Ph - Vanderbilt University



The Contextual Biblical Interpretation Session 2011 SBL Annual meeting at San Francisco

“Born from Above?”

Re-reading John 3:1-21 from Korean cultural and immigrant perspectives

Sejong Chun (Vanderbilt University)

Introduction

When I was a child, I used to go to a small rural church on Sundays in my hometown, Kŏje Island, in Korea. As far as I remember, the first Bible verse that my Sunday school teacher asked me to memorize was John 3:16. As time went on, I realized that the verse was a part of the conversation that Jesus had with Nicodemus who came to him at night. The Sunday school teacher also talked about being “born again” as an essential experience that every sincere Christian must have. During my adolescence period, I wanted to be “born again.” I, however, did not know how to be. I clearly remember the night when I went up to a mountain with teachers and friends from the church to pray together in order to be “born again.” After a few hours of fervent prayer, I was disappointed because I found myself the same, which meant I was not “born again.” Since then, I became curious about what “born again” indicated.

In the paper, I will attempt to understand John’s narrative of Nicodemus’ encounter with Jesus focusing on the double meaning of “born anōthen.” Taking the situations of the Korean immigrant church and its cultural heritage as my life context, I will employ the image of yangban from Korean traditional culture to apprehend Nicodemus. I will also compare the Johannine community with the Korean immigrant church to understand the authentic situations of the community and the connotations of them.

I. Contextual Interpretation and Scriptural Criticism

1. Contextual Interpretation

Contextual interpretation of the Bible, as Stephen B. Bevans argues, is very traditional and very new at the same time.[1] It is traditional because many readers throughout Christian history have attempted to interpret the life and ministry of Jesus contextually. The four Gospels in the New Testament are not the same because they were written in various circumstances by different authors who wanted to respond to the particular life circumstances of their communities. They responded with distinctive understandings of the life of Jesus and selective use of the sources that were available to them. Contextual interpretation, on the other hand, is also new because it emphasizes the impact of interpreters’ contexts—socio-economical, geopolitical, and cultural situations and experiences—on reading biblical texts. Those contextual factors often determine the validity of the interpretation for a particular Christian community. Therefore, interpreters not only should have a keen sense of ethical responsibility by paying attention to the possible impacts of their interpretations, but also should evaluate their understandings “self-consciously/critically” through conversation with the believing community in which they read the Bible, carefully reflecting on its socio-cultural contexts.

2. Scriptural Criticism

How one reads biblical texts always matters. Through Christian history, people have interpreted the Bible in myriad ways.[2] Unfortunately, some interpretations served death rather than life oppressing certain groups of people and spreading or condoning injustice.[3] Therefore, it is significant for readers to have a keen sense of ethical responsibility for their readings of biblical passages by paying critical attention to their possible influences. Cristina Crenholm and Daniel Patte, through their proposal of “scriptural criticism,” emphasize “responsibility in interpretation.”[4] According to them, there is nothing like “the only true meaning” of a text, because readers approach it with a narrowly conditioned perspective and criterion, which lead them to understand only small part of huge “meaning potentials.”[5] Therefore, readers of biblical texts should confess that “we know only in part, seeing dimly deformed reflections in a mirror.”[6] This realization that readers know only part of the “plural meanings” of biblical text will make them learn from others who understand different portions of “meaning potentials.” As a result, scriptural criticism emphasizes “reading with” and “learning from” others.

Scriptural criticism proposes “tripolar” interpretive frames: analytical, contextual-pragmatic, and hermeneutical frames that are “necessarily closely interwoven because they are intrinsically together in the process of reading the Bible as Scripture.”[7] Analytical frame is that conscientious preachers and other believers “deal with the biblical text as an autonomous object that can and must be respected and thus carefully analyzed.”[8] In this frame, interprets choose “a certain set of features as most significant and ignore the significance of the other sets of features.”[9] Interpreters can take a world behind the text as most important, a world in the text, or a world before the text.[10]

Contextual-pragmatic frame means when “pastors and priests seek to discern how this scriptural text engages the members of their congregations by addressing actual needs they have in their daily lives.”[11] Scriptural criticism requires interpreters to choose a concrete life context in which believers have particular needs or problems. They should analyze the problems, which could be categorized into four “lacks”: “lack of knowledge,” “lack of will,” “lack of ability,” or “lack of vision.”[12] Then, they will read scriptural texts with others in order to address the problems constructively.

Hermeneutical frame is that “conscientious preachers seek to identify theological categories that account for the way in which the text relates to the religious experience of Christian believers.”[13] In other words, interpreters bring their own theological perspectives such as views of scripture[14] into their readings of biblical texts. This frame emphasizes a dialogue between a text and readers’ religious perceptions that is occurring during the process of reading.

As scriptural criticism points out, all interpretations are the results of those three interpretive frames, regardless of whether readers are aware of that interactive process or not. From the viewpoint of scriptural criticism, various interpretations of the Bible can be “plausible” by making hermeneutical sense, “legitimate” by grounding in biblical text, and “valid” by choosing a particular life situation. However, even though an interpretation of a certain biblical text is plausible and legitimate, it could be potentially “harmful” for particular people in a specific life situation. Consequently, serious consideration of life context of readers/hearers plays an important role in biblical interpretation.

II. Analyses of Existing Interpretations with Scriptural Criticism

1. Analysis of Gail R. O’Day’s article, “New Birth as a New People: Spirituality and Community in the Fourth Gospel.”[15]

a. Contextual Choice

O’Day does not explicitly articulate her life context from which she is approaching to the story of Nicodemus’s visiting Jesus. She starts directly with the theme of becoming children of God focusing on John 1:12. However, her use of certain words implies her main concerns in interpretation, which could be her life context. Those words can be formed into two groups, which creates certain binary oppositions.[16] However, the most important expressions are “offer of new life” and “resistance to new life.” The main context for her is that we, humans, are resistant to God’s offering of new life because of the hardness of our hearts that clings to our misunderstanding and our fear of losing our own categories. The root problem for human beings, according to O’Day’s descriptions, is lack of will. Humans do not want to lose their own categories in order to receive God’s offering of new identity; they do not want to leave their old realm in order to “see and enter” a new community, the kingdom of God.

