What Has Jerusalem to Do with Beijing?: Biblical Interpretation from a Chinese Perspective, Second Edition

What Has Jerusalem to Do with Beijing?

Biblical Interpretation from a Chinese Perspective

Second Edition

(Twentieth-Anniversary Edition)

K. K. Yeo

What Has Jerusalem to Do with Beijing?

Biblical Interpretation from a Chinese Perspective

Contrapuntal Readings of the Bible in World Christianity

2

Copyright ©

2018

Yeo Khiok-khng (K. K.). All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers,

199

W.

8

th Ave., Suite

3

, Eugene, OR

97401

.

Pickwick Publications

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199

W.

8

th Ave., Suite

3

Eugene, OR

97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-5326-4328-6

hardcover isbn: 978-1-5326-4329-3

ebook isbn: 978-1-5326-4330-9

Cataloguing-in-Publication data:

Names: Yeo, Khiok-khng (K. K.), author.

Title: What has Jerusalem to do with Beijing? : biblical interpretation from a Chinese perspective / Yeo Khiok-khng (K. K.).

Description: Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications,

2018.

| Series: Contrapuntal Readings of the Bible in World Christianity

2.

| Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers:

isbn 978-1-5326-4328-6 (

paperback

). | isbn 978-1-5326-4329-3 (

hardcover

). | isbn 978-1-5326-4330-9 (

ebook

).

Subjects: LCSH: Bible—Hermeneutics—Cross-cultural studies. | China—Civilization.

Classification:

bs476 y36 2018 (

print

). | bs476 (

ebook

).

Scripture quotations marked (NRSV) are taken from New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright ©

1989

National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

09/24/18

Table of Contents

Title Page

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

A Chinese Introduction

Part I: The Methods of Cross-Cultural Hermeneutics

Chapter 1: Theological Methods and Chinese Contexts

Chapter 2: Galatians as a Resource for Christocentric Inclusivity

Part II: Dialogue with Perennial Themes in Chinese Culture

Chapter 3: Yin and Yang in Genesis and Exodus

Chapter 4: Rest in Hebrews and the Yin-Yang Worldview

Chapter 5: The Ming of Tian (Will of God) in Amos and Confucius

Chapter 6: Li and Ren (Torah and Spirit) in Romans

Part III: Biblical Messages for the Current Chinese Situation

Chapter 7: Jerusalem, Athens, and Beijing in Acts

Chapter 8: Chinese Readings of Christology and Vicissitude in Revelation

Chapter 9: Memory of Rejection and Restoration in Isaiah and Tiananmen Square

Chapter 10: The Role of Women in 1 Corinthians and Malaysia

A Christian Chinese Conclusion

Bibliography

Contrapuntal Readings of the Bible in World Christianity

Series Editors: K. K. Yeo, Melanie Baffes

Just as God knows no boundaries and incarnation happens in shared space, truth does not respect borders and its expression in various contexts is kaleidoscopic. As God’s church is birthed forth from local cultures, it is called into a catholic community—namely world Christianity. This series values the twofold identity of biblical interpretations that seek to engage in contextual theology and, at the same time, become part of a global and many-voiced conversation for the sake of mutual understanding. By promoting contrapuntal readings that hold contextual and global biblical hermeneutics in tension, this series celebrates interpretations in three movements: (1) those based on the biblical text that honor multiple and interacting worldviews (reading the world biblically/theologically); (2) those that work at the translatability of the biblical text to uphold various dynamic vernaculars and faithful hermeneutics for the world (reading the Bible/theology contextually); and (3) those that respect the cross-cultural and shifting contexts in which faithful communities are embedded, and embody, real-life issues.

International Advisory Board

Walter Brueggemann, William Marcellus McPheeters Professor Emeritus of Old Testament at Columbia Theological Seminary (U.S.)

Adela Yarbro Collins, Buckingham Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, Yale Divinity School (U.S.)

Kathy Ehrensperger, Research Professor of New Testament in Jewish Perspective, University of Potsdam (Germany)

Justo L. González, Emeritus Professor of Historical Theology, Candler School of Theology, Emory University (U.S.)

Richard A. Horsley, Distinguished Professor of Liberal Arts and the Study of Religion Emeritus, University of Massachusetts— Boston (U.S.)

Robert Jewett, Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Heidelberg University (Germany)

Peter Lampe, Professor of New Testament Theology, Heidelberg University (Germany)

Tremper Longman III, Robert H. Gundry Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies, Westmont College (U.S.)

Daniel Patte, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, New Testament, and Christianity, Vanderbilt University (U.S.)

Volumes in the Series (2018–2019)

Volume 1: Text and Context: Vernacular Approaches to the Bible in Global Christianity, edited by Melanie Baffes

Volume 2: What Has Jerusalem to Do with Beijing? Biblical Interpretation from a Chinese Perspective (Twentieth Anniversary Edition), K. K. Yeo

Volume 3: Chinese Biblical Anthropology: Persons and Ideas in the Old Testament and in Modern Chinese Literature, Cao Jian

Volume 4: Cross-textual Reading of Ecclesiastes with Analects: In Search of Political Wisdom in a Disordered World, Elaine Wei-Fun Goh

Dedicated to

friends and colleagues of the global church

who sojourn with me coram Deo—

and whose stories and contexts teach me

to read and be read by Scriptures

Acknowledgments

Much appreciation is due to individuals and communities who have sojourned with me and supported this writing project graciously. I especially appreciate the critique, affirmation, and sustaining prayer of Drs. Robert Jewett, Donald Alexander, David Himrod, Philip Chia; colleagues in Chicago, Beijing, Hong Kong, Jerusalem, Bethlehem; and the Yeo family—Kungsiu, Timothy, Joseph and Catharine, and Phoebe. Dr. Richard N. Soulen and Dr. Melanie Baffes proofread the first edition and the revised expanded edition respectively with careful and helpful comments; Melanie also assisted in library research for revising the original work. I am also grateful to Wipf and Stock Publishers, especially Matthew Wimer and K. C. Hanson for their enthusiasm in publishing this work.

