This passage from Han Kang’s The Vegetarian, which won the 2024 Nobel Prize in Literature, depicts a scene where the protagonist Young-hye believes she is transforming into a tree.

Through Young-hye, the author employs the image of ‘becoming a tree’ as a motif demonstrating movement beyond simple animal protection demonstrating a movement beyond a reductive reading of vegetarianism as animal-welfare advocacy toward ontological ὁµοιός (ontological identification). This study argues that the fundamental Christian response to immigrant issues must now transcend the concept of hospitality and ground itself in the concept of ὁµοιός.

While numerous concepts and adjectives describe changes in 21st century Korean society, one of the most significant is multiculturalism. Factors contributing substantially to this multicultural transformation include various immigrant groups: foreign workers, international students, marriage immigrants, and refugees. Korean society faces an urgent imperative to address the issue of how to integrate these diverse immigrants as societal members and coexist with them. Without proper surveys and responses regarding immigrant acceptance perceptions, existing prejudices, discrimination, and crimes against immigrants – already visible throughout society – may escalate and result in various communal issues.

Since Christianity’s introduction to Korea in the late 18th century, it has grown rapidly, with approximately 25% of the total population identifying as Christian, according to various research institutions (Korean Research 2024). Consequently, Christianity has become one of the most influential forces in Korean culture and spirituality. However, it is noteworthy that despite Christianity’s remarkable growth and widespread social influence in Korean society, Christian teachings appear not to have sufficiently impacted certain aspects of Christian practice, particularly the ‘immigrant acceptance’ issue that has rapidly emerged in Korean society recently. Korean Christianity appears caught in an ambivalent dilemma between benevolence and exclusivity regarding this issue; moreover, when it does become actively involved, it often takes a leading role in promoting attitudes and practices contrary to Christian teachings. One of the most controversial immigrant acceptance issues was the arrival of approximately 500 Yemeni refugees in Jeju in 2018. A petition opposing Yemeni refugee acceptance garnered over 710 000 signatures within a month, and a hostile atmosphere towards them rapidly spread online, particularly through social media. Some conservative Christian groups formed alliances such as the ‘National Coalition Against Illegal Refugee Applicants and Foreigners’ and led rallies demanding the abolition of the Refugee Act and the visa-free system. They also systematically disseminated anti-refugee sentiment through Blue House petitions. Certainly, not all Christian groups opposed refugee acceptance. Various Christian organisations, including the National Council of Churches in Korea (NCCK) and the Christian Ethics Practice Movement (CEPM), issued joint statements appealing for refugee acceptance. The immigrant issue is not unique to Korea. The international migration crisis triggered by the Syrian refugee situation in 2016 has become a defining challenge of this era, marking it as an age of international migration. Within the context of accelerating global migration, this study aims to analyse immigrant realities in Korean society, briefly review existing research literature, and ultimately explore biblical ethics towards the other and the Christian community’s response to immigrants through the New Testament concept of ‘ὁµοιός’.

In Korean society, which had long operated under the myth of being a single-ethnic nation, the terms ‘multicultural society’ and ‘multiethnic society’ began to be used earnestly in the late 1980s with foreign worker influx and in the 1990s with increasing marriage immigration. The number of foreign residents in Korea, which stood at 300 000 in 1998, surpassed 1 million by 2007. As of 2015, 150 000 of these immigrants had obtained Korean citizenship and become citizens of the Republic of Korea (Ministry of Justice 2015). With increasing immigrant numbers, their children’s population also grew rapidly, and Korean society could no longer be considered single-ethnic, with multicultural families accounting for a substantial proportion of the population. In addition, foreign student numbers have increased significantly since 2000, reaching 82 000 as of 2015 (Seol 2017). According to the research by Kim Ji-yoon and Kang Chung-gu, the number of foreigners residing in Korea increased to 2.18 million (4.21% of the total population) in 2017, driven by post-foreign exchange crisis, labour demand and increased marriage immigration, and is projected to reach approximately 2.65 million by late 2024 (Kim & Kang 2018). These figures alone clearly demonstrate that viewing Korean society as ‘single-ethnic’ is no longer valid; rather, it is transforming into a multiethnic, multicultural society.

