The Problem of Hermeneutics and Contextualization:
Confucian and Christian Canonical Writings On Human Relationships
by Patrick Taveirne C.I.C.M.
The Chinese word for a classic or canonical writing (jing 经) originally meant the long warp threads in a fabric, an apt metaphor for the continuity of transmission. Later it meant rules or norms. The Greek word is traceable through Babylonian to Sumerian (kaneh, “reed”). The word came to signify a measuring stick. Later it also meant a norm or standard. The Greek word was used to cover a broad scope in the process of clarification: interpretation by speech itself, process of translation, and interpretation by commentary and explanation1.
Hermeneutical Circles
The French philosopher Paul Ricoeur observed, “When interpreting a text, something is lost, irremediably lost, that is, the immediacy of belief.2” Since the European Renaissance, people cannot adhere to something without also being critical of it. They cannot believe without understanding (fides quaerens intellectum), but we have to believe in order to understand (intellectus quaerens fidem). Modern and post-modern people in Europe have asked themselves three different questions: what is in the given text itself (historical philology and textual criticism); what is behind the text (the plain and intended meaning of the text within its historical context); and what is in front of the text (meaning as created by the reader in the act of reading). Readers create anew the books they read.
The three questions or phases in the art of interpretation can be summed up in terms of the hermeneutical circle (the circularity of part and whole, the continuous going back and forth movement between the matter of the text and the speech to convey it, and between the reader and the text). The social location of the present interpreter, his or her pre-understanding and existential positioning have a potential to shape the hermeneutical process of receiving as well as reviewing the original context of the text. Modern hermeneutics insists on the historical succession of interpretations rather than on the permanence of meanings. We have to overcome conflicts of interpretation.
Early and mid-Qing Classicism, according to Chow Kai-wing 周佳荣, resembles the humanist movement of the Renaissance in its philological devotion to the recovery of Han classical antiquity. But in contrast to the European humanists, Han Learning scholars did not undertake philological endeavors to improve their speaking or writing skills. Their intellectual energies were totally consumed by their attempt to reconstruct an ancient model of social order and its patterns of behavior through, for instance, ritual research, Classical learning, textual criticism, and phonetic studies. The strong anti-heterodox sentiment and persistent purism of the Qing classicists, as well as the strong ritualism and its connection to Classicism were absent in Renaissance humanism 3.
Canonical Writings and Inspiration
The Confucian teaching (rujiao 儒教) is embodied in the Five [Six] Classics (Wujing 五经) and the Four Books (Sishu 四书), and in a certain, but shifting, sense, the commentaries of the Confucian greats. For Confucians, the authority of the jing rested on the person of the teacher and the model of behavior he presented. According to Matteo Ricci, Confucians regard the sages as authoritative examples (zong 宗), and the sages used the canonical writings and their authoritative commentaries (jingzhuan 经传) as media of instruction (shijiao 示教)4.
But whence did the Confucian sage draw his inspiration? From Heaven (tian 天) seems to be Confucius’ answer in the Analects. But how? Confucius said: “I don't want to speak any longer.” Zigong said: “If you don't speak, what could we, your disciples, pass on?” Confucius said: “Does Heaven speak? Yet the four seasons go their way, and everything flourishes. Does Heaven speak?” (Analects 17:19) Heaven does not speak; its commands must be understood from the workings of the physical and moral universes. Even more emphatic that Heaven does not speak is Mencius: Wan Zhang said…“Since Shun got the Empire who gave it to him?” (Mencius) said: “Heaven gave it to him.” “If Heaven gave it to him, did Heaven give specific orders?” Mencius said: “No! Heaven does not speak but reveals its will through actions and deeds.” (Mencius 5A: 5) It is the moral nature of humankind, for Mencius a Heaven-given, innate sense that discloses the will of Heaven.