Abbreviations

Bible Divisions and Versions

AV Authorized Version

ESV English Standard Version

LXX Septuagint

MT Masoretic Text

NIV New International Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NT New Testament

OT Old Testament

RSV Revised Standard Version

Vulg. Vulgate

Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, and Commentaries

ABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary

CDC Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity

DB Dictionary of the Bible

IB Interpreter’s Bible

NIDB The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

NIDNTT The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

SHBC Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

Lexicons and Translations

BAGD Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker)

BDB Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Brown, Driver, Briggs)

BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

EGT Expositor’s Greek Testament

GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Gesenius, Kautsch, and Cowley)

GNT Greek New Testament

GNTG Grammar of the Greek New Testament

LSJ A Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell, Scott, and Jones)

Nag Hammadi Codices

Gos. Thom. Gospel of Thomas

Gos. Truth Gospel of Truth

Zost. VIII.1, Zostrianos

Mishnah, Talmud, Targumic, and Rabbinic Texts

Abot R. Nat. Abot de Rabbi Nathan

Apoc. Apocalypse

B. Sanh. Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin

Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbah

J. Sanh. Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin

M. Sanh. Mishnah Sanhedrin

Pesiq. Rab. Pesiqta Rabbati

Syr. Syriac

Tg. Targum

Tos. Sanh. Tosefta Sanhedrin

Greek and Latin Works

1 Ep. Innoc. Ad Innocentium papam epistula I (John Chrysostom)

Acad. pr. Academica priora (Cicero)

Aug. Divus Augustus (Suetonius)

Cyr. Cyropaedia (Xenophon)

Decal. De decalogo (Philo)

Deo De deo (Philo)

De or. De oratore (Cicero)

Disc. Discourses (Epictetus)

Ecl. Eclogae (Stobaeus)

Ep. Epistulae morales (Seneca)

Exord. Exordia (Demosthenes)

Haer. Adversus haereses (Irenaeus)

Her. Heroides (Ovid)

Herc. fur. Hercules furens (Euripides)

Hist. eccl. Historia ecclesiastica (Eusebius)

Hom. 2 Cor. Homiliae in epistulam ii ad Corinthios (John Chrysostom)

Hom. Act. Homiliae in Acta apostolorum (John Chrysostom)

Inst. Institutio oratoria (Quintilian)

Inv. De inventione rhetorica (Cicero)

Laer. Laërtius (Diogenes)

Mem. Memorabilia (Xenophon)

Mor. Moralia (Plutarch)

Nat. d. De natura deorum (Cicero)

Ora. Orationes (Dio Chrysostom)

Orator Orator (Cicero)

Part. or. Partitiones oratoriae (Cicero)

Peri. Periegesis Hellados (Pausanias)

Pol. Politica (Aristotle)

Pres. Presbeia peri Christianōn (Athenagoras)

Quint. Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem (Cicero)

Res. De resurrectione (Athenagoras)

Rhet. Rhetorica (Aristotle)

Rhet. Her. Rhetorica ad Herennium

Rhet. Alex. Rhetorica ad Alexandrum (Aristotle)

Sat. Satirae (Horace)

Strom. Stromata (Cicero)

Tim. Timaeus (Plato)

Greek and Latin Works (continued)

Top. Topica (Aristotle) and Topica (Cicero)

Trin. De Trinitate (Augustine)

Vit. Apoll. Vita Apollonii (Philostratus)

A Chinese Introduction

(with an Addendum for Twentieth-Anniversary Edition)

This volume is a collection of ten essays on the Bible. It reflects the range of biblical reading I have enjoyed doing over the first third of my thirty-year career as student and teacher of the Bible. Having lived in a multi-faith, multi-textual, and multicultural context in Malaysia for twenty-four years, I cannot help but think of the given convention of reading: a Chinese Christian reading of the biblical text from a Chinese perspective.

I am a second-generation Chinese in Malaysia, raised in a Confucianist family with modern sensibilities of the scientific method, historical proof, and service to community. As an atheist in my early years, I respected the major traditions of Chinese philosophy and religion, the culture of which I was a part. At the age of eighteen, I came to appreciate and to worship the Messiah, who was born a Jew but died for all, including the Chinese. The statement, I came to appreciate and to worship involves a long journey, marked by years of struggle about the relationship between the Christian faith and Chinese culture. I believed as a young Christian that the Christ event is itself a trans-spatial and trans-temporal event which, for this reason, places upon followers of Christ the mandate of a cross-cultural hermeneutic. But the big question is how to do such cross-cultural interpretation, if a reading is Christian. In my theological education, I came to respect the apostle to the gentiles,¹ Paul, who remained a Jew but who zealously proclaimed the gospel of the Messiah to those without the law, the promise, and circumcision. Paul’s epistles, collected in the New Testament, became my favorite reading, and the effort reflected in this monograph is my way of imitating Paul’s cross-cultural hermeneutics. The first two chapters provide a biblical basis for clarifying the methodology of a cross-cultural reading. Chapter 1 is an attempt to consider various aspects of a cross-cultural reading that is biblical, theological, rhetorical, and contextual. Chapter 2 is more biblical, as it reflects on Gal 3:1–20, a passage that supplies the needed resources for a cross-cultural hermeneutic to address not only a coexistence issue in Malaysia but also my construction of a cross-cultural interpretation based on a christocentric model.

