Abstract
This postcolonial reading of the Great Commission in conversation with a Korean myth encourages all readers—colonizing and colonized—to pay more attention to their world, the world that has emerged following the Great Commission, than to the world of Jesus behind the text, or the world of Matthew within the text, so that they can emancipate presupposed meanings derived from hierarchical, formulaic, and christocentric interpretation. Reading the two texts together helps both missionizing and missionized readers hold the Great Commission as a national myth of the kingdom of God for the sake of the welfare of all human beings (the Korean principle of Hongik Ingan).
The text of Matt 28:18–20, the so-called Great Commission, plays a crucial role as a motif in almost every Christian gathering, causing people to recall the significance of mission and evangelism. In fact, this passage functions as a support, even a command, allowing Christians to legitimize almost every kind of missionary work in order to compel non-Christians to become modern disciples of Jesus. 1 In many cases throughout the history of mission, however, Christians in general and missionaries in particular have focused on the task of fulfilling the commission as worded for Jesus’ apostles, without serious consideration for how the commission is carried out in a given space and time. This article intends to shed new light on the previous understandings of the Great Commission and what this text is supposed to mean to the missionized, especially those who then, in turn, missionize others. A postcolonial consideration of the tradition and situation of the missionized world will enable missionized audiences to reconsider the meaning of the Great Commission for themselves and the others whom they, in turn, missionize.
In the comparison between the influence of the early Western mission in Korea and the deleterious effects of the Korean mission domestically and abroad, there has been one common aspect that we cannot easily ignore: unawareness of the power differential advocated by the work of mission. Although we cannot prove that this aspect has been caused solely by a colonial interpretation of the Great Commission, biblical scholars must not ignore the possible relation between the colonial context and the colonial meaning of the text. I will engage in a dialogue between Matthew’s Great Commission and a national myth of Korea based on the spirit of Hongik Ingan, a devotion to the welfare of humankind, which would enable readers to rethink the genuine purpose of the Great Commission for the sake of all human beings.
The world of the readers in front of the text
In many colonial contexts, mission ceases to be an act of service or sacrifice and instead becomes a tool for exercising institutional survival, expansion, and power. Despite many positive functions and contributions of the Great Commission and its interpretation, certain interpretations of the Great Commission produced by many missionaries have been used as mere slogans or literary tools to evoke triumphal and imperial elements in mission fields. 2
Christianity has matured into the greatest institutional religion in modern Korean society, and with its religious passion and organizational power, Korea has become the second-largest missionary-sending country in the world. However, when Korean churches started to missionize other countries, they went to the mission fields without critically analyzing the Great Commission and their own historical experiences. They have missionized others in the same way that Koreans had been missionized. Finding another way of reading the Great Commission is especially significant for people like Korean Christians who are moving from being colonized to colonizing, from being missionized to missionizing.
When Korea was under Japanese colonization (1910–45), many missionaries helped the Korean civilization and independence movement at the early stage of their mission. Especially, the theological stance of early Western missionaries had a great influence on Korean Christians and subsequently on their way of reading the Bible. S. A. Moffett, the chair of Pyungyang Theological Seminary until 1924, whose thoughts characterized Korean theology and faith, is called “an uncompromising conservative.” 3 C. Hodge, A. A. Hodge, and B. B. Warfield were famous conservative theologians who fought against liberalism in the early stage of mission history of Korea. They regarded higher criticism and liberal theology as “dangerous heresies.” 4
Conservative and literal understandings of the Bible made many missionaries accept the colonized situation of Korea, exploited by Japanese imperial power, and regarded individual conversion as their exclusive missionary goal in order to avoid trouble with Japanese authorities. They provided Korean Christians with a different perspective for understanding the colonized reality. M. C. Harris, head of the Methodist Mission for Korea and Japan, supported Japanese rule in Korea. He asked other missionaries to “give themselves absolutely and wholly to the work of evangelizing the people” and not to be connected, “directly or indirectly, with any domestic or any political problems.” 5 M. C. Harris used religion to teach Koreans to tolerate Japanese imperialism. Many missionaries had not been very sensitive to the issues of contextual hermeneutics and did not recognize the importance of the missionized as readers and their social locations.