b. Textual Choice

O’Day focuses on the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus in 3:2-9 and Jesus’ monologue in 3:10-15. For her, the most import portion is how to interpret the double meaning of “born anōthen” in 3:3, which not only implies Jesus’ offering of new identity and new community, but also causes Nicodemus’ misunderstanding and resistance. Her analysis of literary structure--“v. 3 Offer of new life; v. 4 Resistance to new life; vv. 5-8 Offer of new life; v.9 Resistance to new life; vv. 10-15 Offer of new life” (60)—indicates that the main focus is “in the text.” She does not try to reconstruct the socio-historical situations of Johanine community and to describe believers’ current situations. She follows literary plots of the narrative and presents its main structure, which provides her the central message of the story: “To have eternal life is to live life no longer defined by blood, nor by the will of the flesh nor by human will, but by God….The cross of Jesus gives us new life to serve the impossibilities of God’s kingdom” (60). According to her understanding, the monologue of Jesus in 3:10-15 is the climax of the story, which implies that God’s new life is given to us, despite our resistance, through Christ’s life-giving sacrifice on the cross.

c. Theological/Hermeneutical Choices

O’Day believes that God’s offering of new life in Christ, which is emphasized in 3:10-15, solved Nicodemus’ problem--lack of will to accept God’s gift--which is implied in his resistance. She articulates how Nicodemus is changed in the latter part of the gospel in terms of practicing an honorable funeral for Jesus. She explicitly mentions what the death of Jesus does to Nicodemus: “At Jesus’ death, even doubting and resistant Nicodemus is empowered to act in faith” (60). For her, the role of the text as scripture is “Empowering Words” which empowers Nicodemus to overcome his fear of losing his own categories and to give up his resistant attitude and accept God’s offer of new identity and community. Main theological concepts are “new identity,” “new community,” and “the kingdom of God.”

d. Assessment

O’Day’s literary approach to the story nicely articulate rhetorical tension between God’s offering of new life and humans’ resistance. Her argument is effective in terms of emphasizing God’s grace which loosens the hardness of human hearts and empowers humanity to accept new identity and community offered in Christ. Nevertheless, O’Day’s idea of God’s grace and humans’ resistance leads her to describe Nicodemus unnecessarily negatively by positioning him among those who have “sign faith”—people believe Jesus only because of the signs that they see. Nicodemus’ positive action like “coming to” Jesus with a profession of faith, “a teacher who has come from God” (3:2) is intentionally ignored.

2. Analysis of Richard L. Rohrbaugh’s article, “What’s the Matter with Nicodemus? A Social Science Perspective on John 3:1-21.”[17]

a. Contextual Choices

Rohrbaugh’s main context is that believers, including biblical scholars, are confused, when they try to understand John’s narrative of Nicodemus’ conversation with Jesus. For him, scholars and believers’ interpretations of the narrative focusing on “double entendre,” “irony,” “born again theology,” and “misunderstanding and revelation” are not satisfactory, and some of them are even “misunderstanding” the story. He employs M.A.K. Halliday’s linguistic idea of “anti-language” and attempts to provide “the true meaning” of the story. The root problems for other scholars and believers, according to his understanding, are two-fold: First, lack of knowledge—they do not know the function of anti-language; second, lack of vision—they do not have a sight to see the real meaning of the story. The root problem for him, in my opinion, is lack of appreciation for others’ different understandings because of his academic narrowness.

b. Textual Choices

Rohrbaugh articulates Halliday’s anti-language in terms of “re-lexicalization,” “over-lexicalization,” and “identity marker.” He explains that the Johannine community was a society of the marginalized who used anti-language and Nicodemus was from the dominant group who did not understand the anti-language. His main argument is to explain the function of anti-language in the context of Johannine community: “Language is exactly what is used by the Johannine group to achieve distance from the Judean world and from other Christians” (150). He argues that the main task of interpreters is not to find the meaning of John’s language but to understand the function of anti-language that Jesus is using in the story: creating a distance and evoking confusion (151-154). As a result, Rohrbaugh just focuses on Nicodemus’ confusion which is presented in his words in 3:4 and 9. Rohrbaugh chooses to focus on “behind the text” by paying close attention to the rhetorical function of anti-language in the situation of the Johannine community. His main method is to utilize Halliday’s idea of anti-language and rhetorical function of the language.

c. Theological/Hermeneutical Choices

Rohrbaugh emphasizes the function of anti-language in terms of the Johannine community creating identity markers and keeping a distance from other dominant social groups. For him, the role of the text, actually the role of Halliday’s linguistic insight, could be “corrective glasses,” because understanding of the function of anti-language enables interpreters to see the “real” meaning/function of the words that are used in the story. The main theological concept would be community.

d. Assessment

Rohrbaugh’s use of the anti-language concept for understanding the enigmatic conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus produces a fresh and fascinating interpretation. His reconstruction of the Johannine community’s context--socially marginalized ones who use anti-language--is insightful. His argument is very clear that John’s use of anti-language works very effectively by confusing outsiders like Nicodemus and keeping distant from them. However, even if the idea of anti-language makes sense in the story of Nicodemus, who seems to remain confused at the end of the conversation, it can be problematic when the anti-language does not function in another story. The example can be Jesus’ encountering a woman in Sychar in John 4. The woman in the story was confused because of Jesus’ use of “anti-language”--“living water” (4:10). However, the woman finally joins in “Jesus’ circle” by realizing the identity of Jesus and spreading the “good news” in the town (4:28-30) instead of being confused and kept distance from Jesus.

III. Contextual Dialogue with John 3:1-21

1. Theme of “New Birth/Birth from Above”

John 3:1-21 has been a very famous and challenging portion of John’s gospel for several reasons. First, the term “born again” has become popular among Christians, especially among evangelicals, as a result the expression, “born again Christian”[18] is often used to indicate a believer who got through a religious experience of “conversion.” Second, Nicodemus is an enigmatic figure who has been identified with various groups by interpreters (detailed explanations will be given below). Third, John 3:16 is one to “the most frequently quoted” [19] and recited verses in the New Testament. Fourth, reference of “the kingdom of God,” which is frequently used in the Synoptic gospels as a critical concept, appears only in this passage in John’s gospel.

