Who can speak for Isaac if not his father or God? A reflection on Genesis 22

Taken in front of my house: full moon at night

In Genesis 22 we hear a story of faith that needs unpacking. Some admire the faith of Abraham, who acts upon an impossible, insensible, insane command of God that his only son Isaac be sacrificed as a burnt offering.

Well, this is high stakes testing that is not easily answered or understood. What purpose is there for God to test Abraham in such a bizarre way? A human sacrifice can be even asked? What kind of father is this who does not ask God to explain about this? Is his faith, however we may understand, more important than his son?

Did Abraham really believe that God would provide something at a last moment and save Isaac? If he believed so, why did he not talk to his son directly? If he did so, Isaac would engage with his father. In fact, Abraham lied to his son, saying that God would provide for the sacrifice.

But after that he bound his son and took a sword to strike him for a burnt offering. He did it so, but he was stopped by God. From Abraham's point, he already killed his son though not physically. He committed a killing already to his very son. Is his faith more important than his son? Does a father have rights to do so? Where is Isaac? Is he a robot? What did he say or feel after this horrible moment of near-death? I want to hear from Isaac. But the text is silent about it.

Even if Abraham believed that God would resurrect him after Isaac's sacrifice, Isaac will not be the same person as before, because he went through his father's lies, blind faith, and the horrible scenes of human killing and sacrifice. Though Isaac was saved from being killed, he suffered too much already, something that he could hardly recover from the damage done to him.

Isaac is a person who needs to understand his father and God. Who can speak for Isaac if not his father or God?

Now what this story means is up to the reader! What kind of faith model do you see here? Or, is this story not the story of faith but that of fear and blind obedience?

Unraveling the great commission (Matthew 28:16-20)

Picture taken at Nashville, TN

The so-called great commission, Matthew 28:16-20, is one of the favorite passages oft-cited in preaching, teaching, or church mission events such as missionary sending services. But this text is most often misunderstood among Christians.

First, "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (v. 18) should not be understood as a statement of Jesus' divinity or as a mere champion of all powers because it is Jesus. In fact, even in verse 17, although most English translations relate the Greek verb "proskuneo" to divine worship, the connotation of the verb here is close to the sense of "to pay homage." In most instances, " latreuo" is used to express the sense of divine worship (for example, Rom 12:1 (noun), Phil 3:3).

At any rate, in order to understand what kind of authority Jesus talks about, we have to examine the entire narrative in the Gospel, particularly what brought Jesus to death and resurrection before this event. Jesus taught and showed God's righteousness in the world. Because of that, he walked the way of thorn and suffering. He collapsed the separating wall between the sacred and profane, talking with a Samaritan woman, healing a Canaanite woman's daughter.

In a parabolic preaching in Matt 25: 31-46, Jesus reverses a normative expectation of the people who worked for Jesus and the church, saying "you did not serve me because you did not give a cup of water to one of the least." If we know what Jesus did or taught before this great commission event, we can now differently understand "all authority" that Jesus receives. It is not the dominating, controlling, victorious power by which everything is possible, but the other-centered, serving authority (power or ability) through which his disciples also have to serve as Jesus did.

Second, in Greek, "Go therefore" in verse 19 is not an imperative form. It is a form of participle; so a better translation is "As you go." It means, as you go to your work place or any field of life, make disciples of all nations. Going is not a command, but making disciples of all nations is. "Going" is not directly pointing to "all nations," and it means something like "wherever you go." "All nations" simply means that the world as a whole is God's loving farm needing care and growth. Otherwise, all nations are not a mere object of mission done from/by Christian superiority. There is a public misconception that Christian mission means "outgoing to foreign lands"; lots of churches send their missionaries to foreign countries without going around their communities first.

Third, the question is whose disciples will be made. The disciples who resemble Jesus or who imitate Christians or the church only? In fact, there are lots of disciples made not for God but for human institutions or particular cause. Jesus as the Son of God came to show God's righteousness and to fulfill it, as he says: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill" (Matt 5:17).

Fourth, "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (v. 20) is not a Trinity formula; it is a baptismal, liturgical formula. In the New Testament at least, we don't see a clear formula of the Trinity. Rather, evidence points to the traditional Jewish form of monotheism. For example, 1 Cor 8:6: "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." Also in Eph 4:6: "One God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." Otherwise, this particular formula in v. 20 may be that of Matthew's liturgical usage in baptism (cf. Didache 7:1-3), as compared with other formula in Acts 2:38. We also see a formula in 2 Cor 13:14, similar to Matthew's.

Fifth, in v. 20 we have "and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you."
What did Jesus command or teach his disciples? How can they teach if they do not know what their teacher taught? Jesus' teaching needs to be studied and reclaimed again and again in view of the entire narrative of the Gospel.

A Transformative Reading of the Bible: Explorations of Holistic Human Transformation

A Transformative Reading of the Bible:

Explorations of Holistic Human Transformation

(Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013)

BOOK DESCRIPTION:

Kim raises critical questions about human transformation in biblical studies. What is transformation? How are we transformed when we read biblical stories? Are all transformative aspects equally valid? What kind of relationships exists between self, neighbor, and God if transformation is involved in these three? Who or what is being changed, or who or what are we changing? What degree of change might be considered "transformative"?