Since many missionaries regarded the Great Commission as the great command that they had to follow, they obeyed the command in a literal sense. They came to Korea, baptized many, and taught them to make disciples. They did not deeply consider the meaning of making disciples and have not made a great contribution to the holistic change of Korean society, despite their contribution to Korean Christianization. 6 Whether noticed or not, such a literal interpretation became the same command to the Korean Christians, who came to follow the same pattern of fulfilling the Commission. 7
Consequently, much criticism of imperial missions has now become relevant to the Korean mission in various mission fields. 8 Korean missionaries have imposed triumphalist and imperialistic experience of the mission on other missionized peoples. Many Korean Christians have overwhelmingly focused on the missionary activity of endeavoring to reach every tribe and nation, without the deep interpretation of culture, religion, and language. In addition, many missionaries recently attempted to evangelize non-Christians in other countries with the help of the great cultural influence of Korea’s Hanryu (Korean Wave). It is necessary for Korean Christians to conduct a self-analysis and to produce a powerful vision of Matt 28:16–20 that breaks down any imperialistic relation between the missionizing and the missionized. 9
The world(s) behind and within the text
For the past two centuries, most Matthean scholars have read Matt 28:16–20 using historical and literary methods, tending to choose the most significant features of the text by focusing on certain theological issues related to the historical world of the original author(s) behind the text and the literary world of the implied author within the text. 10 Previous scholarship on the Great Commission summarized by a Korean scholar below explains that many interpreters in missionary fields are not free from this tendency of reading, and they have taught the missionized the same historical and literary ways of reading.
The interpretation of the Great Commission has been predominantly focused on the following issues: whether or not Matt 28:16–20 is authentic to the original Gospel of Matthew: to which genre the passage belongs: how to understand the commands consisting of one imperative and three participles: who are the “πάντα τὰ ἔθνη,” what “oἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν” means and how to translate it: to whom the Commission is given, the eleven disciples or churches: and by what name—by the Trinitarian God or by Jesus—baptism is performed. 11
As a good case of study, Davies and Allison present Matt 28:16–20 as a perfect summary of the entire Gospel. They assume that there is nothing much to be explained, so that the meaning of this text is fixed on a limited number of issues as summarized above. 12 They have considered this text important for understanding both the world of Jesus behind the text and that of Matthew within the text, but they have paid no attention to the relation between the readers and their world in front of the text. Their interpretation does not question the power relation between the missionizing and the missionized that the passage advocates, either. They do not fairly analyze the hermeneutical bias embedded in an interpretation of a given text. 13
The seemingly historical and value-neutral analysis might have satisfied those who are concerned about the worlds behind and within the text. However, no matter how hard interpreters attempt to answer all the questions raised in previous scholarship, their answers have gradually and unavoidably taken the real readers’ interest away from the current context. Such historical and literary interpretive concerns stay at the level of first-century readers with whom twenty-first century readers cannot easily identify. Today’s readers and their settings have been excluded from most interpretations of the Great Commission.
Methodological concerns for a postcolonial reading
Most interpretations by historical and literary critics are not intertwined with the reality of missionary contexts and are indifferent to any vernacular way of interpreting that missionized readers might suggest. In choosing not to be satisfied with one particular objective and correct interpretation of the text, our reading attempts to lay a foundation that transforms the distorted reality created by an imperial interpretation of our given text. 14 To accomplish this, the postcolonial reading allows non-Western voices—in our case, Korean voices—to be heard in dialogue between the Great Commission and the missionized contexts. 15 The Great Commission must be read as a significant text and tradition among many rather than as a normative text that excludes all other texts and traditions. 16 This postcolonial reading makes it possible to examine the Great Commission from various perspectives in order to neutralize any unequal power relations in our mission field.
Since many interpretations of the Great Commission in the past have been preoccupied with inscribing the history, experience, and aspirations of mission-oriented interpreters into the non-Christianized world, vernacular readers are now encouraged to employ their own history and experience in interpreting the Great Commission in order to problematize previous interpretations of the text and all the concomitant influences. 17 So our postcolonial reading legitimizes and encourages a confrontational and complementary reading encompassing the Great Commission and other religious and cultural texts from Asia’s long and rich history. Our methodological concerns are mainly targeted at missionized readers who have been influenced not only by Christian traditions but also by their own indigenous culture and vernacular religion. 18
This study also has no intention of reconstructing the original meaning of the Great Commission on behalf of the historical audience of the resurrected Jesus or of Matthew’s community. I do, however, intend to concentrate on the reinterpretation of this passage for the real audience in a colonized context in this century. As an example of postcolonial interpretation applied to the Great Commission, an intertextual reading with a certain Korean myth enables contemporary readers to analyze and change the world in front of the Great Commission. As opposed to taking on the role of passive recipient accepting a given meaning without question, all are encouraged to participate actively as independent interpreters who create meaning through their own historical and cultural experiences.