Reflecting the popularity of this part, numerous scholars have published various interpretations to solve the “enigmas” of this narrative. Main focuses of scholarly writings are often given to the main conversation partner, Nicodemus and to the understanding of the double meaning of “born anōthen” in 3:3.

a. Various Understandings of Nicodemus

“Who is Nicodemus” has been a controversial issue for interpreters.[20] As Beverly Roberts Gaventa argues, the story of Nicodemus “raises more questions than answers.”[21] According to John’s description, he is “a Pharisee” and “a leader of the Jews,” possibly a member of the Sanhedrin.[22] Jesus calls him “a teacher of Israel.” It seems that he belongs to the ruling Jewish authorities who are depicted as one of the main opponents of Jesus and as trying to kill him.[23] Nicodemus’ use of the plural expression, “we know” (3:2), indicates that he is representing a certain group. Jesus also uses the plural, “you,” when he replies to him (3:7, 11, and 12). Those plural expressions may imply that this discourse is not just personal dialogue but communal communication, reflecting the situations of the Johannine community.[24]

Scholars attempt to identify who is the group that “we” represents. Various groups of commentators provide different interpretations. The first option is to argue that Nicodemus is a representative of the Jews who were amazed by the signs (2:23) [25] that Jesus performed in Jerusalem during the Passover festival and began to have a “sign faith.”[26] John’s description in 2:23-25 implies that the “sign faith” that the Jews in Jerusalem had cannot be “true faith,” because it does not based upon Jesus but upon the signs given by him. John articulates that Jesus knows what is inside of everyone’s heart (2:25), the faith of those who believe Jesus because they saw the signs is “inappropriate.”

The second option is to believe that Nicodemus is one of the “secret believers”[27] among Jewish leaders[28] who were afraid to confess their faith in Jesus publicly. According to this opinion, that is why Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night, because he is afraid of the Jews. Nicodemus’ active participation in Jesus’ funeral, which is conducted by Joseph of Arimathea who is one of the “secret disciples,” reveals who he is. The third appearance of him in ch. 19 shows his real identity, “secret disciple.”

In a similar line of thought, the third option is to think that there is a “growth process” on the part of Nicodemus: at the first meeting with Jesus, he is confused and misunderstood like the disciples of Jesus in ch. 4. However, as time goes on, Nicodemus “has come to believe.”[29] Then his faith has grown enough to defend Jesus in front of other Pharisees in ch. 7 despite of other fellow Pharisees’ accusation and rebuke. Finally Nicodemus can act publicly when he sees the “lifting up” of Jesus, which reveals God’s grace that is given to him in Christ. Nicodemus, who behaved secretly until that time decides to act openly as his faith is growing up enough to show his connection with Jesus publicly. Jesus’ death on the cross, the “lifting up,” has changed him to know explicitly who Jesus is and shifted his own actions. This option also emphasizes Nicodemus’ initiative action to meet Jesus, “coming to the light,” and his profession of “faith,” though it is vague, that “you are a teacher came from God” (2:2). In this opinion, he is “in or near the ranks of the disciples.”[30]

The fourth option is to regard him as one who plays a role of “stupid disciple.” According to Wayne A. Meeks, Nicodemus’ questions provides two occasions: “(a) for the reader to feel superior and (b) for the sage who is questioned to deliver a discourse,” a genre which was popular in the Greco-Roman world.[31]

The fifth option is to believe that Nicodemus is among the people who belong to the “dark world.” He represents “the old order, the passing away of which Jesus had foretold in chapter 2."[32] According to this opinion, he is an outsider who is “possibly harmful” to the Johannine community. That is why Jesus speaks in “Johannine,” which is “anti-language” designed to create confusion and to keep a distance from John’s community.[33] From the perspective this option, Nicodemus’ participation in Jesus’ burial by bringing in a “hundred pounds” of “mixture of myrrh and aloes” (19:39, NRSV) can mean that he does not understand who exactly Jesus is.[34]

Those different scholarly understandings are “plausible” by making theological sense and “legitimate” by grounding in biblical texts. However, various explanations, often causing conflicts each other, do not really solve the questions that “ordinary readers” have in their understandings of the story. They can function like an “anti-language” by adding more confusions and creating a distance between readers and biblical narrative instead of helping them understand it.

As a preacher who is serving a Korean immigrant church in the United States and as a reader, I hope to explain the enigmatic figure, Nicodemus using Korean image of Yangban, which is a familiar concept to many Korean immigrants.

b. Understanding Nicodemus Comparing with Images of Yangban

In this chapter, I hope to read Nicodemus’ story by comparing him with images of a yangban, the typical upper class in the Korean traditional social structure. I have two reasons to do this. Firstly, I, as a preacher in a Korean immigrant church, believe that using familiar images of yangban will help Korean congregations who are “ordinary readers” understand the enigmatic figure named Nicodemus easily. Using familiar images from Korean culture, I think, may encourage them to use their cultural knowledge and imagination to understand biblical texts creatively and invite them to do “ongoing” conversation with that text in their lives. Secondly, I want to follow Kwok Pai-lan’s recommendation that Asians need to use their own cultural inheritance in order to create a dialogue with biblical text, which “must involve a powerful act of imagination.”[35] I hope to use yangban images to form a genuine dialogue with the story of Nicodemus and to get new “plausible” and “legitimate” understanding from that dialogue.

In the traditional Korean society, especially at the time of the Yi dynasty (1392-1897), which is often called the Joseon/Chosŏn dynasty, there were, in its early years, basically two different social groups: “‘freeborn commoners’ (yangin) and ‘lowborns’ (cheonmin).”[36] However, further stratification soon developed, leading to four distinctive classes: yangban, jungin, sangmin, and cheonmin. The term, yangban “originated in the Koryŏ dynasty to refer to the ‘two branches’ of officials, the civilian and the military.”[37] Yangban was a privileged elite group in that society. They were “the bureaucratic class with access to governmental posts through the civil or military service examinations; the literati class with exclusive access to education and knowledge; the gentry class with exclusive access to wealth (land ownership); and the privileged class exempt from tax or military duties.”[38] Jungin, a very small group of people who can be regarded as “middle class” were professionals who had specialty in foreign languages, medicine, accounting or who had low-ranking government positions.[39] Sangmin, a very large group of people, were “commoners such as peasants, merchants, and handicraftsmen, who paid taxes and were subjected to military and different forms of labor duties.”[40] Cheonmin, which literally means “mean” and “low,” was made of slaves, house servants, shamans, and “those who are engaged in dirty and impure occupations”[41] such as butchers, leather tanners, slaves, house servants, and shamans.