In the early Qing, the classical scholar Zhu Yizun 朱彝尊 (1629-1709) in an essay titled “The Original Meaning of Teaching” (yuanjiao 原教) argued that the Confucian teaching was self-sufficient. Based upon the Confucian canonical writings, he posited that only the teaching on human relationships (renlun 人伦) is entitled to the name of jiao. A similar approach could also be found in the essay of Li Fu 李绂 (1673-1750). He repeatedly advocated: “Under Heaven there is no such a Way (dao 道) beyond that of human relationships, thus there is no human being who might exclude himself from the Way. Since under Heaven no one can exclude himself from the Way, there should be no teaching external to the realm of human relationships.” Another scholar Ji Yun 纪昀 (1724-1805) once noted in a court lecture, the sages' “ruling/order” (zheng 政) is exactly the sages' learning (xue 学), which is also exactly the sages’ teaching (jiao 教)5. In a similar vein, the 1958 neo-Confucian Manifesto claimed that the whole of Chinese culture comes from one single root (“single-rooted-ness” yibenxing 一本性). The single root lies in the notion that “Chinese culture stresses the moral relationship between one human being and another, but not the religious relationship between human beings and God.6”
The Christian teaching is embodied in the Bible or Sacred Scripture (shengjing 圣经), that is the Old and New Testaments (jiu/xinyue 旧/新约 “covenant”) and the Magisterium (xundao 训导), that is the collective memory of the Church and the communion of Churches. Revelation for Christians, at least in the seventeenth century, was conceived primarily as locutio Dei, “God speaking out of the treasury of his own understanding, communicating to human beings truths which otherwise would be attainable by them only with difficulty or not at all.” This was the language of the Bible: “You came down also upon Mount Sinai, and spoke with them from heaven, and gave them right ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments.” (Nehemiah 9:13)
Today Catholic theologians see Sacred Scripture as the Word of God in the words of human beings. Because God is its author, it is not reducible to a human discourse about God; rather, it is a word addressed by God to human beings. But because a human being is the author as well, this word addressed by God to human beings is authentically a human word that only would be intelligible to them. To elucidate the mystery of God and the human being as coauthors, Catholic theology has recourse to the concept of divine inspiration. Therein the universal influence of the Holy Spirit (Hebrew , Greek pneuma), blowing where it wills (John 3: 8), is crucial. Together with Saint Justin's concept of “seeds of the Word” (Greek sperma tou logou, Latin semina Verbi), it widens the Jewish and Christian concepts of sacred scripture and revelation. The “seeds of the Word” contained in the canonical writings of other teachings, such as the Confucian one, are seminal words uttered by God, from which the influence of the Spirit is not absent. To recognize the complementarity of sacred scriptures is one of the elements that make an “open theology” possible without loss of Christian identity7.
In a similar vein, during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties some Chinese Christian scholars argued that the Confucian canonical writings too were open-ended. They advocated the idea to read the Bible in the context of the Chinese tradition. For example, Xia Dachang 夏大常 asserted that “the sage-kings of China were also enlightened by the Lord of Heaven,” while Qiu Sheng 丘晟 put forward his theological position about God's revelatory work in Confucius and that he could teach on God's behalf8. Yves Raguin asked himself the question: could not the Confucian Classics be reinterpreted from the perspectives offered by the Christian faith? One could as well ask whether Confucian and other beliefs could reinterpret the Bible.
Cultural Contacts
The Chinese Rites Controversy (Zhongguo liyi zhi zheng 中国礼仪之争) was perhaps the most bitter and long-lasting religious controversy in the history of Sino-Western cultural contacts. And it echoes up to present-day debates about religious contextualization and hermeneutics. Why should ritual (li 礼) have been the contested ground rather than belief systems, morality or law? Contemporary ritual theory has demonstrated the centrality of issues of orthopraxis over against orthodoxy. As James Watson aptly remarked, “If anything is central to the creation and maintenance of a unified Chinese culture, it is the standardization of ritual.9”
Several scholars have studied the methodology in view of contact among cultures. Some have challenged the very possibility of cross-cultural understanding, due to linguistic incompatibility and alienating cultural contexts, while others have demonstrated the possibility of cross-cultural interaction or communication and cross-textual reading. Different terms have been coined to describe these cross-cultural contacts such as accommodation or acculturation (adaptation of language and external elements), localization or inculturation (the creative and dynamic relationship between the message and cultures), “glocalization” (a hybrid of globalization and localization) and contextualization (a principle that goes beyond adaptation and inculturation). All these new concepts can be analyzed within four different frameworks (transmission, reception, invention, and interaction) of communication. Five different factors (transmitter, receiver, message, means, and observer) play a role in cultural communication. Ritual, whether symbolic (liyi 礼义) or performative (lijie 礼节), is an important means or mode of communication in which a message is transmitted, interpreted and contextualized10.
This framework of communication does not entirely escape the idealization of a communication that is not subject to authority (Herrschaftsfreie Kommunikation). It belongs to the very nature of science not to forcibly exclude any possible conversation partner. The demand for an ideal community of communication as a presupposition for authentic scientific method is, on the one hand, absolutely necessary; but on the other hand, it has never been completely realized because again and again power determined the “truth.”
Perhaps a preliminary and tentative exploration of the topic of human relationships from the perspectives of the Confucian Classics and the Christian Bible offers a good example of the different hermeneutical and contextual issues.
