human beings universally. His vision is idealistic, yet we cannot ignore his passion for the universal significance of ethics. Kant also argues that we are limited beings who can understand or perceive only things as they appear to them. He distinguishes between noumenon ("the thing-in-itself") and phenomenon ("the thing as it appears to an observer"). The former is unknowable by humans while the latter is perceived. If we recognize this difference and walk a tightrope between the two, we are "modern."

Understood this way, postmodernity, if it exists at all, is not a blow to the Kantian modern sensibility. Instead, it is an heir to modern philosophy in ways that we can embrace lofty standards of universal law coupled with self-critical observations about our world.  

Likewise, in biblical interpretation, we can distinguish between the knowable and the unknowable. The former is a rough representation of reality reflected in ancient texts, communities, societies, and empires. Otherwise, reality itself is unknowable. So, what we need is a humble spirit as well as a critical mindset.

Collapse of Logocentrism: From Kant to Saussure to Derrida

Yung Suk Kim

From Immanuel Kant to Ferdinand de Saussure to Jacques Derrida, there is a common thread that they all seem to reject logocentrism that has been dominant for far too long in Western tradition and philosophy. Logocentrism regards words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality. 

But Kant (1724-1804), well known for his transcendental philosophy, points to human limitations to knowledge/reality and distinguishes between noumenon (“the thing-in-itself”) and phenomenon (“the thing as it appears to an observer”). While noumena are unknowable, we experience or perceive phenomena only. So, for example, the "war" as a fight between two countries is noumenon, which is unknowable; we only perceive its phenomenon. If the word "war" is a sign of that reality, it must be also unknowable because reality itself is unknowable. In his transcendental idealism, language belongs to the subjective human experience. Accordingly, logocentrism has no place with him because language or words are within "the arbitrariness of subjective empirical consciousness" (see note 1). 

Saussure (1857-1913), a founding figure of modern linguistics, argues there is no one-to-one link between the signifier (word) and the signified (an actual thing). That is, he disputes the logical connection between them. The signifier must be imperfect and what comes out of it is multiple. For example, the "war" in a certain context signifies myriad things.

Derrida (1930-2004) more forcefully challenges logocentrism in his deconstruction theory. That is, no literature can set forever meaning to readers because there are internal systems of collapse within the literature. All in all, meaning is not fixed once and for all, as his coined term différance conveys meaning's difference and deferral. 

*Note 1: Yaron Senderowicz, "Language and reason in Kant's epistemology," Histoire Épistémologie Langage Année 1997 19-1 p. 147 (135-148).