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).

"Test everything" (Biblical Interpretation)

 

In some sense, biblical interpretation is about testing. "Test everything," says Paul in 1 Thess 5:21. After testing, you can "hold fast to what is good." Until then, you must test everything: the text itself, interpretations of others, and your view. A real fight in biblical interpretation is a fight against yourself. No one is exempt from testing.

Key Concepts in Tanakah

חֶסֶד (hesed): mercy, kindness, love
God is hesed. Therefore, people should be also kind and loving to one another.
 

שׁוּב (shuv): to turn back
Because God is the way, people should turn back to him. That is what "repentance" means. The equivalent word in Greek is metanoia (μετάνοια).
 
צְדָקָה (tsedaqah): righteousness
God is the one who is righteous, the basis of human existence and action.

מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat): justice
Because God is righteous, people should seek justice in all spheres of life.

TaNaKh: Torah (תּוֹרָה), Neviim (נְבִיאִים), Ketuvim (כְּתוּבִים‎)