The remaining chapters have to do with the ways I read the biblical text, always with one eye on the Chinese culture or Asian context. In my cross-cultural reading of the biblical text, I have divided the essays into two categories: one group of essays falls into the area of dialoguing with perennial themes in Chinese cultures. These essays seek to express biblical truth in the language of my own people. It is not possible to communicate intelligibly in culture-free theological axioms, nor can the Christian faith be meaningful in a cultural vacuum. Theological hermeneutics is the art and science of appropriating the eternal will of God (historically revealed in the Word of God in its Hebraic and Greco-Roman milieu) to the particular historical situation of people.² Since the task of the theological enterprise essentially is to interpret or construct truth in a way that is intelligible to people, the crucial need to speak the truth in the language of the people has been recognized ever since creation. As such, every theological revelation and construction is contextual and indigenous. For theology not only addresses the needs of a particular people in a particular situation, it also is conveyed in and through the language of the people. Scripture itself gives us the best example.³

Chapters 3 through 6 seek to use the language of yin-yang philosophy and the Confucian understanding of tian ming (mandate of heaven) as well as li (law/propriety) and ren (love) to convey the biblical notions of God, humanity, rest, will of God, and so forth. To express biblical truth contextually is to read intertextually; however, to minimize the possibility of eisegesis (reading into the text), I always begin with the biblical text rather than with the Confucian and yin-yang philosophical texts. Readers interested in the theoretical basis of intertextuality may wish to trace the development of structuralism, post-structuralism, and intertextual reading.⁴

These four chapters employ intertextual theories of reading such as structuralism. Structuralism and intertextual readings depend on semiotics, as well as on culturally contingent factors of reading.⁵ A system of semiotic codes is operative when both social conventions and transcendental symbols are interactive. But these codes are not autonomously universal; rather they are networks framed and conditioned by sociocultural factors.⁶ As such, reading in a multi-faith, multi-textual, and multicultural context cannot be a reading at the level of the textual code alone, but must include acknowledgment of and sensitivity to the readership as well as to textual contexts. The audience and textual contexts provide the network for and the possibility of reading.⁷ This view is an extension of Julia Kristeva’s notion of intertextuality and Bultmann’s concept of pre-understanding.⁸ Jonathan Culler speaks of the intelligibility of a text in terms of a prior body of discourse . . .⁹ He also notes the function of intertextuality as an allusion "to the paradoxical nature of discursive systems. . . . Everything in la langue, as Saussure says, must have first been in parole. But parole is made possible by la langue, and if one attempts to identify any utterance or text as a moment of origin one finds that they depend on prior codes."¹⁰ Applying the insight of Culler, one may contend that Romans and the Analects, Hebrews and Daodejing, exist intertextually in their parole, but their langue is made plain only through the reader’s hermeneutics. While not following postmodernists Michael Riffaterre’s and Kristeva’s irreducible polyvalence and radical indeterminacy of intertextual boundaries,¹¹ the four essays do place artificial limits on the significations of li (law), ren (love in the Spirit), tian ming (will of God), and taiji (rest; literally great ultimate) in my reading of the Analects and the biblical passages.

To do a cross-cultural reading of biblical texts also is to let the biblical text respond to the particular context of the reader. Chapters 7 through 10 are examples of contextual readings of the biblical text for the current Chinese situation. In chapter 7, through the use of rhetorical criticism, Paul’s preaching is heard as speaking not only to Athenian philosophers but also to Chinese Daoists. In chapter 8, the message of hope found in the book of Revelation is heard as speaking to Chinese Christians who lived through the Cultural Revolution. In chapter 9, Isa 5:1–7 and 27:2–6 offer a political and social message of restoration to those who felt repressed and betrayed in the June Fourth Event of national disgrace at Tiananmen Square. The chapter shows that these two pericopae (Isa 5:1–7 and 27:2–6) form one unified song of judgment and restoration; it also argues that only in the vision and message of the whole, as conveyed in the song, can we find the coherent pattern of divine purpose in human history. Chapter 10 is an analysis of 1 Cor 8 and 10 in view of Malaysian women. It suggests that the Pauline vision of mutuality between men and women is a vision that can be useful to women advocacy groups working toward wider transformation inclusive of male-female concerns.

These experiments with cross-cultural hermeneutics hope to achieve the transformation of both biblical reading and the Chinese culture. To use the biblical text as a normative response to the Chinese and Malaysian contexts may neither be fair nor valid for a relativist if one assumes that the Bible is just one of many sacred texts. I do not think that relativism and universalism are the answers to cross-cultural hermeneutics. On the one hand, the uniqueness of one’s culture needs to be affirmed, while on the other hand, one culture needs the critique of another. If openness, even accepting criticism from others, is essential to cross-cultural hermeneutics, then the Chinese culture must be opened to the biblical text, though I acknowledge also that my reading of the Bible is influenced by my own culturally contextualized reading. A monocultural reading of the gospel can easily be idolatrous. We are always at the point of inventing systems of cultural symbols and creating communities of meaning so that what we present through the culture is never absolute. So, a cross-cultural reading is more objective than a monocultural reading of the biblical text can ever be.

Addendum: What Has Changed? Why a New Edition?