It is difficult to investigate in what ways and how much each missionary has been influenced by traditional interpretations of the Great Commission. Furthermore, it is complicated to analyze to what degree Korean missionaries are indebted to the imperial interpretation of the commission. Despite these uncertainties, one cannot deny that the Great Commission has played an inevitable role in recruiting missionary candidates and that those who have desired to practice the commission abroad have enforced a normative reading of the text. 19 This reading deconstructs the concept of mission and envisions alternate ways of understanding “mission” according to Matt 28:16–20.
A postcolonial reading of the Great Commission
As the first step for engaging another possible reading of the Great Commission, we place this text into the light of a well-known, national Korean myth, a story very reminiscent of the Great Commission in the mindset of every Korean reader—a myth that explains how the earliest nation of Korea was founded by the power of the divine. From the general storyline of the myth outlined below, non-Korean readers may also notice important thematic similarities between the Great Commission and this myth. Most importantly, both mission narratives have three main themes in common despite their different origins and backgrounds: the manifestation of the son of God on earth (Jesus, Hwang-ung), his co-working with followers (eleven disciples, three thousand followers), and the new dominion (the Kingdom of God, Sin-si). 20
The myth, reported for the first time in a historical book called the Samguk Yusa, intends to construct a Korean worldview.
21
To found the city of god (Sin-si), Hwang-ung, the son of God, descends to the world with the mission of Hongik Ingan.
22
In ancient times Hwan-in (Heavenly King) had a young son whose name was Hwang-ung. The boy wished to descend from heaven and live in the human world. His father, after examining three great mountains, chose T’aebaek-san as a suitable place for his heavenly son to bring happiness to human beings (Hongik Ingan). He gave Hwang-ung three heavenly treasures, and commanded him to rule over his people. With three thousand of his loyal subjects Hwang-ung descended from heaven and appeared under a sandalwood tree on T’aebaek Mountain. He named the place Sin-si (city of God) and assumed the title of Hwang-ung Chunwang (another title meaning heavenly king). He led his ministers of wind, rain, and clouds (Pung-beg, U-sa, and Un-sa) in teaching the people more than 360 useful arts, including agriculture and medicine, inculcated moral principles, and imposed a code of law.
23
Verses 16–18
In contrast to the presupposed distinction between the two realms in Christian theology, when Hwang-ung desires to come to the world, his father, Hwan-in, shows no worry about his son’s descent. A mode for incarnation does not have to be articulated in Korean mythology, because divine figures interpreted anthropomorphically dominate the story; heavenly figures are not totally differentiated from earthly figures. This story allows Koreans to identify their ancestors with Hwang-ung’s three thousand heavenly followers. Understanding heavenly figures anthropomorphically makes it possible for Koreans to have more familiarity with heavenly figures and assume considerable proximity to the divine domain.
The myth’s blurred boundaries reflect an imperial aspect that is also implied in the traditional, conservative interpretation of the Great Commission, which from the beginning presumes, consciously or unconsciously, two different classes of people: eleven disciples who come to the resurrected Jesus and others who do not come (v. 16), some disciples who believe and others who doubt (v. 17), and most important, disciples who are given all authority in heaven and on earth and others who are given less or nothing (v. 18). Although this authority is given to Jesus, not to the disciples or the followers, missionaries assumed that they appeared in non-Christianized lands as fully authoritative. This understanding led to the undeniable phenomenon of Korean missionaries now approaching other people in a similar manner, with the dichotomous and hierarchical presupposition that attended early missionary approaches to Koreans. 24
Unlike the previous interpretations of the Great Commission, which presuppose and enforce such a hierarchical relationship between the missionaries and the missionized in terms of who has the authority in heaven and on earth, an intertextual reading with the principle of devotion to mankind—Hongik Ingan—suggests a more egalitarian relationship between the different groups of people, inferred from the fact that the ones with the power in heaven descended to earth for the sake and purpose of others. While the previous reading supports the emphasis on authority and therefore distorts an otherwise level relationship between the two human groups, this reading helps missionaries to question the supposed original purpose of God in giving all authority in heaven and on earth to Jesus.
