A Non-exclusive Scriptural Reasoning on Christian
Wisdom from a Chinese Perspective
Jason Lam
Institute of Sino-Christian Studies, Hong
Kong
When Christian Wisdom meets Chinese
In his Confessions when Augustine was asked
�what then is time?�, he answered �If no one asks me,
I know; if I want to explain it to a questioner, I do
not know.�[i] There are not many
words which may appropriately replace the position of
�time� in the Augustinian idiom. But �wisdom� is
surely one of those. And in fact Augustine�s answer
is full of wisdom. But what then is wisdom? How could
we discern it?
Wisdom, like time, can hardly be explained and is
at once experienced by all human beings, regardless
of their regions, nations and religions. The
Christian tradition, of course, has its own view on
wisdom. In the Hebrew Bible hokhmah is
associated with skills such as metalwork, carpentry
and weaving in the Exodus community (Exod. 35-36).
The meaning can be extended to include the ability of
diviners and magicians of Egypt (Gen. 41:8; Exod.
7:11), that of Daniel to interpret dreams (Dan.
2:27), and even cleverness and cunning in general
(Proverbs). The sages in the Hebrew tradition concern
and teach about the order of creation and moral
actions through discerning everyday experiences. A
striking feature of the wisdom literature (Proverbs,
Jobs and Ecclesiastes) is the absence of typical
Israelite elements like the promises to the
patriarchs, the Exodus experience and the Sinai
covenant. Thus it is true to say that �wisdom is an
international heritage in which Israel had a
share�.[ii]
Undoubtedly wisdom is a universal category.
Analyses by people from different nations and regions
are expected to reflect a certain degree of
similarity. But where then lies the uniqueness of
Christian wisdom? Undoubtedly, it lies in the one who
is even greater than Solomon (Mt. 12:42) � Jesus the
teacher of wisdom and the incarnated wisdom. Peter K.
H. Lee, a veteran in religious dialogue in the
Chinese academia, furnished an interesting article
�Jesus Christ as Divine Wisdom�,[iii] in which he
articulated possible points of contact between
Christianity and the three prominent Chinese
religions through focusing on Jesus� words and deeds.
Although the nature of this work is introductory, it
calls forth further thought of Christian wisdom in
the Chinese context.
Firstly, Lee thinks that the rabbi Jesus is
undoubtedly an outstanding teacher of wisdom in the
eyes of Confucians. One of the many characteristics
of Jesus� teaching is his use of parables. Audiences
are not astonished by some abstract theories, but on
the contrary his choice of materials like sowing
seeds and shepherding flocks is so down-to-earth that
the masses can comprehend. Nevertheless, the
implication of these stories is at once practical and
apparently inexhaustible in different dimensions. In
addition, Confucians would be interested to know that
Jesus the storyteller is a wandering wisdom teacher
rejected by upper-class people, like Confucius.
Wisdom teachings of ethical concerns by both of them
have also been distilled by intellectuals over time,
to the point of becoming some sort of universal
principle related to �Heaven� and the human.
Therefore Lee thinks that it would not be a surprise
if some Chinese people are willing to sell all that
they have to buy the message of the kingdom (Mt.
13:44-45).
If those who transmitted the wisdom teachings of
Jesus and Confucius turned them into abstract
discourses for the educated, was this a violation of
their original intention? Thus Lee suggested that
Daoists would read Jesus� teachings in another
perspective. They would be more attracted by Jesus�
sayings like �unless you change and become like
children, you will never enter the kingdom of
heaven.� (Mt. 18:2-4) This kind of paradoxical
teaching is commonly found in Daode Jing. Just
take one example from chapter 45:
Great support seems deficient,
Employed it will not collapse;
Great buoyancy seems empty,
Utilized it will not be exhausted.
Great honesty seems corrupt,
Great skills seem incompetent,
Great orations seem inarticulate.
It is known that during the late Ming dynasty when
the Jesuits came to China, one major obstacle in
their mission was persuading the Chinese
intellectuals to accept that the Jesus whom they
worshipped was a criminal crucified by the
authorities. But the Daoist way of reading may to
some degree ease the pain of transmitting the
historical fact. Paul�s assertion �For Jews demand
signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim
Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and
foolishness to Gentiles� (1 Cor. 1:22-23) may find
audiences among Chinese in this way of reading.