It has been twenty years since the first edition of this volume was published. Reviews of the work overall have been positive, and some schools have graciously invited me to present my work with students and/or faculty who have a keen interest in cross-cultural biblical interpretation. Yet, the world has changed, and my thinking on this work has developed. What has changed that calls for a new edition of this work?

First, the last twenty years of research and teaching have given me more time to reflect on the method of cross-cultural biblical interpretation. I will tell the story autobiographically at the end of chapter 1 and conclusion chapter regarding the method I employed in this volume. Suffice to say here that my previous rhetorical-hermeneutical method, upon reflection, is significantly influenced by the understanding of intersubjectivity. As I do cross-cultural interpretation, the notion of intersubjectivity reinforces my intertextual reading.

Second, not only has biblical studies over the last twenty years produced new scholarship that I need to consider and engage with but also cultures are in constant change; thus, much of the Chinese and Malaysian contexts have shifted. An update is necessary.

Third, the last fifteen years of my annual frequent visits to Jerusalem and Beijing (Israel/Palestine and China) have enriched the way I reflect upon and practice cross-cultural biblical interpretation. Some of my views have changed, and some need to be fine-tuned or nuanced to make my points clearer. Being involved in various China projects (administering a degree program in Christian Studies, research/publishing, and teaching) and the Majority World Theology conferences with the Institute of Biblical Research and Evangelical Theological Society remain the top two events that have impacted my life, as well as the way I continue to read the Bible cross-culturally.

I can only hope that the second edition of this work will invite all readers to travel with me in cross-cultural biblical interpretation and, together, we will celebrate our gifts and perspectives.

March 1998 (Evanston, Illinois)

January 2018 (revised for twentieth-anniversary edition; Skokie, Illinois)

1. Throughout this volume, except for quoted material, I use a lowercase g for the term "gentiles" to signify a generic group of people seen as non-Jews from the Jewish perspective. There is no specific nation or people in the world that uses the term gentiles for themselves; thus, it is not a proper noun, but merely a fictive use of the term. The term derives from Latin gentilis, meaning of a tribe and referring to non-Jewish peoples or nations. In the Masoretic Text (Hebrew Old Testament), the word is goy or nokhri and the Greek (LXX [Septuagint, or Greek Old Testament] or GNT [Greek New Testament]) renders it as ethnē, meaning nations.

2. For more on hermeneutics, religions, and cultures, see Stott and Coote, Gospel and Culture; Yeo, Asian Interpretation, in NIDB,

1

:

306

; Yeo, Cultural Hermeneutics, in NIDB,

1

:

808

–

9

; Yeo, Cross-cultural Interpretation, in NIDB,

1

:

805

; Yeo, Culture and Biblical Studies, in CDC,

292

.

3. Notice how the truth about and of God is revealed in the language of the Hebrews and the common Greeks. There seems to be no such thing as a pure holy language about God that is untainted by the language of the people. The incarnation of Christ speaks of the ultimate need for the truth to become flesh. Not only does God’s revelation impinge upon the lives of people but also the people’s situation cries out for God’s response.

4. Cf. Todorov, Reading as Construction,

67

–

82

; Draisma, Intertextuality in Biblical Writings. On intertextual reading of biblical texts, see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel; Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul; Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels.

5. On post-structuralism, see Barthes, Theory of Text,

31

–

47

; Young, The Pleasure of the Text.

6. Culler mentions the readerly orientation of framing the sign as a major use of context (ix) in Framing the Sign.

7. Consult Culler’s work on the possibility of reading in signs and semiotics in Pursuit of Signs,

50

; Culler, Structuralist Poetics,

30

.

8. Kristeva, Revolution in Poetic Language,

60

; Bultmann, Existence and Faith,

342

.

9. Culler, Pursuit of Signs,

101

.

10. Culler, Pursuit of Signs,

103

.

11. Riffaterre, Semiotics of Poetry; see also Kristeva’s understanding that a text will absorb other texts in their intertextual space, Kristeva, Revolution in Poetic Language, and Kristeva, Desire in Language. See Culler’s critique on the undefined discursive space that intertextuality designates in Pursuit of Signs,

109

.

Part I

The Methods of Cross-Cultural Hermeneutics

1

Theological Methods and Chinese Contexts

The twenty-first century can be characterized as the age of specialized technology, an explosion of information, and instantaneous communication. These hallmarks of our time do not necessarily indicate or guarantee that human culture is moving toward the eradication of conflict, an understanding of the wholeness of life, or mutual collaboration of diverse groups. On the contrary, humanity continues to face the crisis of alienation and the threat of annihilation as it uncritically accepts and glorifies the current state of technology. Satellite communication brings different parts of the world into our living rooms, but it does not necessarily help us connect with one another. We may try to reach out to someone through social media, but virtual reality can never replace the human touch. ¹ We use many words, but we do not always use them meaningfully or in ways that allow us to be heard.

The danger of specialization lies in the tunnel vision of the world and the fragmented lifestyle it creates. Knowledge does not necessarily breed understanding and love. Particularity, while unavoidable, eventually boasts of itself and alienates others. Universality seems too ideal and far removed; it also runs the risk of absorbing all particularities into a melting pot, obliterating one another’s uniqueness. It has the added danger of providing a superficial sense of oneness. In short, in the struggle to coexist and flourish, people of the earth face crises of alienation, fragmentation, and annihilation more than ever before.