Human Relationships according to the Confucian Classics
Matteo Ricci wrote, “All doctrines about making the whole world peaceful and governing a country rightly are focused on the principle of uniqueness. Therefore, worthies and sages have always advised the ministers to be loyal that is not to have a second [lord in their mind]. Among the Five [Human] Relationships the most important is that regarding the king, and the first of the Three Bonds in Human Relations is that between the king and the minister. A just man must understand this and act accordingly.11”
The core values of Confucian social ethics since the Han dynasty have been the Three Bonds (sangang 三纲): the obligations of official to monarch, son to father, and wife to husband. Despite their strong interest in metaphysics, Song and Ming neo-Confucians continued to espouse the Three Bonds, often included within the variant term Five Human Relationships (wulun 五伦), and continued to practice rituals that expressed these values. Insofar as core values are concerned, Qing scholars were as Confucian as their Song and Ming predecessors. What distinguished them was an unprecedented rigor in demanding the expression of these values through ritual practice grounded in pure Confucian doctrine12.
Ritual and Law
“Rites and music” (liyue 礼乐) stands for the Confucian approach to moral self-cultivation, sociopolitical and cosmic order. The Confucian Classic of Rites includes the Institutes/Rites of Zhou (Zhouguan 周官), the Ceremonials/Book of Etiquette and Decorum (Yili 仪礼), and the Book/Records of Rites (Liji 礼记). The latter is further divided into the Records of Rites by the Senior Dai (Da Dai Liji 大戴礼记) and Junior Dai (Xiao Dai Liji 小戴礼记), which had the greatest impact on later generations. According to the Records of Rites, rites are a question of life and death13. During the Spring-Autumn Period, the rites and music of the ancient Three Dynasties (sandai yitong 三代一统) collapsed (lihuai yuebeng 礼坏乐崩). The Confucian moral interpretation of the rites originated from the ceremonies of offering sacrifices to Heaven, gods and ancestors (jisi zhi yijie 祭祀之仪节) and from cosmological-divinatory practices. The focus of ritual shifted from man’s relation with the supernatural to the relationship among members of human society, and their application was extended from the court to all levels of civilized society14.
The English word ritual inadequately renders the broad range of meanings of li. Li (ritual/rites) has come to mean all patterns of behavior and their symbolism. Of the major interpreters of the teachings of Confucius—Mencius and Xunzi荀子—Xunzi has been known for an emphasis on the regulative function of li in his approach to the sociopolitical order. “The rites”, says Xunzi, “are the means by which persons steady their step.” (荀子，27，大略) In contrast to the law, which punishes misdeeds that have been committed, rites are the mould for the behavior that is the cause of these acts. “The rites prohibit beforehand, while the law prohibits after the act”, says the Records of Rites by the Senior Dai (Da Dai Liji 大戴礼记，礼察，46). It is in conforming myself to the model of rites that I behave as I should. This model or form is an external matrix that conditions me by imprinting suitable sentiments within me. In contrast to music, which is an expression of an emotion within me, rites are an impression of a ceremonial that takes place outside of us. “Music acts within us; the rites act outside of us,” notes Chapter 19 (on music) of the Records of Rites (Liji 礼记). The importance given to the self in ritual behavior sharpens the feeling of face, that is to say, the sensitivity towards anything that might sully the image that others have of us. “When it is the rites that assure good order (instead of penal law),” says Confucius, “it is the sense of shame that acts as the regulator.” (Analects 2:3) In other words, thanks to the sharpening of the feeling of face, social pressure is enough to establish order by means of rites.
Ritual and Family
Chinese (Huaxia 华夏) agricultural society strengthened the family system as a model of all social behavior15. According to the French scholar Vandermeersch, the cosmological-divinatory interpretation of the rites led men to realize that the matrix of all social relationships was to be found in the family (jia 家). Is not indeed the family the origin of the generation by the yin 阴and yang 阳of the human race? The Baihutong says: “Man assists Heaven’s putting into play the yin and the yang by the ritual institution of marriage and thus reinforces human relationships (renlun 人伦) in the increasing of posterity.” The relationships aimed at here are those symbolizing the relations of the members of the family among themselves that the 37th hexagram of the Book of Changes (Yijing) accords to the positions of the father, the son, the elder, the younger, the husband and the wife. The most important of these relationships is that between father and son, keystone of Chinese society much more so than the relationship between husband and wife. This is why filial piety is the cardinal virtue of Confucian ethics. The relationships between members of the family, however, are by no means the only relations taken into account by Chinese ritual. This ritual exalts above all ren 仁, that is to say what it means to be a human being16.
Ritual and Social Harmony
In order to establish social harmony, Confucius advocated “the rectification/ordering of names” (zhengming 正名) (Analects 13:3, 12:11), humanity/benevolence (ren 仁) by “subduing/restraining the self and restoring the rites” (keji fuli 克己复礼) (Analects 12:1), and reciprocity/deference (shu 恕), what you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others (Analects 15:24, 4:15, 12:5)17. In other words, when people recover the lost sense of their own identity, forsake the pursuit of self-interest and love one another, confusion about one’s own identity and conflicts over interests would disappear and injustice also. When people regard the interests of others as their own they enable an equal distribution of profit.