In the above explication Lee has briefly
articulated two possible ways of bridging
Christianity with Confucianism and Daoism. The paths
are so far constructed on the basis of Jesus� words
and deeds � these two taken together eventually lead
to the Christian confession of Jesus� identity as the
divine wisdom incarnate. A distinctive trajectory is
sketched in the Gospel of John�s prologue and the
identity and uniqueness of Jesus is thus established.
For some, an exclusive claim follows. Lee is aware
that the concept of incarnation was developed from
the Hebrew wisdom tradition and was essential to the
development of wisdom/logos Christology. Among
prominent Chinese religions Buddhism is probably the
one which includes the most discussions of wisdom.
For example, Prajna Paramita, developed from the Four
Noble Truths, is a delicate wisdom discourse. But Lee
is frank in admitting that even the Buddhist
tradition would find incarnated wisdom a concept
incommensurable to their thinking when pressed to the
end.[iv] So, is the climax and
uniqueness of Christian wisdom in the end not
compatible with the Chinese mind? Or putting in
another way: is Christian wisdom exclusive of other
ways of religious thinking?
Where does the crucial issue lie?
Having studied in Britain for several years, I am
aware that there was once a controversial debate
related to the book The Myth of God Incarnate
in that country thirty years ago.[v] I mentioned this
because in light of the above discussion the issue
raised has not gone old. On the contrary, it is from
the writing of a Chinese theologian that incarnate
wisdom (in its strictest definition) is still
considered an obstacle for the Chinese mind. However,
in face of so many issues of religious pluralism
(conflicts) today, it seems that developing a
hospitable way of interpreting Christianity to live
in peace with other religions is one urgent duty of
theologians. But must it cost the Christian
uniqueness and identity?
Thirty years ago a wide range of important issues
lying behind the topic of incarnation were already
articulated � its logical coherency, relation to
other doctrines, scriptural evidence, the development
of creeds, doctrines and tradition, cultural
conditioning, and so on. All are related to
sophisticated discussions which we cannot even list
completely in this limited space, not to say solving
them. But being a Chinese I just want to raise a
simple question: if there is a religious doctrine
which is not commeasurable with my traditional
religio-cultural concepts, then must it be not
acceptable to me? The answer is probably �not
necessarily� even if it claims �only one man Jesus
can actually be God to humankind�. It is simply
because �whether any one man can actually be God� may
not be a matter of concern in my religio-cultural
context. The problem appears only if one claims
�since we have encountered that man, we are superior
to you.� To put it in another way: does a claim of
uniqueness (due to the formulation of incarnation)
necessarily lead to a �superior� value judgment?
The answer seems to be �no�. But it is also known
that the question will become complicated if we dig
deeper because incarnation is intertwined with the
issue of �finality�. The term needs to be taken
literally with the concern for �the end time�, which
means that how the eschaton is to be perceived is
involved in the discussion; and that is culturally
conditioned. Therefore on the one hand there are
solutions trying to provide some �fast tracks� by
renouncing the uniqueness of incarnation. Since the
conventional Christian view is culturally
conditioned, modern people living in an age of
religious pluralism have no need to take it seriously
as many may not be interested in this concept. There
exist on the other hand, of course, those who hold
closely to the traditional dogmatic position. To them
altering any conventional meaning of incarnation may
become a threat to the Christian identity, since it
is related to the one who revealed God. Therefore
moderate approaches to theology (Christology) have
emerged. Spirit Christology is one common
choice.[vi] It has the advantage of strong
scriptural ground and is capable of explaining most
features of incarnation. However, doubts still
persist for those who cling to the uniqueness of
�the� incarnation. The uniqueness and universality of
the logos/wisdom incarnated seem irreconcilable.