The familiar theme of coexistence in Chinese stories (Confucian, Daoist, and the yin-yang schools) haunts me as I see similar patterns repeated in modern history. The issue of coexistence seems to be the primary challenge underlying the human story. Are our stories fragmented by the necessity of difference, by the tugs of beginning and end, by conflict and mistrust of our neighbors’ stories, by ambiguity and meaninglessness? While I do not aim or claim to solve the world’s problems, I do hope to address the issue of coexistence by way of a methodology that is cross-cultural and theological.

Content and Methodology of Theology

The essence and means of doing theology are distinct but related. Doing theology involves rational inquiry and theoretical formulation that point us to a more coherent and clear disclosure of reality and ultimately of God. Theology is primarily a cognitive enterprise, an intellectual dimension of faith that concerns the whole structure and order of intelligibility in the universe. Theology can be a rational inquiry into the knowledge and creation of God, because God’s revelation is either rational or supra-rational but never—although it may appear—irrational. There is an intelligible structure and order in the creation of God. Theology is, therefore, our attempt to love God with our minds, for faith seeking understanding. Faith has its subject matter, which is the subject of our theological enquiry. The experiment of cross-cultural reading of the biblical texts in this volume will show that the quest for meaning is the primary task of theology and that God is the primary subject matter of theology.

Theology has its objective knowledge, like any other discipline, where knowledge speaks in its own right, impinging upon us what it stands for. Theology is not merely a value-subjective, judgmental, alternative lifestyle, but a high calling of God to realize the objective, indicative, imperative, and subjunctive of God. This touches on the issues of the essence (content) and methodology of theology, that is, on—in the conceptualization of the Greek—ontology and epistemology.

Theological methodology is a rational inquiry into the knowledge of God. The difference between ontology (what we know about reality) and epistemology (how we know about reality) must be kept distinct, although the two are mutually interactive. In methodology, ontology is faith prior to reason, while epistemology is reason prior to faith. In ontology, faith in God is based not on evidence but on the authority of God himself through his revelation. But in epistemology, faith finds its logical support and evidence in reason, experience, and history.

In addition, theology is an interpretation of the essence of one’s faith. For the essence of theology is God, while the form² of theology is the expression or interpretation of our faith. Essence and content are different but related. Colin Gunton points out that human rational activity consists largely, if not wholly, in the discovery and creation of form.³ No one can say that his own formulation or conceptualization of God is absolute. However, despite one’s finite interpretation, the essence of theology, which is God, is infinite. We experience God as the sure object of our trust despite the relative character of our interpretation or biblical reading. Of course, the task of hermeneutics is to get the form as close to the essence as possible. Therefore, theologizing is done not to build walls or to exclude others; rather, it is done to build bridges and networks—to create dialogue, tolerance, and appreciation of one another’s theology. This personal and communal understanding of theological inquiry is that only a community can do theology in mutual interaction, with tradition and with postulations. While theologizing is mainly a cognitive enterprise, it becomes a great dynamic in one’s spiritual formation, in practical mission to the world. Theology needs to live and work in the dynamic tensions that exist between the word of God and the community of believers, between biblical and systematic theologies, and between exegesis and homiletics.

In doing theology, the basic level is the theological and scientific, while the ultimate level is the spiritual (Holy Spirit), evangelical (the gospel of Christ), and doxological (the worship of God). The climax of theology is not simply the construction of a coherent system (it is that, no doubt), but a new and fresh appreciation of the grace and love of God. The end of theology is always the beginning of doxology. Aristotle was probably the first to have a systematic view of theology as the first philosophy, wisdom, and an a priori science; thus, he calls it meta-physics. The scientific status of theology has had its renaissance in the Western world, making theology public and acceptable to the university world (academia) through the philosophical and scientific criteria employed.⁴

Theology is first a science and, second, is like an art—because theology concerns itself primarily with matters of cause and effect, relations of facts, and all that is entailed in the indicative mood of the is. Theology is not abstract philosophy, for the is of theology is to engage with hermeneutical issues such as ethics, aesthetic, etc., and all that is entailed in the imperative mood of the ought. Theology first deals with the first cause, ontology, the why, and then it speaks to the how and what. The use of rhetorical criticism in biblical studies and hermeneutics is appropriate because rhetorical theory, like theology, is primarily a science and secondarily an art.

In the theological method (as in the scientific method), all theory and interpretation emerge as one reflects upon one’s experience, based on one’s intuition and intellectual conviction concerning reality; one then makes a creative or imaginative leap to envision a new structural theory or reinterpretation that can be tested against one’s experience of reality. This creative interaction of experience (heart) and theory (mind) makes the theological or scientific enterprise a dynamic ongoing process. Our openness to the truth is necessary so that our assumptions or fundamental ideas can be tested, corrected, and reinterpreted.

Cross-Cultural Method as Particular, Universal,and Persuasive Truth

In Newtonian physics, time and space are absolute and independent of mass and energy. In Einstein’s theory of general relativity, space and time form a continuum and are relational to mass and energy. If the incarnation of God’s Son can be construed as God’s way of relating to creation in space-time, then the potential for various contextual theologies to express the biblical message also is relative and conditioned. In other words, no particular theology is absolute; all theologies are contextual.⁵ The task of biblical interpretation is to make the message of the incarnation visible, taking into account the contingencies of space and time.

Every theology is contextual, each differing only by degrees. We can interpret the world only as we perceive it from a given situation, for human beings are cultural beings. Theology is a particular and culturally-oriented understanding of God’s activities in the world. All theology (I used to say erroneously contextual theology) seeks to name the presence and love of God in a particular culture or context. Cross-cultural hermeneutics is related to universal, cosmic unity through diverse and ambiguous contexts.