Verse 19
On the basis of Hwang-ung’s passion for the world and Hwan-in’s trust in his son, Hwang-ung was given three heavenly seals, three thousand followers, and three heavenly ministers—not to dominate a part of the human domain, but to serve and build a kingdom to be controlled by a heavenly rule. The myth emphasizes that Hwan-in makes Hwang-ung, followed by all the heavenly entities, for the purpose of bringing welfare for human beings (Hongik Ingan). The story makes clear that those who received the benefit at the city of God would be responsible for the welfare of all the people. Indeed, this spirit has functioned as a national disposition for Koreans to motivate themselves to bring about welfare for other peoples. 25
Another imperialistic aspect is evident in the translation of verse 19, “go and make disciples,” referring to “all nations” as merely objects of mission; those who must be reached and converted into followers of Jesus. This element has been interpreted aggressively without serious criticism, especially in the Korean context. In fact, even though the sentence consists of the only imperative, “μαθητɛύω” and three supporting participles of going, baptizing, and teaching, many have read the verse by putting more emphasis on the first participle, “going,” and devoted themselves to the action of traveling abroad. 26
Instead of reading each participle and imperative in a literal sense and giving them all the same weight of meaning, it is necessary to read the main Greek verb, “μαθητɛύω” more closely. However, it is not as easy as translating the meaning as “make disciples” in a conventional way. In light of more general definitions in lexica and other translations of “μαθητɛύω” in Matt 13:52 and 27:57, as to “become a disciple of,” indicating a meaning that the disciples have to become others prior to making them disciples, raises a contradictory problem for the translation, “make disciples.” 27 In comparison with the mission discourse of chapter 10, where the disciples had been entrusted with the tasks of proclamation and healing but not teaching (Matt 10:1, 7–8), this translation of verse 19 needs to make sense to those who already know that Jesus’ disciples are forbidden to be called rabbi—one who makes disciples of others—in Matt 23:8. 28 This is why a more theologically comprehensive interpretation or translation, if possible, is required. This particular Greek word has to mean embedding disciples in otherness, by learning other customs and heritage, and committing to the long process of becoming students of others, rather than simply converting others.
The interpretation and the application of “the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” in verse 19 have been distorted and mistreated in the Korean context as well. Whether or not the phrase is historically drawn from the liturgical practice of Matthew’s community, there has been no serious exegetical attempt to contextualize its meaning for real, contextualized readers. Just as Christianity has historically tended to regard this as a proof text for a baptismal formula and the Trinitarian doctrine, so in Korea this text has been used mainly in the baptismal ritual and in catechism. This verse tends to create the understanding that baptism itself guarantees Christian salvation. The emphasis on baptism explains the ongoing situation in Korea, in which more than 160,000 non-Christian soldiers are baptized every year after having attended three or four Sunday worships in recruitment training centers. 29 Even though the great number of baptized soldiers can be regarded as successful missionary work in terms of fulfilling the commission of “going, baptizing and teaching,” we cannot help but raise the question of how the baptizers fulfill the commission of “μαθητɛύω.” The baptized happen to understand Christian truth as a kind of information, not as a way of living, and they usually have no experience with God in the process of their lives. 30 There seems to be no concern for the welfare of the baptized to whom the disciples are being sent, whether this means Gentiles only or all nations, including the Jews. Many missionaries, such as M. C. Harris, understood the mission in the narrow sense and were only concerned about an individual conversion as a religious experience, not about the welfare of the missionized community and society as a whole.
Furthermore, this part of the text has been used as a proof text to support the doctrine of the Trinity, with other biblical support (e.g., 2 Cor 13:13). Subsequently, the question of other possible meanings becomes unnecessary and even forbidden for Korean readers. This part has been formulaically interpreted under the influence of Trinitarian doctrinarism. It has been forced to function as a doctrinal judge, to decide whether or not certain christological or trinitarian understandings are correct. 31 The interpretation of this verse leaves no room for reflection upon the mystery of the Trinity and the relationship between the Trinity and the missionized.