Men of yangban class enjoyed their privileges within the exclusively structured Neo-Confucian social system of the Yi dynasty. According to Neo-Confucian philosophy, just as heaven (yang) dominates earth (yin), so male rules over female and are regarded as superior to them.[42] “In yangban family, boys studied Confucian classics to prepare for taking the civil service examination, whereas girls were taught ‘womanly behavior’ and domestic tasks” to support males in the family.[43] Only husbands had the right to dissolve the marriage relationship when wives committed one of the “seven instances of extreme disobedience.”[44] The eldest male of a household as “head of household” can exercise almost unlimited power over other family members. Yangban’s privileges were in most cases inherited by marriage and lineage following the male’s side, which created an extended family clan.[45] In short, men of yangban class were the most privileged social group who ruled the country and controlled all social systems. That is why the Yi dynasty is often called as the yangban society.

We can find similarities between Nicodemus and the image of yangban males like Hong Pan-Seo, [46] the father of Hong Kiltong.[47] First, they are male figures who belong to social elite group, leaders of society. Second, they represent a certain group. In the case of Nicodemus, he represents a certain group of people (he uses “we know”), probably a group of Jews who saw the signs and is a leader of the Jews. Hong Pan-Seo represents his family as “head of household” and is one of the power elite groups, yangban. In his family, Hong Pan-Seo’s words become house regulations.

Third, their perspectives are narrowly confined because of their preunderstandings formed from their traditions and way of life. John says that Nicodemus is a Pharisee. In general, Pharisees respect their own traditions, oral or written alike, and try to keep it sincerely by following the Law and other regulations.[48] Nicodemus, as a Pharisee and a leader of the Jews, must be familiar with the cultural image of blood-line, which can be connected to the idea of Abraham’s descendents. That could be why he naturally thinks of “born again,” when he hears the words, “born anōthen.” His socio-cultural environment limits his spectrum of understanding. Therefore, he cannot but raise the question, “How can anyone be born after having grown old?” (3:4, NRSV). “How is it possible” could be a manifestation, as O’ Day suggests, of his resistance to Jesus’ explanation and of his inability to let go of his “categories of the possible and impossible.”[49] His strong cling to traditional socio-cultural categories prevents him from seeing other possibilities in the expression, “born anōthen.” Because of that kind of cultural limitations, Nicodemus cannot understand Jesus and his words even at the end of the gospel, as the fifth option above argues. Hong Pan-Seo also cannot go beyond the social boundaries that are formed in the strict Neo-Confucian society. In his fossilized way of thinking, only someone’s “legitimate” blood-line determines his/her social status automatically. He regards the miserable situation of Hong Kiltong, his own son whom he received from his affair with maidservant inescapable and does not try to help him but urges him to accept the given social situations.

Fourth, Nicodemus’ limited socio-cultural viewpoints and his privileged position block him from understanding the connotation of Jesus’ reference to God’s kingdom. His prerogative social status as a leader of people must have given him many benefits such as receiving honor and possibly getting material wealth--he can prepare expensive perfumes for Jesus’ burial. Those privileges that he enjoys in his current social status may lead him not to envision a new social order in which he might lose what he takes for granted. That could be why he “resists,” as O’ Day argues, Jesus’ offering of a new identity in God’s kingdom. The coming of a new social order can be a terrible thing for those who take benefits from social privileges. Hong Pan-Seo also does not accept Hong Kiltong’s behaviors such as punishing corrupted yangban and taking food and wealth from them and distributing them to the poor. Hong Kiltong’s actions are regarded as the coming of a new social order that the exploited has desired for a long time. The social elite who are occupying the top positions of a society usually do not envision a new social order. People who are consisted of the bottom of the society desire to have a new kingdom in which they can live humanely.

Fifth, Nicodemus seems to come to Jesus at night because of others’ eyes on him. One of the most important values for yangban is honor. They are the people of honor and shame. In order to protect their family honor, they can sacrifice not only themselves but also their family members such as killing their daughter who became pregnant before her marriage as an extreme example. They believe that their honor comes from their neighbor’s judgment on their outward things like house, clothes, or position in government and behaviors like walking, eating, and talking that should be different from other social classes.[50] That culture leads yangban to be very sensitive to how others see them. However, they are often ridiculed as “hypocrite” by other social classes, which are often dramatized in “mask dance.”[51] From this perspective, Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night because he cares about others’ evaluation of him. His secret encounter with Jesus at night could be his careful behavior in order to keep his social status.

The list of similarities between Nicodemus and yangban can go further. Before moving onto the next section, I hope to use Jouette Bassler’s articulation of ambiguity. Bassler employs Meeks’ explanation, “ambiguity is doubtless an important and deliberate part of the portrait of this obscure figure”[52] and asks a question: “What do we gain by acknowledging the inherent ambiguity surrounding Nicodemus?” Her answer is that “the figure of Nicodemus works powerfully on the reader precisely because it is ambiguous. Since the text provides no definitive closure to the figure, the reader must bring closure beyond the txt…Nicodemus creates a cognitive “gap” in the text that the reader must fill.”[53] Bassler believe that this “gap” and ambiguity attract readers to get involved in an active inquiry for the meaning of the text.[54] Bassler’s insight is very helpful because it supports my effort to comprehend the ambiguity of Nicodemus by comparing him with the image of yangban. Despite various efforts to figure him out, the enigmatic figure, Nicodemus’ mystery remains. That is why the narrative invites us as dialogue partners for further struggle for true understandings.

2. “Born anew/from above” in Contexts of the Johannine Community and Korean Immigrant Churches

a. Contexts of Korean Immigrant Churches

The Korean ethnic church historically functioned as the most significant social institute for Koreans in the United States from the time when the first Korean immigrants arrived in Hawaii on January 13, 1903. It is believed that almost 70 percent of Korean immigrants in the United Sates are affiliated with Korean ethnic churches and about 85 percent of them attend church regularly.[55] This percentage of Korean immigrants’ affiliation with the church is amazing, especially when compared to the fact that only a fourth of the population in Korea is Christian. What could be the reason for Korean ethnic churches’ growing in numbers?