The Analects relate the Confucian ethical ideal of humanity/goodness/love (ren 仁) and righteousness/duty/justice (yi 义) to ritual/rites (li 礼) (Analects 3:3, 15:18, 12:1), but the exact nature of the relationship between ren and li is not spelled out clearly. Therefore Confucius’ conception of this relationship has been interpreted differently. Although the ideal of ren is shaped by the actually existing li practices, according to some scholars, it is not totally determined by li because advocacy of the ideal allows room for departing from or revising an existing rule of li18. “Ren is the man himself,” says the Doctrine of the Mean (Zhongyong 中庸), which a canonical glossary explains in these terms: “This refers to humanity in the relation of reciprocity between one human being and another.” The character for the word shows human beings taken two at a time. The duty that dictates our behavior is called yi 义 (righteousness or appropriateness) in Chinese, the character which is composed of the first person pronoun, wo, and the pictogram of a sheep, yang, which here actually signifies xiang (to resemble) a model. All people were to be shown humanity (ren); evil ones were, however, to be given justice. “If a person has no humanity, what can he or she have to do with rites? If a person has no humanity, what can he or she have to do with music?” (Analects 3:3)
The basic Confucian view is that human beings are by nature good (xingshanshuo 性善说). But like Saint Paul many years later, Confucius realized that people know goodness and that they have the actual capacity to enact it—the problem is that he or she has no real desire to do so. The Master said, “I have never seen a human being who truly loved goodness and hated evil. Whoever truly loves goodness would put nothing above it; whoever truly hates evil would practice goodness in such a way that no evil could enter him. Has anyone ever devoted all his strength to goodness just for one day? No one ever has, and yet it is not for want of strength—there may be people who do not have even the small amount of strength it takes, but I have never seen any.” (Analects 4:6)
The Cosmic Rhythm of the Rites and Music
In the eyes of the Christian scholar Han Lin 韩霖 (1600-1644), one cannot preach the Way (dao 道) and the Christian teaching outside human relationships (renlun 人伦), because these relationships are rooted in the nature of Heaven (Tianxing 天性). According to the 1958 neo-Confucian Manifesto, Westerners never discovered that the inner spiritual life behind the ethical rules also contained religious feelings. Confucian morality is based upon the idea of an immanent moral order that is not only present in society and the cosmos, but also in human beings themselves. Mencius argued that in moral conduct one should follow one’s nature (shuaixing 率性). According to the Doctrine of the Mean (Zhongyong 中庸), “What Heaven imparts to human beings is called nature.” Mencius said: “He who has exhausted all the capacities of his heart, knows his nature. Knowing his nature, he knows Heaven.” (Mencius Book 7 jinxin 盡心) If we understand the notion of heart-and-mind (xin 心) and human nature (xing 性) properly, we will see immediately that they form the link between Heaven and humankind19.
Within a Confucian perspective, there should be continuity between Heaven and humankind (tianren heyi, tianren buer 天人合一，天人不二). The moral and social orders are related to the whole universe. The trinitarian relationship between Heaven, humanity and all things could never be severed. Everyone can cultivate the Way and fully develop one’s nature and participate in the transforming and sustaining rhythm of Heaven and Earth (zan tiandi huayu 贊天地化育). As a result of this participation, human beings form a trinity with Heaven and Earth (yu tiandi can 與天地參). This is the basis of their morality, which is realized in the present world.
Confucianism stresses the importance of rites and music, which are rooted in the Way or cosmic rhythm of Heaven and Earth. Most references to ritual in the Classics should be read with music understood as an integral aspect. Music shares with ritual the participatory, personal character of order sensitive to diversity and the insistent particularity of its constituents. The relationship between music and ritual is universal. The playing of music involves a quest for excellence, and the quest for excellence involves those virtues or qualities, which are traditionally associated with the quest for good life, fulfilled life, and happiness. The Chinese character 樂 can be read either as yue meaning “music” or le/yao meaning “enjoyment.” It is an indication of an association between the quality of achieved harmony and the consequent possibilities for enjoyment. The innovative or creative side of music is captured in the Analects where Confucius is instructing the music master of Lu: “What we can know of music is only this: first, there is an opening passage with all instruments playing in unison, and then one goes on to improvise with purity of tone, distinctness and flow, thereby bringing it to its completion.” (Analects 3:23) Music is described in the Records of Rites, Chapter 17 as the supreme state of value-consciousness and the expression of the harmonious interaction between Heaven and Earth20.
Human Relationships according to the Christian Bible
Matteo Ricci wrote, “Every state or country has [its own] lord; is it possible that only the universe does not have a lord? A country must be united under only one [lord]; is it possible that the universe has two lords? Therefore, a superior man cannot but know the source of the universe and the creator of all creatures, and then raise his mind [to God].21”
The religious relationship between God (Yahweh) and humankind (the people of Israel) comes first in the Hebrew Bible (Tanach). This personal relationship of trust was then institutionalized in the covenant 盟約 (Hebrew is derived from biritu “between”) and relationship of promise expressed in the “covenant formula”: “I will be God for you and you shall be a people for me.” (Leviticus 26:12) Because the merciful initiative is always from God, the Greek translation, the Septuagint, usually renders the Hebrew with the Greek . This word seldom means covenant, but rather a special, free disposition, a last will. This Greek translation is the origin of our use of the word testament instead of covenant today.