In order to problematize the particular usage of the baptismal and trinitarian formula, it is more relevant to inquire about the phrase, “baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” It should not be understood as a formula to justify the authority of those who propose to intensify any hierarchical order in the name of mission. Instead, the formulaic expression needs to be understood in light of the spirit of Hongik Ingan that Hwang-ung had substantiated for the sake of the welfare of the city of God. In light of the spirit of Hongik Ingan, the Son can be understood as a fulfillment of trinitarian process in the well-being of all, and the Father as the source of the well-being, and the Spirit as the power of well-being. In this way of thinking the trinity, the centrality of the christological identity in Christian doctrine is marginalized by the beneficial work of the Son for human beings on earth, just as the centrality of the power relation between different groups of people is relativized by the welfare of all human beings including the missionized in the Korean myth. This benefit of welfare would then explain why the mission command contains an injunction to baptize all nations and to bring new believers in through a confirmation of the Triune God working cohesively.
Verse 20
Being sent with the three mythological figures, Pung-beg, U-sa, and Un-sa, attracts our attention in terms of their identity and their relationship, but the myth itself focuses only on the roles of these three figures working for the city of God (the new kingdom) where the heavenly rules are applied and utilized. It implies that their devotion to the welfare of humankind preceded the city of God (Sin-si). The 360 useful arts are taught by Hwang-ung in the Sin-si. The whole story infers that the three heavenly seals, three thousand heavenly people, and three ministers are all serving Hwang-ung to build the city of God with a heavenly rule. These entities do not appear as a mechanism to guarantee Hwang-ung’s authority or his power. Instead, these are described as tools to initiate the devotion to the welfare of humankind (Hongik Ingan).
The meaning of “everything that Jesus has commanded to his disciples” in verse 20 has been regarded as an obvious lesson with regard to the Gospel, which is the good news about our salvation that Jesus achieved through his life, death, and resurrection. 32 Since Jesus is the only way for human beings to attain salvation, other possible interpretations of this verse have been rejected and forbidden repeatedly. The only legitimate way of understanding “everything that Jesus has commanded” is based on a christocentric soteriology. It is not surprising that Matthew’s perspective is radically christological and eschatological. The words and deeds of Jesus become the focal point through which Matthew opens up new ages for the future. Jesus is portrayed as the inaugurator of a new age of salvation extending to all nations. However, such a solely christocentric interpretation has a tendency to make many readers dismiss Jesus’ focus on the kingdom of God during his entire ministry. It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of the kingdom of Heaven that Jesus promises to embody through the coming rule of God by his healing, preaching, teaching, and liberating. One can even justify that the meaning of “everything Jesus has commanded” is more about the kingdom of Heaven than about Jesus himself, even though these two are not easily separable.
Finally, the promise of the presence of the risen Jesus with the community in verse 20 plays a role as the source of the mission’s strength and provides the basis of missionary authority. Unlike Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:9–11, Matthew implies that Jesus was not ascended into heaven; instead, Jesus promises to be with his disciples until the end. Using the structure of the inclusio (1:21 and 28:20), an ancient literary device, Matthew intends to make stronger the theme of “God with us.” However, such a pastoral concern and the exhortative dimension of the text have been misunderstood as a tool to strengthen the authoritative status of missionaries to the end. 33
Conclusion
While many previous interpretations have compelled us to read the world behind (within) the Great Commission to understand the past and to enforce the unconditional submission to the text, a postcolonial reading with the Korean myth helps us to encounter the world in front of the text to understand the present and to highlight the real purpose of the Great Commission. This argument will enable our readers to break the imperial meaning and to produce more relevant significance for the same text through the lens of Hongik Ingan.
Our postcolonial reading of the Great Commission with a Korean myth exposes the imperialistic ways of reading inherent in previous interpretations and helps us to pay more attention to the aspect of the welfare of all human beings (Hongik Ingan) in the Great Commission. This attempt to connect biblical texts with Asian tradition turns out to be a fruitful task, producing a richer understanding of the Great Commission. This reading illuminates the postcolonial scale of values that helps missionized readers to be liberated from hierarchical, formulaic, and Christocentric meaning and implication.