There are several reasons for new Korean immigrants come to their ethnic churches. First, Korean ethnic churches assist new immigrants’ “soft landing.” Many Korean churches not only pick them up from the airport and help them find a place to stay, but also provide various information for their adjustment including job or business opportunities. Second, the Korean church functions as a center for Korean immigrants’ social fellowship. Many Korean Americans come to the ethnic church in order to meet other Koreans and to share their difficulties with other immigrants who got through similar experiences. It also provides a place where they can breathe a “Koreaness” in the midst of western culture. Third, Korean churches become a place for finding a new meaning for many immigrants who have been frustrated due to their struggling life in a foreign land. Korean immigrants often become exhausted not only because of language and cultural barriers or visible and invisible discriminations, but also because of their “self-doubt” of their harsh life in a foreign land. The Korean immigrant church can assist them to meditate their struggles and to see the meanings of their lives through religious interpretation.

However, Korean immigrant churches are also facing several problems. The first problem that nearly all Korean immigrants experience is a “downward mobility.” It is a socio-economic and psychological experience of “being marginalized” or “being excluded” in a new country. Many Korean immigrants had college degrees and white collar occupations and belonged to the urban middle class when they lived in Korea. Nonetheless, their professional knowledge and educational experience could not be successfully transferred to the United States labor market. As a result of this failure, on coming to the United States they were “down-graded” in socio-economical sense, obtaining low-income jobs or working in small shops as self-employed shopkeepers for 10 to even 14 hours a day. There could several major reasons for this mobility: Their lack of fluency in English, their unfamiliarity with American culture and regulations, and racism in broader society.

The second problem is a “silent exodus”[56] of American-born second generations[57] from the church. According to Karen Chai, who investigated second-generation Korean Americans and their participation in Korean ethnic churches, 90-95 percent of post-college Korean Americans (mostly American-born second generations) no longer attend their ethnic churches where most church members are first-generation Koreans.[58] Many Koreans believe that one of the primary reasons for the “silent exodus” is generational conflict. It usually comes from the use of two different languages, Korean for first-generation and English for their children, which raises miscommunication and misunderstanding among them. It also comes from different cultural backgrounds: Confucian culture for immigrants and American culture for second generations.

The third problem is racism and conflict with other ethnic groups. An example of the conflict would be “the 1992 Los Angeles Riot.” The riot was triggered by four Los Angeles police officers’ brutal beating of a black motorist, Rodney King. However, after five days of riot, it has been shown that the main figures/victims of the riot were African Americans and Korean Americans.[59] This riot is regarded as “the nation’s first ‘multi-ethnic’ disturbance.”[60] It is believed that the main reason of the conflict was biased opinions and negative attitudes between the two racial groups and that those biased attitudes originated from the cultural misunderstanding and the racial ideology/hierarchy promoted by the white dominated mass media.[61] Doobo Shim, who investigates the white dominant mass media’s broadcasting of the riot, argues that by “framing the riot as the result of minority on minority conflict,” the mass media exempts white responsibility -white supremacy is the very reason of the riot- for the riots and by depicting both ethnic minority groups as “threats to white civilization, white arbitration was seen as necessary…Now the racial hierarchy was justified.”[62] The white supremacy forms, as Cornel West designates, an “American racial caste system”[63] among different racial groups by stereotyping them through the white-dominant mass media. Racism and conflict with others have become unavoidable parts of Korean immigrants’ lives.

b. Contexts of the Johannine Community

“What kind of community was John’s primitive church?” has been an important issue for many interpreters. R. Alan Culpepper suggests rough pictures of John’s community. According to him, during its early days, John’s community “functioned more or less comfortably within the Jewish synagogue…as Jews who had found the Messiah.”[64] During its middle period, the gap between believing Jews and non-believing Jews became explicit, especially over the war of 66-70. Some Johannine members were excluded from Jewish synagogue and began to gather around “the Beloved Disciple as the center of their new community,” while others remained within the synagogue and became “secret believers.”[65] The community began to experience a persecution from the “Pharisaic authorities from the synagogue.” The death of the Beloved Disciple shook the community, which led them to rely on the role of the Spirit.[66] Some believers who were expelled from the synagogue formed several other believing communities, whose relationship with Johannine community became significant. In the later period, theological issues like higher Christology and realized eschatology became important in the community.[67] Culpepper’s reconstruction of the historical contexts of John’s community is plausible and helpful.

One of the most influential books on understanding of the contexts of the Johannine community would be J. Lois Martyn’s History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel published in 1968. For him, the most important evidence for the socio-historical situation of the Johannine community is a Greek word, aposynagogos,[68] which means “an excommunicate from the synagogue.”[69] He argues that this term indicates that a certain official decision was made by Jewish authorities to excommunicate followers of Jesus from the synagogue. Several Jewish rulers who were believers feared the Jews and attempted to hide their faith from the authorities. However, some believers like the blind beggar in ch. 9 were expelled from the synagogue.[70] Martyn believes that “Pharisees” refers to “those who are responsible for the fearful agreement or to those who enforce it.”[71] Martyn’s argument based on the special term, aposynagogos, has received broad support from scholars and is believed to be a critical reconstruction of the socio-political contexts of Johannine community.

c. Similarities between the Johannine Community and Korean Immigrant Churches

Johannine community and Korean immigrant churches share many similarities. Articulating these similarities will help us to understand possible meanings of the terms, “born anōthen” and “the kingdom of God.” First, both communities are minority groups from a socio-political perspective. Although it is almost impossible to know how many believers were there in the Johannine community, it seems clear that this community existed as a social minority group. According to statistics, about 5 percentage of American population is Asians[72] and Korean Americans consist of 10 percent of them, which means about 0.5 percent of whole population. This fact clearly shows that Korean believers are a part of small community, the Korean immigrant church.