Although Korean society is rapidly transforming into a multiethnic and multicultural context, public attitudes towards immigrants remain ambivalent – on the one hand, expressing acceptance grounded in humanistic values, but on the other hand, manifesting exclusion rooted in nationalism and religious exclusivism. Such exclusion is exemplified, for instance, by traditional conservative notions of a homogeneous nation and by anxieties concerning the influx of Islam. Moreover, such exclusion often carries implicit or explicit racist undertones, particularly towards migrant labourers and ethnic minorities, thereby reinforcing discriminatory social structures. Furthermore, immigrants experience differential treatment based on their national origin and skin colour. According to a 2020 National Human Rights Commission survey, 68.4% of immigrants residing in South Korea reported experiencing discrimination (National Human Rights 2020), demonstrating the severity of racial discrimination within South Korean society.

Korean Christians’ perceptions regarding discrimination against immigrants do not differ significantly from those of the general public. This raises the question of why Christians struggle to welcome these immigrants. Kim Sang-deok analysed official statements by conservative Protestants regarding Jeju’s Yemeni refugees and summarised their arguments against immigrant acceptance. In summary, these arguments include: (1) perceiving Islam as a security threat (terrorism), (2) learning from Western multiculturalism failures, and (3) political strategy centred on anti-homosexuality and anti-Islam sentiments (Kim 2019b). In addition, Kim identifies that some Christians’ theological interpretations derive from dispensationalist eschatology and exclusive missionary perspectives. To them, Islam represents the ‘Antichrist’ force within dispensationalist eschatology, and Muslim refugee influx is interpreted as Satan’s scheme to destroy the church in the end times. Therefore, they regard it is their religious duty to prevent the entry of Muslim refugees into their country. However, in many cases, these negative perceptions stem from religious exclusivism and misinformation (Kim 2019a). At the national level, institutional measures addressing immigrant issues require establishment of legal safeguards, including comprehensive anti-discrimination laws prohibiting all forms of discrimination based on race, nationality, language, etc. Furthermore, the social and political rights of immigrants should be gradually expanded in stages. In the field of education, curricula and programmes must move beyond the existing ‘single ethnicity’ discourse and instead cultivate the values of universal human rights and cultural diversity in a systematic way. Then, in what direction should ideological and religious foundational research proceed to support such policy directions?

Verses 2:6–8 are commonly termed the Christ hymn [Christushymnus], describing how Jesus, a divine being, became human. Earlier, Paul presented Jesus’ example of accepting others to the Philippian Christians, who were divided and troubled (2:2–4), urging them towards unity and single-mindedness (5f). Structurally analysing this passage, verse 6 forms a clause with relative pronoun ὃς as subject and participle ὑπάρχων [to exist] as base, with main verb in simple past tense ἡγήσατο [to regard]. In verse 7, ἐκένωσεν [to empty] becomes the main verb, followed by three consecutive participial phrases: ‘µορφὴν δούλου λαβών / ἐν ὁµοιώµατι ἀνθρώπων γενόµενος/ σχήµατι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος’. This structure forms a narrative pattern of ‘high status’ (v. 6), ‘emptying’ (v. 7a), ‘taking on’ (v. 7b) and, ‘becoming’ (v. 8).

The key term examined here is ὁµοίωµα, definable lexically as ‘similarity’, ‘equality’, ‘likeness’, ‘shape’, or ‘form’ (Bauer 1988:1150; Menge 1997:490). Paul employs this term not to denote ‘complete identity’ or ‘simple similarity’, but rather in a profound theological sense. He uses this term to explain the relationship between Jesus-God, the divine being, and Jesus-human, the earthly being. Paul first distinguishes ὁµοίωµα from ἴσος, which denotes essential, status-based divine identity. He then views ὁµοίωµα as actual equality, meaning Christ did not merely ‘appear human’ but assumed equal human conditions. Gordon Fee theologically compares these terms, distinguishing ἴσος as pre-existent status and ὁµοίωµα as incarnational reality (Fee 1995:210–213). Similarly, Michael Gorman argues that while Paul describes cruciform self-emptying [ἐκένωσεν], the pre-existent ἴσος is not abandoned but revealed in ὁµοίωµα (Gorman 2009:24–29). Stuhlmacher (1992) distinguishes between ἴσος, denoting sameness with God [Gottesebenbildlichkeit], and ὁµοίωµα, emphasising human form [Menschengestalt], thereby focusing on essence and form. Thus, Paul employs ὁµοίωµα to explain that Jesus Christ’s incarnation is an equality event wherein humanity coexists without losing divine identity. If ἴσος refers to essential God-identity, ὁµοίωµα refers to equality in participating in human existence. By distinguishing these terms (ἴσος and ὁμοίωμα), Paul seeks to differentiate clearly Jesus’ incarnation in both form and meaning for his readers.