A covenant represents always a gratuitous initiative on the part of God, who freely enters into a personal relationship with human beings without any merit on their part. It is a pact of friendship unilaterally initiated by the divine partner, which calls on the human partner for commitment and fidelity in response to God's gracious love22.
Covenant and Law
The historical origins of Israel are still a bone of contention among scholars. According to G. E. Mendenhall, the very unity of the Israelite people and its relationship with God was founded on covenant, and this covenant was in its original form a religious affair that concerned all the aspects of a people’s life. There was no trace of a civil machinery to enforce the law. With the coming of the monarchy the Near Eastern legal traditions of the covenanted people were displaced by the activity of the king and the court. The prophets kept alive the true idea of the covenant and the Deuteronomic reform returned to the ancient Mosaic concept of the covenanted people23.
In Israel, a whole series of laws was drawn up which are now found in the Pentateuch (Greek Septuagint he pentateuchos biblos “the book of the five scrolls”). The Hebrew word for these five books is , often inaccurately translated as law, but better rendered as “teaching.” The three basic law codes are the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:22-23:33), the Deuteronomic Code (Deuteronomy 12-26), and the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26). The Israelite law codes show a great deal of concern with the plight of the deprived (the poor, widows, fatherless children, and sojourners). The laws attempt to rectify this problem by preventing the mistreatment of the poor and by mandating improvement of their lot through giving and equalizing wealth and privileges. The codes also provide secondary motivation to stimulate people to obey these regulations through retribution for disobedience, recognition of God’s authority, compassion, and gratitude to God's saving actions, and imitation of God's concern for the weak. Similar to the ancient Chinese rites, God's covenant with his people is no trivial matter, but a question of life and death (Deuteronomy 30:19). Everything depends on observing the laws of the covenant.
The perplexity (aporia) of the Mosaic Teaching (Law) is developed in the Pauline writings: “It is not what I wish that I do, but what I hate that I do… For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.” (Rom 7:14-25) Like Confucius, Saint Paul experienced the problem of human beings knowing the good, but not willing to enact it. Paul stresses that his will is bound, that the law of sin holds him prisoner so that he is not capable of acting, as he would like to. Redemption is thus necessary for human beings to be freed and redeemed from their incapacity to will the good.
Covenant and Ritual (Worship)
Similar to the Chinese ritual development, the covenant was originally related to a sacrificial cult, but without cosmological-divinatory practices. The covenant between Yahweh and Israel described in the Sinai narrative was a covenant based upon some sort of blood (symbol of life) and sacrificial rite (sprinkling the blood of sacrificial animals on the altar and on the people), or in another version, a covenant meal uniting Yahweh and his people, through which a quasi-kinship relation was set up between the two. (Exodus 24:1-11) The Israelite Passover was a sacred meal taken in family groups at which Jews remembered the key events in their history that freed them from servitude and made them into a people. On the feast day of Unleavened Bread they sacrificed the Passover lamb in the Jerusalem Temple, which had become the sole seat of sacrificial cult. After the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, the now non-sacrificial ritual of the Passover was connected with the synagogue of rabbinic Judaism. The non-sacrificial ritual (liturgy) of the Christian community developed from Jesus' Last Supper into a memorial of the definite event of Jesus' life—his passion and resurrection (“Lord's Supper,” Luke 22:15-20) and a thanksgiving meal (“Eucharist,” Hebrew , Greek eucharistia 1 Cor 11:23-26)24.
The prophet Isaiah lamented, “This people honor me only with lip-service, while their hearts are far from me.” (Isaiah 29:13) The disconnection between lips and heart symbolizes the opposition between the exterior (face) and the interior (heart) of human beings. The Gospels (Mark 7:1-23, Luke 4:31-37, 11:23-25) denounce this preoccupation with external ritual purification and lack of inner purification. The Hebrew Bible sees the human heart-and-mind () as the source of defilement, violence and sin as well as the seat of change and renewal. (Ezekiel 36:25-27, Hosea 2, 36:25-27) The cup of the Lord’s Supper was not just a renewal of the Sinai covenant. It was “the new covenant,” a reference to a “new covenant” in Jeremiah (31:31-34) with the law inscribed not on tablets of stone but on people's hearts and with God forgiving the people’s sins. The Judeo-Christian awareness of sin (Hebrew ’ pesha‘, the root ht', “to miss the mark,” Greek hamartia and anomia) and God’s unconditional love and forgiveness differs from the Confucian feeling of face and sense of shame. The discovery and forgiveness of sin make it possible to be free from all anxiety, whereas the feeling of face and sense of shame apparently do not provide a way out25.