Although reading alone may not correct the past and on-going catastrophic influence of imperialism and triumphalism, this interpretation would help many readers to avoid reproducing imperial interpretations, especially where Christianity is developing actively, both domestically and in overseas missions. This reading would aid readers to problematize all the non-egalitarian power relations stemming from the interpretation of the Great Commission to dismiss the well-being of all humankind. For the readers to attend to the world in front of Matt 28:18–20, the Great Commission needs to be read as a national myth of the kingdom of God for the benefit of all humankind (Hongik Ingan).
Footnotes
1
Since William Carey’s An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of Heathens shed new light on Matt 28:16–20 in 1792, it has been considered to be the most important text providing a biblical basis for mission.
2
The mission goal of almost all missionary activity in Korea is said to be to fulfill the Great Commission before the end of the world. The March 2006 issue of Christianity Today confirms such a goal of Korean missionaries through the speeches of Samuel Kang, a chief executive director of the Korean World Mission Association and of David Lee, chair of the World Evangelical Alliance. Their speeches seem to presuppose that Koreans’ missionary works would be able to fulfill the Commission in the near future.
3
See YongKyu Park and Hankuk Gangrogyo Sasangsa, The History of Christian Thoughts in the Korean Presbyterianism (Seoul: Chongshin University, 1996), esp. 64.
4
Arthur J. Brown, The Mastery of the Far East: The Story of Korea’s Transformation and Japan’s Rise to Supremacy in the Orient (New York: Scribner’s, 1919), 540.
5
M. C. Harris, “Japan and Korea, Report of Bishop M.C. Harris,” Journal of the 25th Delegated General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church (1908): 864.
6
Many missionaries believed that they could conquer ignorance, superstition, and Confucian and shamanic customs in Korea, but some of them not only degraded Koreans but also regarded Korean customs as the devil. See, William E. Griffis, A Modern Pioneer in Korea the Life Story of Henry G. Appenzeller (New York: Revell, 1912), 224.
7
Korean Christians’ literal interpretation of the Great Commission has been illustrated by their zeal for the Back to Jerusalem vision, the short-term missionary trip, and massive baptism rites in military bases, some of which are discussed below in detail.
8
Sangkeun Kim, “Sheer Numbers Do Not Tell the Entire Story: The Challenges of the Korean Missionary Movement from an Ecumenical Perspective,” Ecumenical Review 57(4) (2005): 467; Young-Dong Kim, “Trends of the Kroean Missions and Missiology, and Its Evaluation and Reflection,” JangSinNonChong 4 (2011): 339.
9
Even though Korean ways of reading the Bible on the basis of indigenous theology, Minjung theology, and reunification theology have been suggested, our particular passage has not been specifically reflected on from the perspective of the theologies to create a new meaning of the Great Commission for the Korean context and other missionized contexts. See Samuel Cheon, “Biblical Interpretation in Korea: History and Issues,” Ways of Being, Ways of Reading: Asian American Biblical Interpretation, ed. Mary F. Foskett (St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2006), 31–44.
10
See Sandra M. Schneiders, The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture, second edn (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1999), 157–79. Likewise, Sugirtharajah argues that biblical scholarship in the West is categorized into three different phases: “pre-critical, critical, and post-critical,” “author-centred, text-centred, and reader-centred.” See R. S. Sugirtharajah, The Postcolonial Bible (Bible and Postcolonialism) (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 15–17.
11
There has been no serious concern for the world in front of the text, Matt 28:16–20, in Korean scholarship either. See DongSoo Jang, “Jisang Choedae Myeongryeong Yeonku” [“An Invitation to the Great Commission”], Kyohoewa Munhwa (Church & Culture) 12 (2004): 130–36.
12
Davies and Allison argue that “nothing is superfluous, yet nothing more can be added.” See W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), III: 687.
13
See other similar studies of Western male interpreters in Matthean scholarship, R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007); Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999).
14
Fernando Segovia states that the goal of postcolonial reading is “not merely one of analysis and description but rather one of transformation: the struggle for ‘liberation’ and ‘decolonization’.” Fernando Segovia, “Biblical Criticism and Postcolonial Studies: Toward a Postcolonial Optic,” in The Postcolonial Bible, ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 42.
15
For Asian peoples, the Bible plays unsafe and safe, oppressive and liberating roles at the same time. See Pui-lan Kwok, Discovering the Bible in the Non-Biblical World (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995), 1.