Based on this discussion, examining 2:7 more specifically regarding the meaning of ὁµοίωµα, we see that ὁµοίωµα is not simply imitating external appearances or forms, but rather Jesus’ reality manifested in actual (equal) human form. Therefore, ὁµοίωµα emphasises not merely that Christ became human, but that the divine being followed the condition of actual equality with humans, transcending mere similarity. In 2:7, Paul explains to the Philippians how Jesus became human: through ‘emptying’ [ἐκένωσεν]. The condition for becoming the other is self-emptying.

Emptying oneself to accept the other’s situation is the way of embodying divine identity. Self-emptying is equality’s prerequisite and the sole way of making equality possible. This approach provides theological insight into how the church should treat immigrants and refugees. Transcending traditional charitable perspectives or unilateral assistance paradigms, the church must seek mutual and transformative ways of encountering others, modelled on Christ’s self-emptying. Specifically, this means the church must relinquish existing privileged positions and cultural superiority and enter the experiential world of immigrants and refugees. Jesus, a divine being, emptied himself to become human and ultimately submitted to death.

This transcends understanding or empathising with others’ pain; it means others’ pain becomes one’s own pain. It refers to deep solidarity wherein one feels immigrants’ pain as their own, transcending the asymmetrical relationship between oneself, who helps immigrants, and immigrants, who receive help. It is existential equality wherein the other’s anxiety becomes one’s own anxiety. If my interests and safety fill me, we cannot move towards ‘ὁµοιός’. Thus, self-emptying refers to dismantling one’s own perspectives and standards for viewing and evaluating the world, and instead placing the “other’s” perspective at one’s center (Galatians 2:20). Christ chose to renounce divine privileges and stand equally with humanity. He abandoned self-centredness and emptied himself to make room for others. This means the Church’s immigrant ministry must transcend mere hospitality to involve ‘self-emptying’ to share their suffering and ultimately become like them. To accept immigrants, refugees, and foreigners, we must empathise with their pain and make room for them. However, this does not mean abandoning our identity [ἴσος: identity]. As Paul explains, just as Jesus followed God’s example by becoming human without abandoning divine identity [ἴσος], we must recognise ourselves as the same beings [ὁµοίωµα] as immigrants, refugees, and strangers, even as we make room for them by emptying ourselves without losing our identity.

This passage also alludes to Jesus’ incarnation, addressing God’s direct intervention to resolve what the law could not accomplish by sending his Son. As in Philippians 2:7, Paul states that God sent his Son into a body assuming sin’s form [ὁµοιώµατι] to eliminate sin. The Greek word ‘ὁµοίωµα’, corresponding to ‘the form of sinful flesh’ [ἐν ὁµοιώµατι σαρκὸς ἁµαρτίας], is employed here subtly to mean complete equality, but not essential identity. Christ actually assumed human flesh, yet was not sinful. Here, the ‘distinctiveness’ between Jesus and humans is revealed. Although Jesus is fundamentally the same as humans under sin’s influence, he is distinct from humans in being free from sin (Moo 1996). Here too, Paul uses ὁµοιώµατι to speak of Jesus’ equality in entering humans’ ‘same conditions’, but simultaneously, although placed in sin’s situation, he is not dominated or assimilated by it but rather judges it (Dunn 1988).

In conclusion, Paul presents a consistent Christological paradigm through the ὁµοίωµα concept in Romans 8:3 and the self-emptying incarnational theology in Philippians 2:6–8. This suggests that God’s redemptive intervention is achieved not through transcendent distancing but through immanent participation in human existence. God does not observe humans’ physical condition, powerless under sin’s dominion, from outside, but enters their existential situation and forms an ontological bond with them. This divine self-limitation signifies substantial participation in human suffering and limitations, while simultaneously providing an immanent basis for redemptive resolution. Therefore, ‘ὁµοίωµα’ should be understood as a concept revealing God’s redemptive love’s theological radicalism reaching human existence’s most vulnerable points, transcending mere morphological similarity.