Covenant and Family
The Hebrew Bible presents the covenant in terms of father-son (adoption) and groom-bride (matrimony) analogy. The prophet Hosea introduced the metaphor of matrimony to denounce the infidelity of God's covenanted people. It is contrasted with the steadfast love (Hebrew chesed “kindness,” Greek eleos “mercy,” charis “grace”) and fidelity (Hebrew ’emet “durability,” “truth,” pistis “trust”) of God. Chesed means a way of behaving which results in a relationship, which is regulated and governed by rights and duties such as the Confucian five relationships. Applied to God, chesed means covenantal love. But its deeper meaning extends beyond what is obligatory and a matter of course to an interpersonal relationship: overwhelming, unexpected kindness, which is forgetful of itself, completely open and ready for “the other.” Chesed is concerned with an abundance of mutual love or grace. In the Hebrew Bible chesed often appears in the twin formula chesed we'emet, in which 'emet means reliability with the connotation of truthfulness.
God's covenant is not the central focus in Israelite wisdom literature. Everything revolves around the human person: how his or her behavior can reasonably be integrated in the great order of nature and interpersonal relations (the five human relationships can also be found in Proverbs 19:26, 23:22, 30:17 and Ben Sira 3:1-16). Nevertheless, much as in the Confucian example, the religious dimension is not excluded. The “fear of the Lord” is called the “beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7), and wisdom is regarded as gift of God. Like Confucian wisdom in China, Israelite wisdom was severely criticized too. Examples of this protest are the “preacher” Qohelet of Ecclesiastes and the didactic story of Job. They both refuse to correlate piety and good fortune, fault (evil deed) and suffering (punishment). The innocent Job confronts first his friends, then God with his suffering. He demands a judgment. His appeal to God against God gives him neither an explanation for his suffering nor God's justification. Instead, in a remarkable reversal, it transforms him from one who asks God to one whom God asks26.
Covenant and Social Justice
The covenant at Sinai reveals an intrinsic connection between the nature of Yahweh and the demands of social justice. Violence () in the Bible refers to the ruthless violation of one's fellow human that can go as far as murder. All inter-human transgressions are summed up under the term “violence”; no human being is exempt from this violent urge. According to the French scholar Girard, fundamental human desire has no fixed object. A human being covets the good that his or her model designates by their own desire. Two desires thus aim at the same good. This causes jealousy. But since the rival remains a model, even his or her jealous feelings are imitated. Under the influence of this mimetic desire (Greek mimesis “imitation”), rivalry increases until it ends in violence27. Some biblical stories like King Solomon's verdict show how this rivalry can be overcome. Two women (prostitutes) each had a child. One child was smothered, and a quarrel ensued about the surviving one. Solomon ordered it to be cut into two parts and each party to be given a half. The woman who was not the true mother agreed with this decree, for she was not concerned with the child but was absorbed in total rivalry with the other woman. The true mother reacted differently. Out of love for her child she overcame the rivalry and was willing to give up her right in favor of her enemy. Thus she saved her child’s life and won it back. (1 Kings 3:16-28)
The prophets fiercely condemned all forms of violence and strongly criticized Israel's sacrificial ritual. (Amos 5:21-25, Hosea 10:1-15, Micah 6:6-7, 7:5-6) They constantly referred to the covenant as the only valuable basis for Israel’s life. They demanded justice (Hebrew ) and righteousness (in the masculine tsedeq “straight,” in the feminine , Greek ) (Isaiah 1:10-20, Jeremiah 7: 21-23), as well as steadfast love and knowledge of God (Hosea 6:6), instead of sacrifices. can mean judgment when a person judges or justice when someone brings a situation to an appropriate resolution. The implication of is that rights are due to every individual in the community so that when a person “judges” , those rights are to be upheld. Thus, is the restoration of a situation, which promoted equity and harmony in the community. Tsedeq, derived from the root tsdq (righteousness), refers to a relationship between two parties and implies behavior, which fulfills the claims arising from such an involvement. There is no norm of righteousness outside of that personal involvement. When people fulfill the conditions imposed on them by relationships, they are righteous. Like the five relationships, every relationship in Israel had specific obligations. Each party owed something to the other, but righteousness made a greater claim on the stronger person28.