In biblical reading, the role of culture is significant as a variant—the freedom of God’s love and the contingency involved in the world. Doctrines are not written in the language of heaven, but in time-bound and culture-bound languages, governed by the dialogue we find in Scripture.⁶ The two basic grids of culture are time and space, both of which differentiate one culture from all others. Culture as an instrument of adaptation, the learned behaviors of persons, indicates the dynamic quality of cultural formation. Its interaction with theology is intimate and complex, and both Scripture and culture require interpretation.⁷ In terms of space (i.e., ecologically speaking), religions or theologies of a survival culture, such as that of Eskimos or desert people, are different from theologies of a monsoon culture. All seem to seek God, yet the results are the wilderness religion, the meadow religion, the monsoon religion, and so forth.⁸ In cross-cultural hermeneutics, therefore, the observational frames of reference keep changing but, at the same time, the constant or invariant character of truth should not be ignored; in fact, it is this constant that makes the hermeneutical bridge possible and makes the biblical message universally meaningful.

Working with biblical hermeneutics within the larger principle of cross-cultural biblical interpretation, one needs to postulate the invisible means in order to explain the visible text. I would propose rhetorical studies as a means. Since rhetoric is the oldest discipline of the discursive usage of language,⁹ it is proposed here that religious language and hermeneutics be seen under the fountainhead of rhetoric which, with dialectic, falls in turn under the umbrella of philosophy. In his Rhetoric and Topics, Aristotle has rightly suggested this understanding. Unfortunately, Greco-Roman classical rhetorical theory tended to focus on the rhetor’s persuasion of the audience more than on identification with the audience. K. Burke and C. Perelman have introduced the New Rhetoric¹⁰ as a corrective lens to the classical practice. Perelman clarifies Aristotle’s explanation of rhetoric:

In analytical, or demonstrative, reasoning, the premises . . . are true and ultimate, or else derived from such premises, whereas in dialectical reasoning the premises consist of generally accepted opinion. The nature of reasoning in both cases was held to be the same, consisting in drawing conclusions from propositions posited as premises.¹¹

This is to say that rhetoric use syllogisms, but it leaves some premises unexpressed, transforming them into enthymemes. Probably in reaction to Gorgias’s and Isocrates’s treatment of rhetoric as an art of political discourse only, Aristotle contends that rhetoric is a faculty (dynameis) and not just a substantive art of politics. He sees rhetoric as a practical art and an active means of communication in civic life. In reaction to the Platonic epistemology of dialectic, Aristotle views apodeixis (demonstration) as an art of communication or means of persuasion, rather than a means of discovering the truth.¹² In Aristotle’s philosophical system, the conceptualization of the practical and productive art of rhetoric is skillfully worked out in Rhetoric.¹³ The task of philosophy, especially first philosophy, is ideally to live a contemplative life which

was essentially concerned with the pursuit, the comprehension, and the contemplation of the truth concerning the subject himself, the order and the nature of things, or divinity; starting from such comprehension, the wise man was supposed to be able to work out the rules of action, both public and private, as based upon philosophical knowledge. Prudence and reasonable action flowed directly from knowledge.¹⁴

In other words, metaphysics involves the necessity of studying rhetoric and hermeneutics in relation to ontology (study of being) and epistemology (study of knowledge). And rhetoric and hermeneutics involve the use of deductive rhetorical syllogism of enthymeme and the inductive paradeigma to express truth and meaning in order to persuade and inaugurate dialogue with the audience. The New Rhetoric conceives the rhetor and the audience as internally related and sees dialogue as necessary for truth.

The New Rhetoric advocates commonality and communability rather than mere persuasion and ideological change of an opponent. Chapters 3 through 6 seek to demonstrate a dialogical reading of the biblical texts with perennial themes in Chinese culture. Chapters 7 through 10 use the biblical message to address issues in current Chinese situations. Both sections are committed to a dialogical reading whereby, it is hoped both Chinese culture and the biblical texts will be illumined through rhetorical criticism.

In chapters 7 and 8, rhetorical criticism is used as the interactive vehicle for conveying the message of Acts 17 and Rev 5 to a Chinese audience. Rhetorical criticism is not a modern or postmodern methodology. Though there is a renaissance of interest in rhetorical criticism today, it is in fact the oldest form of exegesis. It seeks to explore the argumentative strategy and persuasive power of discourse within the social and political contexts of both the orator/author and audience/reader. As an integrative methodology, rhetorical criticism allows all other forms of exegesis to interact, with the aim of a more holistic understanding of the text at hand in its communicative purpose and effectiveness. The initial task of chapter 7 is to observe the rhetorical interaction of Paul’s Areopagus speech with his philosophical audience. Although traditional historical criticism is used, the emphasis is on rhetorical analysis. It will be shown that the interaction between Paul and the audience is dialectical, between the Jewish-Christian and Greco-Roman philosophical topoi, and that Paul’s strategy throughout is to lead the audience from their awareness of the existence of God to an acceptance of the resurrection of and their salvation in Christ.

The intent of chapter 8 is to offer biblical, theological, and psychologically pastoral reasons for the fact that the book of Revelation has such communicative and worshipful power for audiences both ancient and modern. This is achieved through a rhetorical analysis of Rev 5.