This has profound implications for immigrant acceptance issues. True solidarity transcends existing charitable hospitality model limitations – that is, unilateral kindness acts bestowed by stable subjects upon others. It means deliberately dismantling privileged positions and social safety nets, entering immigrants’ existential conditions of social exclusion and structural discrimination, and pursuing substantial equality [ὁµοίωµα]. Just as Christ’s ὁµοίωµα [assuming sinful flesh’s form] accomplished redemptive solidarity through complete existential identification with humanity, the church’s immigrant acceptance also requires transformative practices embracing their social suffering and cultural alienation within its own identity.

Through this ὁµοίωµα approach, the church secures theological basis to function as God’s alternative community against structural evil – the systems of discrimination and hatred – within society. This should be understood not as mere social improvement but as eschatological testimony of the kingdom of God’s values being realised in reality.

Additionally, Paul employs ὁµοίωµα three more times in Romans (Rm 1:23; 5:14; 6:5); but since these instances relate little to the ‘identification’ meaning in terms of ‘solidarity’ and ‘participation’ that this study addresses, I will only briefly introduce their meanings. To begin, Romans 1:23 (ἐν ὁµοιώµατι εἰκόνος: in an image’s form) and 5:14 (ἐπὶ τῷ ὁµοιώµατι τῆς παραβάσεως Ἀδάµ: in Adam’s transgression’s form), ὁµοίωµα is employed to identify the relationship between God and humanity, and between humanity and sin, in a negative sense. Humans worship the created order’s image and commit sin in the same manner as Adam’s transgression.

However, in Romans 6:5 (εἰ γὰρ σύµφυτοι γεγόναµεν τῷ ὁµοιώµατι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόµεθα·: If we have been united with him in his death’s likeness), Paul employs ὁµοίωµα in a way transcending the simple ‘likeness’ or ‘similarity’ used in 1:23 and 5:24, using it as a tool to express the real union of the saints’ death with Jesus’ death, transcending simple ‘form’ or ‘similarity’. According to him, the death that saints undergo symbolically in baptism is not physically or literally the same as Jesus’ death on the cross, but it is the same in its spiritual significance and identification with Christ’s sacrifice. In other words, these two events are not merely similar events, but an actual union leading to the oneness of the believer and Jesus. Paul viewed the believer’s participation in Christ’s death as a means of entering ‘resurrection’, that is, new life (Haacker 2003:115).

This passage also concerns Jesus’ incarnation and is a key passage related to ‘identification with the other’, this article’s theme. The author of Hebrews first employs the word µετέχω (v.14) to describe Jesus assuming humanity, meaning ‘to participate, to share, to be with’. This implies that Jesus’ incarnation is not merely external resemblance; rather, Jesus fully participated in humanity’s limited circumstances and existential conditions. Jesus did not merely observe from above or simply sympathise with humans’ hardship and suffering but actively entered the existential ‘Sitz im Leben’.¹

This theme reaches its climax in the ὁµοιωθῆναι [to become like] concept. It peaks in the ‘becoming the same’ concept. The word ὁµοιόω, meaning ‘to make the same’, clarifies that Jesus’ incarnation was not limited to one aspect, but was accomplished ‘in all things’ [κατὰ πάντα]. That is, it is ‘becoming the same’ [ὁµοιόω] in all things except sin, including human limitations, suffering, fear, weakness, and death (Heb 4:15) (Bauckham 1998). It was because of this ontological and comprehensive identification that he could become the high priest representing humanity (v. 17) (Attridge 1989).

Here, too, we see that identification with others begins with ‘participation’ [µετέχω]. Moving away from a secure social status towards others’ existential conditions who are exposed to uncertainty and social risk provides a core theological principle for immigrant acceptance policies and the church’s missionary approach. Welcoming immigrants requires more than mere emotional sympathy or one-time charitable acts; it demands participatory intervention in the pragmatic realities they face. This presupposes direct and experiential understanding of the structural issues they encounter, such as social exclusion, racial prejudice, and legal instability.

Through such participatory solidarity, the church builds substantial partnership with immigrants and secures theological justification for transformative practices confronting institutional discrimination and social injustice they face. It also embodies the gospel’s social implications and becomes a channel through which God’s justice and reconciliation in His kingdom are realized in concrete history.