The suffering servant in the text of Second Isaiah (Isaiah 42:1-9, 49:1-6, 50:4-9, 52:13-53:12) adds a new element to our understanding of violence, justice and righteousness in the Bible. The suffering servant is innocent and a disciple of God. He does not respond with counter-violence to the violence of his enemies. (Isaiah 50:5-6) He suffers through and for others, suffering accepted as a voluntary sacrifice of life for others (Isaiah 53:4-9). This new notion of nonviolent behavior and redemptive or vicarious suffering will bring the vicious circle of violence and the need for scapegoats (Leviticus 16:21-22) to a decisive end29. The new covenant (this cup) established by Christ, the Passover Lamb, is not made in the blood of animals, but in his own blood, “which will be shed for you.” (Luke 20:20b) In the Johannine symbolic narrative of the foot washing (John 13:1-10), Jesus says that the new commandment, and the sign of authentic discipleship, viz., that we love one another as Jesus has loved us, has no more perfect form than the laying down of one's life for one's friends (John 13:34-35, 15:12-14). To lay down one's life is the ultimate preferring of another's good to one's own30.Like in the example of the two women before Solomon, only a love that loves the other as its own life can overcome the tendency towards rivalry at its very roots.
Service [Greek diakonia “table service”] by its inmost structure is capable of expressing ultimate love, and the love commanded by Jesus has the inner form of service. Every act of service, however ordinary, because it consists in preferring another to one self, is essentially an act of self-giving and, therefore, an expression of love, which, in principle, tends toward total self-giving. Chinese distinguishes between fuwu 服務 “service” and yiwu 義務 “voluntary service.” Like the Chinese loyalty to one's friend (yiqi 義氣 “personal loyalty”), when you treat someone as a friend, that someone might be happy to go all out to serve you regardless of the cost.
Within the context of rites, the Confucian Classics emphasize the continuity between Heaven and humankind and the ethical ideals of humanity and righteousness (renyi 仁義). Within the context of the covenant, the Christian Bible stresses the continuity between the love (Hebrew chesed) of God and humankind and the charity (Greek “universal love” du'ai 篤愛) and justice among human beings (Leviticus 19:11-18 and Mark 12:31 and parallels). We are made in God's own likeness (Latin imago Dei, Genesis 1:26-28). To be an image is to reflect another who comes first, another to whom we are tightly bound in relationship. The key link in this relationship between God and humankind is love, which originates from the ultimate love of the Trinity31.
The Trinitarian Rhythm of the Divine Covenants
The relationship of equality between Jesus and his disciples in the New Testament is based on the Trinitarian Relationship. “No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.” (John 15:15) Jesus changed the master-disciple relationship, which is always in danger of slipping into rivalries, into one of pure friendship (Latin amicitia, youyi 友誼) and communication. But before the disciples become friends, they have to renounce all selfish ambitions and human desires. (Mark 10:17-27, Luke 1:51-52) Jesus reconciles (Greek katallage “reconciliation”) us to the Father and to one another through “repentance” (Greek metanoia) and boundless “forgiveness” (Greek aphesis) like in the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-31). The power of the Holy Spirit gathers the people by respecting diversity, directs the threefold divine love towards community, and communicates through the word. The Holy Spirit's fruits are “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” (Galatians 5:22-23)
In the fourth century Gregory of Nazianzus described the Trinitarian rhythm of God's self-revelation or the economy of the progressive revelation of the mystery of God's inner life to humanity. Every divine covenant with humankind necessarily involves the active presence of God, of his Word, and of his Spirit. As the tradition has persistently sought and found “traces” of the Trinity (Latin vestigia Trinitatis) in creation and, more specifically, in the spiritual activity of a human being, so must we search for and discover similar traces, outside the biblical tradition, in the life of individual persons and the traditions to which they belong.
Several seventeenth-century Chinese Christians invoked a theory of stages of revelation in order to reconcile the natural and supernatural, Confucian tradition and Christian revelation. Later Jesuit writings presented a sequence of the revelation of nature (xingjiao 性教), the revelation of the book (shujiao 書教), and the revelation of love or grace (enjiao 恩教). Similarly, early Church Fathers like Irenaeus perceived that the history of salvation is not limited to a chosen people but extends to all humankind and human history. Thus Irenaeus wrote:
Four covenants were given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the Law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates the human being, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing human beings upon its wings into the Heavenly Kingdom32.
1.A classic is essentially a text that is open-ended—in the sense that it lends itself constantly to new developments, new commentaries, and different interpretations. With the passing of time, these commentaries, interpretations, and glosses form a series of layers, deposits, accretions, alluviums, that accumulate, accrue, superpose on one another, like the sands and sediments of a silting-up river. A classic allows for countless uses and misuses, understandings and misunderstandings, it is a text that keeps growing—it can be deformed, it can be enriched—and yet it retains its core identity, even if its original shape cannot be fully retrieved anymore. Ryckmans, Pierre, The Analects of Confucius. Translation and Notes by Leys, Simon. New York: 1997, pp.xvii-xviii.
2.Raguin ,Yves, Ways of Contemplation East and West: Part Four: Chinese Spirituality. Taipei: 2001, p.17.