Biblical Reading and Chinese Contexts

Since the universe is a multileveled yet integrated whole, cross-cultural and interdisciplinary studies are required to make any inquiry adequately insightful and meaningful.¹⁵ An interdisciplinary study recognizes the necessity for the sciences and the humanities to be in dialogue with each other. Interdisciplinary study is necessary, because the world and human experience are orderly and intrinsically intelligible; an integration of levels of understanding helps us to appreciate the orderliness and comprehensiveness of reality. Similarly, the unitary character of theological and scientific knowledge makes interdisciplinary studies possible. One can assume and hope that an interdisciplinary study will give correlation and coherence to the theological understanding of God’s operations of revelation and salvation within our spatiotemporal existence. The conviction held here is that one of the main purposes for constructing a comprehensive and cross-cultural model of interpretation is for the sake of the unification or at least the reconciliation of nations and cultural groups in the world. Since I am writing from an Asian perspective, I will limit myself and speak only of diverse narrative theologies in Asia—primarily Chinese—to illustrate my point.

All the chapters in this monograph experiment with cross-cultural readings and interdisciplinary studies of the Bible. The task of this cross-cultural reading concerns the intricate relations between biblical narratives and Chinese narratives. Biblical theology can be traced to the narrative theology of the Jews. Abraham is called to follow God, promised a land, and set apart to establish a covenantal people of God. The story of Moses continues the plot through God’s deliverance of his people from Egypt, after which the desert experience portrays their wandering in hope of a promised land. The exiles, like their forebears, asked such existential questions as: Who are we? . . . And why is there so much evil and suffering? The answers emerge to these universal questions as people from every time and place retell their stories and traditions and relate them to the divine. The narrative theology of Christians of the first two centuries is told in the context of the Roman Empire, a context that forced Christians to question the meaning of their own existence. Their answers were derived from the traditions of different Jewish sects (Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, etc.), and uniquely from Jesus, who began the (re)new(ing) faith movement. Above all, the meaning of Christian existence was projected by its main actor, the Messiah himself, who envisioned the new reign of God embodied in Abba love.

The Chinese narrative begins with the coexistence of tribal groups who lived in the Yellow River Basin. Before the fifth century bce, there was a period of relative peace and prosperity in China. Most schools of thought were developed in the fourth and fifth centuries bce to cope with matters of group coexistence and cultural deterioration. People were looking back to their ancestors for ways (dao) to follow, for a philosophy of life, and a reclamation of serviceable traditions.

The yin-yang philosophy appeals to an understanding of the cosmos as one way to maintain the harmony humans can achieve between themselves and nature. Since chapters 3 and 4 use the yin-yang philosophical paradigm¹⁶ as an overarching framework or principle for reading the biblical text, I wish to explain it in fuller detail here.¹⁷ Some of the main presuppositions and tenets of yin-yang philosophy are as follows.

(1) Cosmology is more important than anthropology, because anthropology is a part of cosmology. If one wishes to know anthropology, one has to know its larger context, namely, cosmology.¹⁸ A true understanding of the self is not attained merely by studying oneself—not least of which is the Western understanding of self as rational and unified. Self in the yin-yang worldview is a member of a cosmos; therefore, since anthropology is part of cosmology if one wants to understand oneself, one needs to study the self in relation to the larger whole in which it exists. This approach assumes an organic, rather than a hierarchical, view of the self’s relation to others. It also assumes that every individual is a subject in a web of relationships, shaped by a myriad of conditions and forces in such relationships that are hardly in one’s awareness, less so even in one’s control. In a biblical sense, we can affirm that you and I are part of the purpose of God, who is the larger whole, or ultimate reality. Chapter 3 illustrates my reading of two passages in Genesis and Exodus using this language.

(2) Reality¹⁹ is conceived ultimately as change,²⁰ rather than as being. Change is the absolute category or frame of reference. It is an a priori category of existence.²¹ Being is the manifestation of change; an unchanging being cannot exist in reality. Since change is responsible for the changing world,²² it is the ultimate reality, which is also known as taiji (the great ultimate).²³ The great ultimate is the change.²⁴ The great ultimate is the changing changeless one. That is, yin-yang is simultaneously inclusive of both the changing and the unchanging.²⁵ Yin and yang are two fundamental components or two cardinal principles of change.²⁶ In the fact of change, being and nonbeing are synthesized.²⁷ It is change that produces ontology, process that produces existence with a purpose in dynamic time.²⁸ While we may debate what it means to say God is changing, a safe assumption can be made and applied to human subjectivity that each human person is always in the process of becoming, constantly shaped by others and the larger world in which we live.

(3) Reality is always perceived as relatedness: Change always operates in the bipolar relationship known as yin-yang.²⁹ Because it is relative, it has a dipolar nature consisting of yin and yang. Yin is the opposite but not the antagonist of yang, since the two poles are mutually complementary. Because they are dipolar, one cannot exist without the other. Yin is yin because of yang, and yang is yang because of yin. Yin needs yang to be yin; neither can exist without the other. They are mutually inclusive³⁰ and relative.³¹ Yin has part of yang, and yang has part of yin; yin is in yang, and yang is in yin. They are two distinct aspects of the same and one reality, just as the symbols of yin (陰) and yang (陽) illustrate. Lee explains that

yin is yang divided, and yang is yin united. The condition of separation makes yin possible, just as the condition of unity makes yang possible. . . . The distinctions between them are conditional and existential, not essential. Yin and yang are one in essence and two in existence.³²

The yin-yang philosophy is used in these chapters as a way of reading the biblical text. It will be shown that this approach is not only contextual in terms of a Chinese reading but also creative in terms of understanding the biblical message from another cultural perspective.