16
Ibid., 5, 30.
17
R. S. Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University, 2002), 25.
18
It is important to note that this work does not argue that indigenous Korean culture would have been less hierarchical or more liberating without the influence of “Western” Christian mission and its concomitant biblical interpretations.
19
See Johannes Nissen, New Testament and Mission: Historical and Hermeneutical Perspectives (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999), 21; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21–28: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 627–28.
20
Although many more points could be inferred from a comparative study of these two texts that are similar in motif, this study has a much more limited goal: to provide an example of vernacular interpretations of the Bible by bringing up the ideology of the Korean myth. The similarities listed here attract Korean people and missionaries to read the Great Commission afresh as a result of the light thrown on it by the Korean myth.
21
The Buddhist monk Ilyon (1206–89) wrote Samguk Yusa, which contains various folk legends in order to retell the stories in a Buddhist manner. His purpose was to empower the people of Koryo in the thirteenth century
22
Samguk Yusa describes Tangun as the son born to the son of God, Hwan-ung, and a woman incarnated from a bear who established the kingdom of Ko-Chosun in 2333
23
This myth has several different versions. This is my own translation of one version based on T. H. Ha and G. Mintz, Samguk Yusa: Legends and History of the Three Kingdoms of Ancient Korea (Seoul: Silk Pagoda, 2006), 32.
24
For instance, Appenzeller, the first Methodist missionary, regarded Korean traditions such as Confucianism, Buddhism, and Shamanism as “Korean demons.” See Griffis, A Modern Pioneer in Korea the Life Story of Henry G. Appenzeller, 236. Korean missionaries also need to avoid “the triumphalism of the Pax Koreana.” See Kim, “Sheer Numbers Do Not Tell the Entire Story,” 463.
25
It is said that the lesson Hongik Ingan has functioned as the original founding philosophy and the spiritual foundation of the Korean people throughout the history of Korea. Hyang-Jin Jung, The Practice of Hongik Ingan: Lives of Queen Seondeok, Shin Saimdang, and Yi Yulgok (Seoul: Samjung Munhwasa, 2011), 6–7.
26
Such an emphasis on “going” has given rise to various political and religious conflicts, especially with Muslim countries. The execution of SunIl Kim in Iraq on 22 June 2004, and the kidnapping of Sam-Mul church’s short-term missionary team in Afghanistan on 19 July 2007, are the representative events that shocked Korean churches and caused non-Christian Koreans to discredit Christianity in Korea.
27
This Greek word occurs four times throughout in the New Testament (Matt 13:52, 27:57, 28:19 and Acts 14:21). There are some exceptions that translate the word into “teach” in English, which is found in the Geneva Bible (1599), the King James Version (1611), and the Douay-Rheims American Version (1899).
28
It is Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew who moves into Galilee (Matt 4:12–17) to inaugurate his kingdom ministry by proclamation, teaching, and healing.
29
According to the 39th General Assembly minutes of Military Evangelical Association of Korea, 162,260 soldiers were baptized in 2005 and 171,435 in 2009. See, KieTae Kim, “Hanguk Jeonjangkwa Kunseonkyo” [“Korean War and Military Mission”], Seonkyowa Sinhak (Mission & Theology) 26 (2010): 52.
30
Short-term missionary work abroad has a similar problem in that by regarding the missionized as students to be taught, the missionaries focus on delivering Christian information, not learning and living together.
31
Although nearly all ancient manuscripts have the Trinitarian formula, Eusebius quotes the verse without this formula in his writings prior to the Council of Nicaea in 325
32
According to Davies and Allison, “everything Jesus has commanded” indicates Jesus’ teaching and recalls the entire book, but they make a conclusive remark that the Great Commission “offers a Christological concentration.” Their logocentric and Christological understanding draws their attention away from Jesus’ interest in the Kingdom of God. See Davies and Allison, Matthew, III: 686, 688.
33
When Davies and Allison read the commission of Moses to Joshua (Deut 31:23; Josh 1:1–9) into the Great Commission, they do not notice the implications of this reading for the colonized. The Great Commission empowers and legitimizes Israel’s colonization of Palestine not only in the book of Joshua but also in modern days. See, ibid., III: 680, 688.