Second, as a social minority, they created their own culture, sub-culture, which led them to use “anti-language.” Korean immigrants create “immigrant culture” which is a distinctive combination of American and Korean culture. It is not difficult to see many Korean immigrants both bowing and waving hands at the same time, when they want to say “bye” to their fiends or visitors. They use Korean as their primary language, which functions as “anti-language” to others who do not know it. As Rohrbaugh argues, the Johannine community may use “anti-language,” which can be the manifestation of their sub-culture.

Third, main members of both communities are uprooted people. As articulated above, some Johannine community members are those who were “excommunicated” from Jewish Temple. They were uprooted people who found their new place in a newly formed community. They lost their previous relationship, culture, and sense of belonging, which were important parts of their identity. They struggled to find new community where they could find new relationships and a sense of belonging.

Immigrants are all uprooted people who are planted in a new land. Uprooted people are those who, in many cases, lost their valuable things such as home, culture, language, and relationships. They are often caught in a “middle ground”-- “being in-between”—and marginalized in a new place. Those conditions of “in-between” and “marginalized” can often cause “double-consciousness.” W. E. B. Du Bois correctly explains the reality of the “uprooted” Africans, “the Negro is…born with a veil…a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others.”[73] Du Bois’ “double-consciousness” is not a unique phenomenon among “enslaved Africans” but common among many uprooted ones. A Korean immigrant and theologian Sang Hyun Lee confesses his experience of “being in-between”: “However long I stayed in this country, I seemed to remain a stranger, an alien. And this condition of being a stranger appeared to have two dimensions: the experience of being in between two worlds, the Korean and the American, belonging to both in some ways, but not wholly belonging to either; and the sense that I as a non-white person might never be fully accepted by the majority of the dominant group in this country.”[74]

The main experience that uprooted people face, especially immigrants, is alienation and confusion. Being uprooted means being alienated from familiar environments and being “strangers” in a new situation. They often will be identified as “them” not as “one of us.” This alienation leads them to confusion. Uprooted people, especially immigrants, begin to realize that they are caught in between two different worlds. One the one hand, they try to keep their own heritage such as identity, language, and customs. On the other hand, they struggle to survive in a new circumstance by learning new language, culture, and social regulations.

An uprooted situation inevitably urges alienated people to find a place or form a new community where they find their own identity and feel comfortable in the midst of harsh environments. That was why the first Korean immigrants in Hawaii established their own church with only very limited help from others. Korean churches have been the place where immigrants can breathe “Koreaness” and where they can find the sense of identity.

John’s community needed to find a new way of restoring their “shaken” identity. Jesus’ explanation, “born anōthen” show how they tried to formulate their new sense of belonging[75]: through by being “born from above” not through “born again.” Blood-lineage must be a common way to find one’s identity. That is what Nicodemus has in mind, when he hears “born anōthen.” As articulated above, his cultural category teaches him that seeing and entering God’s kingdom is possible only through being children of Abraham, the legitimate blood-line. This can be how the Jews understand God’s kingdom. John’s community members who have been excluded from the Jewish community need to find a different way from the Jews. What they find is to see God’s kingdom by being “born from above.” They identify themselves as those who are born from above, who are born in the Spirit. The emphasis should be on the fact that Johannine community’s way of finding new identity is very different from that of the Jews, which is somewhat implied in Nicodemus’ attitude. In this perspective, there are certain discontinuity between them and the Jews.[76]

Fourth, they are waiting for a new social order, coming of God’s kingdom. Those who are not satisfied with the current social system envision a new world. If John’s community were experiencing persecution from the Jews, which is unjust action against them, they must have dreamed of a new social order. They were eager to see God’s new kingdom where they could be treated respectfully. Immigrants who came to a “new world” often become “confused” and “doubtful” of their lives in a new land. Experiencing social barriers, cultural gaps, and various discrimination make their life harsh and lead them to dream another “new world.” They realize that their pilgrimage to a new land is always connected to another pilgrimage to a truly new world. John’s particular use of the expression “the kingdom of God” only in this story may imply his community’s desire for God’s new world they are anticipating. They may shout like the seven churches in Asia Minor, “Maranata,” “Come, Lord Jesus.”

Fifth, the use of plural terms like “we know” and “you” (plural) indicate a communal aspect of new identity that is available in the kingdom of God. It implies that new identity can be obtained through the believing community, which embodies God’s rule. As mentioned above, Nicodemus seems to represent a certain group of people. Even though it is not clear whether “Jesus undoubtedly speaks for the Johannine Christians and stands for them”[77] or not, usage of plural terms strongly shows that “born anōthen” should be understood on a communal level not just an individual level. Johannes Nissen correctly argues that kingdom of God is “not an individual, but a social category.”[78] He continues, “The close relationship between rebirth and the Kingdom of God underlines the communitarian character….To be born ‘from above’ is to be part of a new community.”[79] Therefore finding a new identity in Christ by being born “from above” is to become a member of new community.

Sixth, the new communities of believers are experiencing various conflicts. That is the challenge that they should overcome to embody God’s new world. The Los Angeles Riot opened Korean immigrants’ eyes to other ethnic minorities and led them to get involved seriously in the racial issues of the United States, which many of them had regarded as “Black and White issue.” They were called to serve a bigger task to make better society. John’s community was also experiencing conflicts with a Jewish community and possibly with other believers. Creating harmony must be a difficult challenge for them. Some of them might cry like Nicodemus, “How is it possible?” If this was the case, John seemed to respond to it through Jesus’ monologue. Just a God’s love for the “world”[80] was shown through Jesus’ “lifting up” on the Cross, the harmony among different communities can be achieved by being “offered,” showing love. That can be why the believer’s proper deeds are emphasized at the end of the discourse.

Conclusion

I hope to conclude my own interpretation of John’s narrative of Nicodemus and Jesus’ dialogue by analyzing it with tools of scriptural criticism. My main contextual choice is the situations of Korean immigrant churches in the United States. Many members of the churches are “uprooted” immigrants who are confused and alienated in a new land. They come to their ethnic churches, new communities, where they can find a new sense of belonging. The teachings in the church help them envision a new world that God is creating in the midst of harsh present life. Their religious interpretations of their struggling lives make everyday life “meaningful.” The main root-problem for the immigrants is their lack of ability to solve their problems effectively and the racism and “racial hierarchy” in which they find their own contribution and by which they have been victimized. My textual choice is the dialogue between Nicodemus and Jesus in John 3:1-21, focusing on the term, “born anōthen” in 3:3.