3.Chow, Kai-wing 周佳榮, The Rise of Confucian Ritualism in Late Imperial China: Ethics, Classics, and Lineage Discourse 儒家禮教主義. Stanford University Press, 1994, pp.228-230.
4.Ricci, Matteo, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven. no. 21, pp.66-67.
5.Chen, Hsi-yuan, “Confucianism Encounters Religion: The Formation of Religious Discourse and the Confucian Movement in Modern China” , unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. Harvard University, 1999, pp.24-27.
6.Raguin, Ways of Contemplation East and West. Taipei: 2001, pp.4-5.
7.Dupuis, Jacques, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. New York: 1997, pp.235-253.
8.Lee, Archie C.C., “Cross-textual Reading Strategy: A Study of Late Ming and Early Qing Chinese Christian Writings,” Ching Feng (New Series 4-1, 2003) pp.1-28.
9.Chow, The Rise of Confucian Ritualism. p.9.
10.Standaert, Nicolas, “Methodology in View of Contact Between Cultures: The China Case in the 17th Century,” CSRCS Paper No. 11, Hong Kong.
11.Ricci, Matteo, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven. Paris: 1985, pp.56-57.
12.Chow, The Rise of Confucian Ritualism. pp.10-11, 230.
13.李學勤主編《十三經注疏(標點本)》，《禮記正義(中)》，《禮運第九》，北京大學出版社 1999 662頁.
14.Hall, David L. & Roger, T. Ames, Thinking Through Confucius. Albany, 1987, pp.85-89, 171-173 and Xiao, Hong’en 蕭宏恩, “Kongzi zhi yan「Tian」zhi wenti—chaoyan fangfa yu「Tian」孔子之言《天》之問題—超驗方法與《天》,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation Furen University, Taipei: 1994.
15.Zhang, Haiting 張海廷, “Chinese Culture and the Rule of Law in China 中國文化與中國《法治》,” 神州交流 Chinese Cross Currents (2-1, 2005) pp.58-81 and Andrew Chih, Chinese Humanism: A Religion Beyond Religion. Taipei: 1981, pp.24-28.
16.Vandermeersch,Léon, “Ritual and Law in Chinese and Western Traditions,” 神州交流 Chinese Cross Currents (2-1, 2005) pp.8-24 and Giuseppe Ruan, Guozhang 阮國璋, “Un Intento di Inculturazione Cristiana in Cina: il Rapporto tra Confucianesimo e Cristianesimo intorno alla Pietà Filiale,” unpublished Ph. D. dissertation Pontificia Universitas Lateranensis, Academia Alfonsiana. Rome: 2004.
17.Qian, Xun 錢遜, “The Interpretation of Confucian Reciprocity,” 對〈夫子之道, 忠恕而已矣〉的理解 The History of Chinese Philosophy 中國哲學史 (Quarterly) (1-2005) pp.48-50.
18. Shun, Kwong-loi 信廣來, “Ren and Li in the Analects,” pp.53-72 in van Norden, Bryan W., ed., Confucius and the Analects: New Essays. Oxford University Press, 2002.
18.Raguin, Ways of Contemplation East and West. pp.4-6.
19.Chih, Andrew, Chinese Humanism. Taipei: 1981, pp.265-283 and Hall ,David L. and Ames, Roger T. Thinking Through Confucius. pp.275-283.
20.Ricci, Matteo, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven. pp.56-57.
21.Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. pp.211-234.
22.McCarthy, D.J., Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions. Oxford, 1976, pp.10-11.
23.LaVerdiere, Eugene, Dining in the kingdom. Chicago: 1994, pp.121-141.
24.Kim,Agnès, Mi-Jeung.Péché et et harmonie: pour une du Péché dans le contexte confucéen. Paris: 2003, pp.132-136, 187-231, 346-347.
25.K?ng, Hans and Ching, Julia, Christianity and Chinese Religions. New York: 1989, pp.167-171.
26.See Girard,René, La violence et le sacré. Paris: 1972. English translation Violence and the Sacred. Baltimore: 1977.
27.Hendrickx, Herman, Social Justice in the Bible. Quezon City: 1985 and Malchow, Bruce V., Social Justice in the Hebrew Bible. Minnesota:1996.
28.Schwager, Raymund, Must There be Scapegoats? Violence and Redemption in the Bible. New York: 2000 and Kim,Agnès Mi-Jeung.Péché et harmonie. Paris: 2003, p.334.
29.Schneiders, Sandra M., “The Foot Washing (John 13: 1-20): An Experiment in Hermeneutics” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981) pp.76-92.
30.Forte, Bruno, “The Meaning of the Christian Faith in the Western Culture” 西方文化中基督教信仰的含意, pp.232-254 in Chen, Fucun, ed., Religion and Culture 宗教文化 (3), Beijing: 1998.
31.Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. pp.33, 41-42, 60-66, 77-83.