The next Chinese tradition is that of Daoism, which began during the fourth and fifth centuries bce, when Laozi (Lao Tze) and Zhuangzi (Chuang Tze) attempted to solve the problem of cultural deterioration and conflict by saying that Truth or dao is one, but that everyone has his or her own perspective and only sees part of the truth; as a result, each person has his or her own reading of reality which, it is claimed, reveals the truth. The solution to cultural conflict and claim of superiority is nothingness, that is, the act of letting go of or putting down one’s own presupposition and bias. For even truth comes from it (nothingness), and all shall return to it.

In Daodejing (Tao Te Ching), Laozi states that the dao that can be told of is not the eternal dao . . . The speaker knows not; The knower speaks not. Once one speaks of dao using human language and concepts, he or she conditions and limits the dao with criteria and conditions, thus distorting the original dao. The best way to know the dao is to meditate and keep silent. Nevertheless, Laozi used five thousand words to write about the dao. In a sense, this is because of the self-revealing dao that invites speaking and interpretation. In chapter 25 of Daodejing, Laozi says:

There was something undifferentiated, and yet complete. Soundless and formless, it depends on nothing and does not change. It operates everywhere and is free from danger. It may be considered the mother of the universe. I do not know its name. I call it Tao. If forced to give it a name, I shall call it Great.³³

So, to Laozi, dao is the creative reality. The Chinese know that because of the great handiwork of God, exemplified in China by the mountains. Daoism stresses, therefore, the broadening of mind and lifestyle until one is harmonized with the cosmos, achieving a mystical, artistic way of life.

The story of Confucianism is traceable to Confucius (551–479 bce), who was born in a time of cultural and moral deterioration, the Spring-Autumn Period of Chinese history. Before that period, during the Zhou Dynasty, the King of Zhou employed two principles as common ground for unifying the people: music (as the harmony of emotion/feeling) and li (behavior expressed artistically; propriety or ritual) such as bowing; nodding of the head (or bowing) is itself nothing, but it expresses respect. Confucius always looked back to the King of Chou because of the power of mutuality, harmony, and unity he brought through music and li. Confucius thought about the existence of the good. He argued that beauty and goodness are the foundations or the source of music and li, that the potentiality of beauty and goodness resides in every person, but that it is up to each person to actualize, cultivate, and express that beauty and goodness.

Confucius taught that the tian dao (the heavenly principle or the heavenly way) not only gives birth to people but also continues to regenerate and sustain them. Confucius also regarded ren (love; different from another Chinese word, "ren, meaning person or human") as the fountainhead of all virtues. He exhorted all to actualize the mandate of tian by committing themselves to ren, because ren is what makes human beings human. In other words, the will of God for any community is to practice a lifestyle of love.

The narrative of Buddhism begins with Buddha’s struggle with the problem of evil and suffering in the social context of racial diversity and polytheism. Its background is that of the Hindu concepts of caste and reincarnation. In a sense, it is the story of the survival of the Indian people. Buddhism was founded by Siddhartha Gautama in India (563–482 bce). The followers of Buddha (Buddhists) preceded the development of Buddhism. Buddha himself was a revolutionary figure, in many ways like Moses and Jesus; he cared for his people, envisioned the possibility of a promised land, conceived the possibilities of incarnation, and sought an existential understanding of the meaning of life. Naturally, his ideas were rejected by many traditionalists.

Buddha believed that at the core of life lies in dukkha (Sanskrit for suffering); even in the midst of joy and ecstasy, there is the fact that this too shall pass. Every Hindu is aware of dukkha. Death lies at the end of the road of every human life, and sooner or later this awareness surfaces; that is dukkha. All joy and sorrow, like earthly life in general, are impermanent, and if one is to lead an authentic life, this fact must be faced and accepted. The fundamental cause of dukkha is tanha (Sanskrit for clinging), sometimes translated as desire. Reluctance to let go is the cause of dukkha.

Ultimate reality is conceived as sunyata (emptiness). Sunyata does not mean simply the absence of everything; rather, it has the quite positive meaning of being the Ultimate Source of everything. Its very nature is that of unspecified relatedness in process. Emptiness is another name for the Buddhist doctrine of pratitya samutpada, dependent co-origination, which means that nothing exists in self-subsisting isolation; rather, everything is ultimately a web of relationships. This key Buddhist concept of dependent co-origination (pratitya samutpada in Sanskrit), means that all things are interrelated. Since nothing exists in isolation, all things exist as networks of interrelated connections and causes.³⁴ Out of this understanding, one seeks to be as cosmic as possible through selflessness, and to be always becoming, because everything is in a state of flux.

Once a later Buddhist philosopher was asked to explain the concept of emptiness (selfless anatman, anatta in Pali) in relation to the etiology of the cosmos. He responded that the universe comes neither from a cause, nor from a non-cause, nor from the combination of both. His point was that he did not want to give an absolute answer lest people assume an understanding of emptiness. The desire to know with certainty brings much pain.

Tanha (desire) can, in fact, be eliminated by following Gautama’s Eightfold Path (cf. the Ten Commandments or Words in Hebrew Scripture). The Eightfold Path is a series of ethical rules for thinking and acting. They are: Right Understanding, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration. The vision or goal of following the Eightfold Path is Nirvana (Sanskrit for blow out; when a candle is blown out, it enters into a state of tranquility). Nirvana basically means that tanha and the false self (Atman, self, in Sanskrit and Ata in Pali) have been blown out from the person, thus leading to the Buddhist doctrine of An-atta, or no self.

In the respective narratives, each Asian story is unique and rich. At the same time, each affirms the necessity and