I have tried to reconstruct the socio-political contexts of the Johannine community with help from other scholars’ writings and to use the current socio-political situations of readers and their cultural inheritance such as the image of yangban in order to create genuine dialogue between them, the Johannine and Korean communities. In my interpretation, the role of scripture, as a part of hermeneutical/theological choice is “corrective glasses” in terms of encouraging Korean immigrants to see their lives through the lens of “God’s possibility,” as O’ Day argues, despite of their inability. John’s narrative invites Korean immigrant to envision God’s new world that is offered to us in Christ and to behave like God’s people. Korean believers are invited to witness God’s new kingdom and embody God’s new social order by being good earth and bearing many fruits in their lives.

-----------------------

[1] Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology (rev. and exp. ed.: Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002), 3-27.

[2] Robert M. Grant with David Tracy, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible (2d ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005).

[3] Neil Elliot, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1994), 3-24.

[4] Cristina Grenholm and Daniel Patte, “Overture: Reception, Critical Interpretations, and Scriptural Criticism,” Reading Israel in Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of Divergent Interpretations (Romans through History and Cultures Series; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International Press, 2000), 7.

[5] Blount argues that words do not carry fixed meaning but meaning potential. According to him, the potential only “becomes meaningful when it is performed and accessed in a certain context.” Brian K. Blount, Can I Get a Witness? Reading Revelation through African American Culture (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 2.

[6] Cristina Grenholm and Daniel Patte, “Introduction,” in Gender, Tradition and Romans: Shared Ground, Uncertain Borders (eds. Cristina Grenholm and Daniel Patte; New York & London: T & T Clark), 13.

[7] Grenholm and Patte, “Overture,” 14.

[8] Grenholm and Patte, “Overture,” 13.

[9] Daniel Patte, Monya A. Stubbs, Justin Ukpong, and Revelation E. Velunta, The Gospel of Matthew: A Contextual Introduction for Group Study (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 50-51.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Grenholm and Patte, “Overture,” 13. Emphasis is original.

[12] Ibid., 38-39.

[13] Ibid., 13.

[14] Those different views could be: Lamp to my feet; Canon; Good News; Family Album; Corrective Glasses; Empowering Word; or Holy Bible. See Daniel Patte and Eugene TeSelle, eds., Engaging Augustine on Romans: Self, Context, and Theology in Interpretation (Romans Through History and Cultures Series; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2002), 263-64.

[15] Gail R. O’Day, “New Birth as a New People: Spirituality and Community in the Fourth Gospel,” Word and World 8 (1988), 53-61.

[16] One group is consisted of “hardness of heart,” “fear,” “afraid,” “doubt,” “resistance,” “recalcitrance,” “human categories,” “impossibility” and the other group “God’s gift,” “new life,” “children of God,” “new identity,” “new community,” “born anew,” “the kingdom of God,” “holy possibility,” “God’s categories,” and “possibility.”

[17] Richard L. Rohrbaugh, “What’s the Matter with Nicodemus? A Social Science Perspective on John 3:1-21, in D with Nicodemus? A Social Science Perspective on John 3:1-21,” in Distant Voices Drawing Near: Essays in Honor of Antoinette Clark Wire (ed. Holly E. Hearon; Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2004), 145-158.

[18] Don Williford, “John 3:1-15—gennēthēnai anōthen: A Radical Departure, A New Beginning,” Review and Expository 96 (1999): 451-61.

[19] Frances Taylor Gench, Encounters with Jesus: Studies in the Gospel of John (Louisville & London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), 19.

[20] Scholars pay attention to the historicity of the narrative. Some regard the whole story as Johannine composition, while others think that the dialogue in the narrative, particularly the reference to the kingdom of God, indicates “primitive tradition” or “source” that John used for writing the gospel. See Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (The Anchor Bible; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 135-136.

[21] Beverly Roberts Gaventa, From Darkness to Light: Aspects of Conversion in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 132.

[22] Brown translates the last portion of first verse into “member of the Jewish Sanhedrin” and argues, “Nicodemus almost certainly belonged to the highest governing body of the Jewish people.” Brown, Gospel According to John, 130.

[23] John 7:1, 11, 15, 35.

[24] Nissen believes that Nicodemus is “playing a role of communal symbolic figure” and that through the lips of Jesus, “the Johannine community speaks to its opponents.” Johannes Nissen, “Rebirth and Community: A Spiritual and Social Reading of John 3,1-21,” Apocryphon Severin (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993), 129-130. See also Gench, Encounters with Jesus, 26.

[25] C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (2d ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978), 205.

[26] Bassler uses the term, “sign faith” as an opposite concept of “true faith.” Jouette M. Bassler, “Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 108/4 (1989): 643.

[27] Rensberger wants to understand Nicodemus as a “communal symbol” of “secret Christians.” See David Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1988), 54-56.

[28] John explicitly mentions about the believers among Jewish authorities (12:42).

[29] Gaventa, From Darkness to Light, 133.

[30] Bassler, “Mixed Signals,” 637.

[31] Wayne A. Meeks, “Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” JBL 91 (1972): 53.

[32] Williford, “John 3:1-15,” 453.

[33] Rohrbaugh, “What’s the Matter with Nicodemus?” 150-158.

[34] Meeks, “Man from Heaven,” 55. Trumbower argues that Nicodemus “is obviously preoccupied with Jesus’ body and cannot see the true significance of Jesus’ being lifted up; he is stuck in the realm of the flesh.” Jeffrey A. Trumbower, Born from Above: The Anthropology of the Gospel of John (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992), 73.

[35] Kwok Pui-lan, Discovering the Bible in the Non-Biblical World (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1995), 13.

[36] Hyong Sik Shin, A Brief History of Korea (Seoul, Korea: Ewha Womans University Press, 2005), 76.

[37] Kyung Moon Hwang, Beyond Birth: Social Status in the Emergence of Modern Korea (Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press, 2004), 23.

[38] Shin, A Brief History of Korea, 76.

[39] For detail explanation and different categories of Jungin, see Hwang, Beyond Birth, 1-41.

[40] Shin, A Brief History of Korea, 77.