I am not particularly conservative in doctrinal
discussion, but �culturally conditioned� does not
look to me a good reason for rejecting any
traditional claims. Anyone at any time is �culturally
conditioned� and thus anything can simply be deprived
of its significance by this reason, regardless of its
nature as a Christian dogma or a Chinese ritual. But
the argument about �culturally conditioned� reminds
us of an important fact. The personification or
hypostatization of wisdom/logos is not a post-Easter
construction, but a concept that already existed in
the Hebrew wisdom tradition. From the Christian
perspective, we know very well the significance of
the personification of wisdom in Prov. 8, in which
wisdom is mentioned as an instrument of creation
related to God in the very beginning. Thus it is
generally agreed in contemporary scholarship that the
concept of the pre-existent Son is taken over from
this line of thought. In addition, we should pay more
attention to the tendency toward identifying wisdom,
logos and spirit in the postexilic period. For
example, The Wisdom of Solomon reads:
O God of my ancestors and Lord of mercy,
who have made all things by your word,
and by your wisdom have formed humankind
to have dominion over the creatures you have
made. (9:1-2)
Who has learned your counsel
unless you have given wisdom
and sent your spirit from on high? (9:17)
Therefore, when we turn to the New Testament, it
is not surprising that Jesus is also depicted as the
one inspired by the Spirit apart from the incarnation
account. Lk. 4:16-21 is the most obvious example when
it quotes Isa. 61:1-2 �The spirit of the Lord God is
upon me, because the Lord has anointed me�� The
narratives of Jesus� baptism, being tempted in the
wilderness, and healing and exorcism in the Synoptic
Gospels are of this kind. And even the Gospel of John
retains the picture of Jesus� anointment in river
Jordan (1:32-33; 3:34), showing that Jesus is
inspired by the Spirit. Therefore we can find that
some early apostolic fathers identified the
pre-existent Christ with the Spirit. Examples could
be found in the two letters by Clement of Rome, the
epistle of Barnabas, the epistle of Hermas, and so
on. It is one reason why Spirit Christology is an
approach often appropriated by scholars for the topic
until today.
Nevertheless, Paul did not directly identify the
pre-existent Christ with the Spirit in his letters,
and John had carefully differentiated the two types
of discourses. Thus in the New Testament, it is easy
to find direct correspondence between Christ and
logos or wisdom, but the relationship with the Spirit
is not identical somehow.[vii] Therefore in the
second century, although in the works of Tatian,
Ignatius of Antioch and Lactantius logos and spirit
seem to be interchangeable, Justin Martyr and
Athenagoras could clearly distinguish the two, and
their works became milestones in the development of
the doctrine of the Trinity. Seen in this way, if we
confuse the two ways of perceiving Jesus � being the
wisdom/logos incarnated and inspired by the Spirit �
then the uniqueness or identity of Christianity may
really be threatened, because the Trinitarian
framework for knowing the Christian God will be
blurred. In the eyes of a Chinese this is not a way
to be welcomed because it makes Christianity not
quite an interesting �other�. The genuine
characteristic of its concept of God is wiped
away.
In light of the above discussion, the key to
reconciling the universality and uniqueness of the
Christian wisdom does not lie in how the pre-existent
logos/wisdom or Spirit can be manifested in the human
Jesus, since either way can give a good explanation.
Rather, the true focus should be put on whether
the universality of the logos/wisdom can be
retained after �the� incarnation without
confusing it directly with the immanence of the
Spirit. Needless to say, dealing with this direction
is a huge task. Therefore the following explication
is unavoidably sketchy. In it, I am trying to offer a
non-exclusive scriptural reasoning of the
post-incarnated wisdom from the perspective of a
Chinese Christian.
The divine economy revisited
It is easy to talk about the general experience of
the Spirit in different religions and cultures, but
it is not quite possible to transform that of the
earthly Jesus into a universal form, since the
incarnated logos/wisdom is not omnipresent. But the
resurrected Christ can be; and the role of the
resurrection in the divine economy is often
underestimated if not ignored in developing the
discussion. Perhaps the ascension � a doctrine which
is neglected too readily in modern theology �
deserves more consideration. If incarnation is a
concretization of the universal logos/wisdom, then
ascension is the contrary � the dissolution of the
previous concretization. And the direct question
brought forth is: where is the logos/wisdom which had
once become human being after the ascension? The
standard answer is exalted �at the right hand of the
Father� according to the Bible and the creeds. For
modern people this kind of discourse is usually
categorized as �mythological� if not unintelligible,
but we must consider seriously the theological
implications.