Hebrews 4:15 is a crucial passage presenting incarnational identification’s theological culmination. The author of Hebrews develops a unique Christological perspective by interpreting Christ’s incarnation not as a simple ontological change but as emotional and existential solidarity with the suffering humanity.

The verb ‘to sympathise, to suffer with, to have compassion’ [συµπαθεῖν] implies mutual empathetic participation transcending simple sympathy or understanding (Menge 1997:649), suggesting a participatory Christology wherein Christ actually experiences and shares our weakness (Moffitt 2011). This is not cheap sympathy given from a distance, but deep inner unity wherein one feels others’ pain and suffering as one’s own. In this sense, the expression ‘one who has been tested in every way’ [κατὰ πάντα καθ᾽ ὁµοιότητα] suggests that Christ’s incarnation is primarily empathetic identification with the suffering other (Vanhoye 2000).

Here, ὁµοιότητα is the noun form of ὁµοιός, meaning ‘likeness, similarity’, and in this context, refers to becoming identical in all aspects of human existence. Christ’s likeness is not based on abstract or imagined empathy, but on actual, experiential identification. The reason he knows human suffering and weakness is that he has passed through all hardships humans experience.

This hermeneutical approach provides an important theoretical framework for theological discourse on identification with others. In particular, incarnational identification constitutes a theological basis for solidarity with socially disadvantaged and marginalised individuals (Westfall 2005) and presents a core paradigm for the church’s social responsibility and missionary practice.

The author of Hebrews demonstrates a structure progressively deepening Christ’s incarnation’s theological understanding. The ontological identification presented in chapter 2 – that is, Christ’s ‘sharing in human flesh’ (2:14) and ‘becoming like his brothers in every way’ (2:17) – addresses the incarnation’s essential dimension. In contrast, at 4:15, the discussion shifts to experiential identification. The expression ‘He is not unable to sympathise with our weaknesses but has been tempted in every way just as we are’ emphasises that Christ not only assumed human nature but also actually experienced human beings’ concrete experiences and sufferings.

What we can understand is that identifications core is ‘sharing in suffering’. Beyond external and intellectual empathy dimensions, we must internalise immigrants’ pain, suffering and anxieties resulting from being subjected to discrimination and go so far as to ‘share in their suffering’.

Although the key concept of this study, ὁµοιός, is not employed directly in John 1:14, it is considered an essential text in incarnation theology. In this verse, John declares that the eternal and divine Logos [λόγος] became [ἐγένετο] finite and material flesh [σάρξ], thereby presenting ontological identification’s theological culmination.

In particular, the verb ἐγένετο [became] suggests not mere appearance or docetic manifestation, but actual and essential ontological change. This means the Logos has completely entered human existence conditions, constituting a Christological paradigm bridging the fundamental gap between divine nature and human nature. John’s incarnation declaration possesses theological continuity with the ὁµοιός concept in Pauline epistles and Hebrews, providing a foundation for understanding how Christ’s identification with humanity is completed on an ontological level. In particular, the word ἐσκήνωσεν in ‘dwelt among us’ means to pitch a tent [σκηνή] and dwell, live, or reside in it (Menge 1997:626), which evokes the tabernacle where God dwelt as mentioned in the Old Testament (Brown 1966). In other words, God is no longer a being dwelling in heaven but has become a being moving and walking alongside us on this earth.

In conclusion, the fact that Logos became weak flesh [σάρξ] rather than a glorious king or philosophical being presents a fundamental paradigm for identification with the other. True identification is not a benevolent approach supporting the other’s weakness through existing power or resources, but rather the act of abandoning one’s own strength and ontological superiority and directly entering the other’s weakness. In the context of immigrant acceptance, this means accepting their social position and ontological vulnerability as one’s own existential condition and entering their limited circumstances. This approach transcends mere coexistence to pursue co-presence – that is, complete solidarity in the same living space. The author of the Gospel of John testifies that it is precisely in this actual identification of Logos that he witnessed ‘the glory of the Father’s only Son’ (1:14) (Bauckham 2008). This suggests that when identification with the other transcends mere emotional empathy and enters immigrants’ concrete reality to form complete solidarity, that place paradoxically becomes the place where God’s glory is most clearly manifested. This theological insight provides the basis for the church’s immigrant acceptance to become the present realisation of God’s kingdom, transcending mere social service.