Kim explores a dynamic, cyclical process of human transformation and argues that healthy transformation involves three kinds of transformation: psycho-theological, ontological-theological, and political-theological transformation. With insights gained from phenomenological studies, political theology, and psychotheology, Kim proposes a new model for how to read the Bible transformatively, as he dares to read Hannah, Psalm 13, the Gospel of Mark, and Paul as stories of transformation. The author invites Christian readers, theological educators, and scholars to reexamine the idea of transformation and to engage biblical stories from the perspective of holistic human transformation.

ENDORSEMENTS:
The term “transformation” has become a kind of buzzword in Christian discourse. We are all sure that we are in favor of it but we are not altogether sure what “it” is. Yung Suk Kim not only gives clear content to the familiar term, he shows us how an imaginative reading of the Bible can be an instrument of positive transformation. At the same time he provides suggestive links among different strategies of biblical scholarship and between biblical studies and practical theologies in ways that will help students in both fields and pastors who can profit from this synthesis.
–David Bartlett, Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Columbia Theological Seminary and Lantz Professor of Preaching Emeritus at Yale Divinity School


A Transformative Reading of the Bible is an insightful and intriguing interdisciplinary study about human transformation theory and how it can contribute to holistic transformative biblical interpretation. True transformation is circular and perpetual and impacts every aspects of one’s human existence. Dr. Kim’s holistic approach considers the complexity of human experience. This little but impactful book should be read by biblical scholars, graduate students and anyone interested in a holistic transformative approach to reading scripture.
–Mitzi J. Smith, Associate Professor of New Testament and Early Christian Studies, Ashland Theological Seminary/Detroit Center


This book offers a rare contribution. Lots of biblical scholars dabble in theology or spirituality, but Yung Suk Kim sets forth a holistic understanding of human transformation along with a series of focused studies that embody his approach in enlightening ways.
–Greg Carey, Professor of New Testament at Lancaster Theological Seminary

Why do we need an alternative reading of the Bible with a focus on holistic human transformation?

Let me register my concerns about biblical interpretation in general. First of all, I am not happy with a “remote or aloof” scholarship that does not take into account the interpreter’s life context or his or her position toward textual meaning. In other words, we have to be explicit about implications or ramifications of our interpretation. Simply, if Paul were wrong in some matters, we have to say he is wrong. Since every text is contextual and every reader brings to the text his or her own hermeneutical choices or lenses, text is more than an object to be uncovered; rather, it is a “dialogical” document that needs the interpreter’s engagement, done critically and contextually both in ancient and contemporary contexts.

        Second, I am not happy with partial aspects of transformation in biblical interpretation. For example, on the one end of the spectrum, the tendency is to emphasize an individual salvation or a change of heart that does not involve a communal or social transformation. On the other end of the spectrum, the tendency is the opposite side of it; that is, it emphasizes only a social transformation without talking about a personal transformation. While the former represents a traditional side of Christianity that seeks an individual salvation alone, the latter represents hosts of liberation hermeneutics such as liberation theology, postcolonial and feminist interpretations.

These extremes need to be addressed, and we need to find a middle ground that incorporates both personal and public transformations and that balances between individuals and the community, between heart and mind, and between the church and the world.[1] 

Toward this kind of an alternative reading of holistic human transformation, I wrote a book: A Transformative Reading of theBible: Explorations of Holistic Human Transformation (Cascade, 2013).

[1] For this new direction of biblical interpretation, I helped to establish The Journal of Bible and Human Transformation (JBHT), which “examines the role of the Bible in all aspects of change in relation to self or human life, including a change in self-knowledge; a change or renewal of self-critical examination; a change of personal attitude toward others, community, or society; or different ways of experiencing of the self, especially in difficult times. JBHT attempts to cover a wide range of issues related to human transformation and the Bible. This journal will look into both the positive and negative roles of the Bible in human transformation. We encourage the interpreter to focus on the issues of human transformation through interdisciplinary approaches to the Bible. All in all, JBHT ushers in a new stage of critically engaged practice of human transformation and the Bible in our diverse global world today.” See the journal web site: http://www.bibleandtransformation.com/JBHT/Welcome.html. See also my article: “Rationale and Proposal for the New Journal of Bible and Human Transformation.” http://www.bibleandtransformation.com/JBHT/Volume_1_(2011)_files/JBHT%201%201%20Kim.pdf 

Judas Iscariot, Jesus and Judgment

Taken at Vanderbilt University

We should not be confused  between "in spite of" and "because of." Logically, we understand and distinguish between these two.

But when it comes to religious life or discourse, people are often confused. For example, in the story of the Gospels, Judas Iscariot betrays his teacher, Jesus. Jesus overcomes this difficult situation created by Judas (that is "in spite of"), and continues to witness to the love of God and ends up on a cross. But God turns it (Jesus' failure-like death) to a victory, raising Jesus from the dead. Otherwise, we don't say that salvation is possible, or that resurrection is possible because of Judas' betrayal, or because God allows (plans) him to betray Jesus, as if Judas were exempt from his act.