There are two major works performed by the exalted
Christ mentioned in the New Testament: intercession
for believers (Rom. 8:34; Heb.) and judgment (Acts
10:42; 1 Cor. 5:10). It is noteworthy that these are
also carried out by the Spirit in the heart of the
believers (Rom. 8:26; John 16:8). Thus a natural
inference is that these works are cooperated by the
exalted Christ and the Spirit in the divine economy
after ascension.[viii] The beginning of
this divine cooperation can be found during the
Pentecost, when Peter quoted the prophecy of Joel in
his speech (Acts 2:17-21; Joel 2:28-32). In the past
the Spirit descended only on individual persons for a
short period of time. Its persistent presence upon
all flesh was only expected. But it truly happened at
that time � just after the trajectory of incarnation,
crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of logos/
wisdom (Acts 2:22-32). Therefore Peter ended his
speech with:
This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are
witness. Being therefore exalted at the right hand
of God, and having received from the Father the
promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this
that you both see and hear� Therefore let the
entire house of Israel know with certainty that God
has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom
you crucified. (Acts 2:32-26)
Seen in this way, the economy of the Son as
incarnated logos/wisdom in this world is a necessary
process for the universal work of the Spirit since
Pentecost. The incarnation of the logos/wisdom is
only the beginning of a long process, resurrection
and ascension seem to be the climax, but they all
belong to the preparation stages for the possibility
of a new cooperation with the Spirit in the divine
economy.
If the cross is a self-negating element to the
uniqueness of incarnation, then resurrection could be
taken as the negation to this self-negation.[ix] But the
result is not merely the pre-existent logos before
incarnation, as the resurrected body is not the same
as before � such that it can ascend to �the right
hand of God�. The consequence of this process is the
sending of the Spirit. The question in focus now
becomes: what is the essential feature in the
cooperation of the logos/wisdom and the Spirit after
ascension, such that the role of the logos/wisdom is
not diminished in the shade of the presence of the
Spirit?
James D. G. Dunn has articulated a valuable point
for our reference.[x] There is a subtle
difference between the resurrection of Christ and
that of all people at the eschaton in Paul�s
expression. That who raised Jesus from the dead is
the Spirit. But when it dwells in the human mortal
bodies, it �gives life� ( ζωοποιησει ) (Rom. 8:11)
instead of raises them up. It is interesting that in
1 Cor. 15:45 the first Adam is a �living being�
(ψυχην ζωσαν ), but the last Adam is not a
�living spirit� but a �life-giving spirit� ( πνεμα
ζωοποιουν). In fact, the New Testament
describes the Spirit as �the Spirit of Jesus� after
ascension (Acts 16:7; Rom. 8:9; Gal.4:6; Phil. 1:19;
1 Pet. 1:11). That cosmic power from the divine
origin inspired Jesus but also came through the
exalted Jesus to humankind after the Christ event.
Crucifixion, resurrection and ascension are important
stages to transform the incarnated/inspired and
resurrected Jesus into the Lord of the Spirit.
Therefore the divine wisdom/logos is still present
after ascension through the cooperation with the
Spirit. The whole process must be seen
complementarily from both spirit Christology and
incarnation Christology. It may be true that Spirit
Christology alone may produce the explanation given
above. But if the account of incarnation is ignored,
then the logos/wisdom of God may become superfluous
and the Christian faith is in danger of being reduced
to binitarianism or modalism.
According to this interpretation, the Spirit was
stamped with Christ after ascension, and the Christ
event became a basis for discerning divine revelation
in the Christian faith. This criterion of judgment is
also valid for discerning spirits since the Spirit is
the spirit of Christ. In other words, the sending of
the Spirit through the Son is of
epistemological significance for the Christian
community in the discernment of divine
revelation,[xi] rather than an
ontological limiting criterion of the presence
of the logos/wisdom after ascension. However,
although a community outside the Christian church may
retain a possibility of being immersed in the
presence of the Spirit of the post-incarnated Christ,
it still has a fundamental difference. It has not
encountered the incarnated wisdom/logos and thus
cannot recognize the divine economy articulated by
the Christian tradition. Does it mean that they are
inferior? By no means. On the contrary the Christian
recognition points paradoxically to a special kind of
�virtue� rather than a reason for boasting oneself.