[41] Hagen Koo, “The Korean Stratification System: Continuity and Change,” in Modern Korean Society: Its Development and Prospect (Hyuk-Rae Kim and Bok Song, eds.; Berkeley: The Regents of the University of California, 2007), 38.

[42] Seung-Kyung Kim, “Family, Gender, and Sexual Inequality,” in Modern Korean Society: Its Development and Prospect (Hyuk-Rae Kim and Bok Song, eds.; Berkeley: The Regents of the University of California, 2007), 133.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Ibid., 135.

[45] As exceptional cases, rich Jungin or Sangmin can buy the position of yangban. However, in the latter half of nineteenth century, the numbers of yangban families increased sharply, which weakened the privileged social status of yangban.

[46] Hong is last name and Pan-seo is a name of a position in government, which could be similar to Minister.

[47] Hong Kiltong is a famous character in Hŏ Kyeun’s (1569-1618) novel, Hong Kiltong chŏn (The Tale of Hong Kiltong), which is believed the first novel composed in hangǔl, the Korean Alphabet. Hong Kiltong was “the second son of a Minister Hong. Stigmatized from an early age by his illegitimacy (his mother was a maidservant) he suffer[ed] humiliating rebukes even from the household servants. All the normal paths to social and professional advancement are barred to him because of his illegitimacy, making him a social outcast even though he is the son of a minister.” See Kichung Kim, An Introduction to Classical Korean Literature: From Hyangga to P’ansori (Armonk, NY & London: M. E. Sharpe, 1996), 141-157.

[48] See Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987). See also descriptions of Pharisees in John 9:13-34 and Mark 7:1-5.

[49] O’ Day, “New Birth as a New People,” 59.

[50] Park Ji-won (1737-1805), who was one of the most innovative writers during the late Yi dynasty, wrote many satires in order to critique yangban society. In his famous satire, yangban jǒn (The Tale of a yangban), there are more than a hundred of things that a man who bought the tile of yangban by paying a yangban’ huge debt should follow in order to be a yangban. If I introduce some portion of them: “When he [yangban] washes his face, he will not rub his face with his fist nor shall he brush his teeth too violently…when he walks, he shall take slow stately steps brushing his heels against the ground…nor take off his clothes however hot it is…Were he to drink soup, he shall not slurp nor shall he bang his chopsticks when he puts them down on the table….” See Chung Chung-wha, ed., Korean Classical Literature (London & New York: Kegan Paul International, 1989), 38-42.

[51] For details of “mask dance,” see Kim Hunggyu, Understanding Korean Literature (trans. Robert J. Fouser; Armonk, NY & London: M. E. Sharpe, 1996), 122-126.

[52] Meeks, “Man from Heaven,” 54.

[53] Bassler, “Mixed Signals,” 644.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Kwang Chung Kim and Shin Kim, “The Ethnic Roles of Korean Immigrant Churches in the United States,” in Korean Americans and Their Religions: Pilgrims and Missionaries from a Different Shore (eds. H. Kwon, K. Kim, and R. S. Warner; University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001), 71-73.

[56] See Helen Lee, “Silent Exodus,” Christianity Today (August 12, 1996): 50-53.

[57] “First-generation Korean Americans” are those who were born and grew up in Korea and came to American usually after their high school or college graduation. On the other hand, “Second-generation Korean Americans” usually mean people who were born and raised in America by Korean parents.

[58] Karen J. Chai, “Beyond ‘Strictness’ to Distinctiveness: Generational Transition in Korean Protestant Churches,” in Korean Americans and Their Religions: Pilgrims and Missionaries from a Different Shore (eds. H. Kwon, K. Kim, and R. S. Warner; University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001), 157-58.

[59] “Damage was the greatest in the South Central and Koreantown areas, where Korean merchants owned nearly 39% of all businesses that sustained damaged, and 47% of all businesses that were completely destroyed.” Jane Twomey, “Communication About One Another: Racial Ideology in Black and Korean Press Coverage of the 1992 Los Angeles Riot,” in Socio-Cultural Conflict Between African American and Korean American (eds. M. K. Asante and E. Min; New York: University Press of America, 2000), 93.

[60] Ibid., 93-94.

[61] Eungjun Min, “Blues and Haan: Discourses of Despair and Lamentation of African American and Korean American – An Introduction,” in Socio-Cultural Conflict Between African American and Korean American (eds. M. K. Asante and E. Min; New York: University Press of America, 2000), 9.

[62] Doobo Shim, “The Logic of Television News: The case of the Los Angeles Riots,” in Socio-Cultural Conflict Between African American and Korean American (eds. M. K. Asante and E. Min; New York: University Press of America, 2000), 87.

[63] Cornel West, Race Matters (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), 105.

[64] R. Alan Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John (Interpreting Biblical Texts; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 56.

[65] Ibid., 57.

[66] Ibid., 58-59.

[67] Ibid., 60-61.

[68] The word appears in John 9:22; 12:42; and 16:2.

[69] J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (3rd ed.; Louisville & London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 47.

[70] Ibid., 48-49.

[71] Ibid.

[72] According to “Census 2010,” about 5% of U.S. population is Asian Americans. See

[73] W. E. B. Du Bois, “Double Consciousness and the Veil,” in Production of Reality: Essays and Readings on Social Interaction, Second Edition (eds. Jodi O’Brien and Peter Kollock; Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 1994), 487.

[74] Sang Hyun Lee, “Pilgrimage and Home in the Wilderness of Marginality: Symbols and Context in Asian American Theology,” in Korean Americans and Their Religions: Pilgrims and Missionaries from a Different Shore (eds. H. Kwon, K. Kim, and R. S. Warner; University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001), 55.

[75] Bultmann understand this term as “rebirth,” which means that “man receives a new origin,” which replaces the old origin [emphasis is Bultmann’s]. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), 137-38.

[76] Gaventa proposes “three aspects of new birth”: radical move of discontinuity from the old; new relationship to Jesus; and receiving a new spirit. See Gaventa, From Darkness, 135-36.

[77] Rensberger, Johannine Faith, 38.

[78] Nissen, “Rebirth and Community,” 131.

[79] Ibid., 132.

[80] The term, “world” often carries a negative connotation in John’s gospel.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download