Judas' betrayal is a cause of Jesus' death, but it is not the cause of it, much less to be the cause of Jesus' resurrection. Judas' betrayal only creates the condition of "in spite of" to Jesus. It is something that needs to be overcome.

Otherwise, Judas is accountable for his action. In spite of Judas' interference in Jesus' work or his unenlightened mind, God is victorious, changing the fate of Jesus' death into the story of a victory. Also, Jesus is not defeated by Judas' evil act, succumbing to the power of evil. He stands before Pilate and Jewish leaders and confirms his work of God; he does not recant. That brings Jesus a death. While Judas participates in the game of evil, those responsible for Jesus' death includes the Roman Empire, its leaders, Jewish leaders, and corrupt systems of religion and economy. From Jesus' point, he could have avoided his death if he recanted or stopped preaching about the radical kingdom of God that treats all people equal or respectful. But he chose a difficult road that led him to a death. Therefore, we have to see both sides of his death: God's judgment and Jesus' costly or risky preaching and teaching.

Therefore, we cannot condone evil act because there is a victory coming out of it. Those who are involved in Jesus' death must be judged. Evil is evil. There is a consequence.

Similarly, in our lives we cannot thank those who are accountable for certain bad acts, even though we turn them into a good result. An eventual good transformation out of a bad situation won't exempt bad people from their bad act. Bad people are not the cause of a success or transformation but the condition of difficulty (in spite of).

Moreover, Jesus' death is not a necessary result that we expect it to happen. If we carefully follow the logic of the Gospels and Paul's seven undisputed letters, we come to a conclusion that if Jesus' preaching or teaching had been welcomed and accepted by people, he would not have ended up on a cross. For more about this kind of new interpretation, see one of my recent works: Biblical Interpretation: Theory, Process, and Criteria.

*Excursus:
Interestingly, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, a Gnostic gospel written around the third or the fourth century CE, portrays Judas as a true disciple of Jesus who cooperates with God's plan that Jesus needs to die. In it, Jesus does not even suffer on the cross because he is a spirit. This kind of Gnostic christology came much later than the low christology portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels and John's Gospel. I see John's Christology is also based in the low christology. For this point, my forthcoming book, Truth, Testimony, and Transformation: A New Reading of the "I am" Sayings of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Cascade Books, 2013), will expound it.

Three layers of difficulty in biblical interpretation

Vanderbilt University

As I wrote elsewhere, biblical interpretation involves three layers of difficulty: text, translation, and interpretation. The first layer has to do with the text itself (Greek) since we do not have copies of the original Greek New Testament writings. What we have is copies of copies of a copy. Which text or reading should we read? This is the area of study we call textual criticism.

The second layer has to do with translation. Which translation should we take? There is a tendency of "theological" translation at the expense of grammar or syntax. For English readers, this kind of translation becomes a real obstacle to understanding the text. For example, conservative translations such as the NIV make pistis christou be translated always "faith in Christ." Actually, this phrase in Paul's Letters plainly means Christ's faith!

The third layer has to do with interpretation. Even though we have a secure text and good translation, our  job does not end there, because we have to explain what the text means. While multiple meanings are plausible because textuality involves polysemic or multiple dimensions of meaning, not all interpretations are equally good. Indeed, it is possible that some interpretation is not well ground in the text, or that its implications or ramifications may not be healthy. Therefore, we have to evaluate different readings.

For more about this issue, see my book Biblical Interpretation: Theory, Process, and Criteria (Pickwick, 2013).

"Because they know too much about me!"

Picture taken at Vanderbilt University

In Luke 4:16-30, Jesus appears to be very prophetic and radically interprets the text of Isaiah to his hometown people. He says God's prophets such as Elijah and Elisha were sent to the Gentile lands to heal and save the sick and the needy even though there were many Israelites who needed help at that time. This sounds like liberation theology that comes with a famous line: God's preferential option for the poor. But more than that, this saying of Jesus was very scandalous to them because Jesus plainly says God is for non-Jews.

Jesus delivers this unfamiliar irksome preaching right at his home town, Nazareth. Imagine what would happen next. His hometown people get angry and attempt to hurl him off the cliff. Then Jesus says no prophet is accepted in his hometown. I can imagine what Jesus would have to say to them: "Because they know too much about me!" They know Jesus too well from their perspective. They know well who Jesus is: his rural background with the poor parents and so forth. But they don't see beyond their eyes or experience. God's truth can unfold in God's way. Because of their confident knowledge, they don't think God loves others.

We are also reminded by the story of a blind man in John 9. The Pharisees say, "Only we are disciples of Moses." All who work outside of the traditional Jewish school must not be from God. Their confident knowledge prevents them from seeing the work of God.

Lao-tzu, a great deconstructionist philosopher, in 5-6th century BCE China, says, "Know that you do not know; that is the best" (from the Tao Te Ching). Similarly, Socrates says, "All I know is that I do not know." Wow!


See also these items on my blog:
*Human limitations and humbling attitude in the Tao Te Ching (ch.71)
*In order not to forget how I am teaching