Immediately after Paul affirmed that Christians
received a spirit of adoption and cried �Abba!
Father!�, he pointed out that the way to be glorified
with Christ is to suffer with him (Rom.
8:17).[xii] The concrete way of
manifesting the suffering of Christ is his cross,
which is also the link between incarnation and the
economy of the logos/wisdom and Spirit after
ascension. No one can ever identify with Christ apart
from following his way of the cross. Neither did the
Spirit of Jesus provide any fast track. Only if we
are crucified with Christ, then may he lives in us
through the Spirit (Gal. 2:19-20). Self-negation
becomes the final word and key of recognizing the
presence of Christian wisdom.
The virtue of mutual respect and
nourishment
Turning to the topic of �virtue� brought about by
the Spirit of wisdom, the Pauline and Johannine
teaching on the discernment of spirits (esp. 1 Cor.
12; 1 John) may intrigue discussion in view of
religious pluralism. This kind of teaching is a
succession of the Hebrew prophetic tradition (Deut.
13:1-5; 1 Kings 22:19-23).[xiii] Since Jesus is
recognized as the climax of the inspiration of the
prophetic spirit, the Spirit is affirmed as Jesus�
Spirit. Thus hereafter the judging criterion of the
spirit is related to Jesus. One major kind of
discernment mentioned in the New Testament is from
the fruit which a person bears. Gal. 5:22-23 includes
a standard list of �virtues�; the passage of 1 Cor.
13 on love is a development from the discussion of
prophecy; according to the Johannine writings the
presence and inspiration of the Spirit is closely
linked to �walking in the truth� (1 John 3:19-24),
and calls forth mutual love in believers such that
others may recognize their identity of the disciples
of Jesus (John 13:34-35). These phenomena of �virtue�
are obviously the work of both Christ and Spirit. But
although the ultimate standard is still related to
the likeness of Jesus, other religions may not feel
offended. This is because the discernment is mainly
according to the �virtues� manifested in the
believers. Jesus has manifested the humanity par
excellence as a perfect example. The same kind of
inspiration by the Spirit of the post-incarnated
wisdom may be repeated in other people though to
different degrees.
It is noteworthy that though Peter Lee in the
above-mentioned article cannot find a comparable
concept to incarnation in Buddhism, he directs us to
the Chinese Buddhist notion �xian shen shuo
fa�. It literally means that a sage immersed
deeply in the Buddhist tradition proclaims the truth
of Dharma in the first-person as the truth is being
present in him. Jesus was inspired by the Spirit as
described in the Gospels such that his teaching and
responses astonished Pharisees and teachers. This
looks very close to the Chinese Buddhist
understanding of the way of manifestation of the
truth. Phenomena of this kind may occur in different
religious traditions if we do not exclude the
possibility of the universal work of the
post-incarnated wisdom. In other words Christianity
does not monopolize the divine truth.
Although the concept of incarnation may appear
unique, other religions immersed in the same spirit
of wisdom may also have developed ideas equally
unique. Mutual enrichment could be achieved if we
humble ourselves to admit that we are yet perfect and
willing to learn from others. A recent example worth
to be mentioned is the 2006 Edward Cadbury Lectures
delivered by Prof. Lai Pan-chiu. His topic is on
�Experiments in Mahayana Christian Theology�. Part of
his eight speeches is a delicate explication of the
human nature of Christ through the appropriation of
The Discourses on the Awakening of Faith in
Mahayana. The Barthian idea of harmatiology and
soteriology, and the Chalcedonian formula of the two
natures of Christ, are examined through correlating
to Tathāgatagarbha thought and the relationship of
Tien-tai and Hua-yan Buddhism. It is not possible to
repeat his sophisticated analysis here,[xiv] but
this attempt shows the possibility that the wisdom of
other religions may be appropriated to illumine the
difficult teaching of Christianity. The truth is one,
illumined by the Spirit of wisdom. This is the reason
we should do theology and scriptural reasoning
hospitable to others.
When the issue of religious pluralism is to be
addressed, over-openness in theological
reconstruction is occasionally seen, such that the
uniqueness and identity of Christianity is
endangered. In the eyes of a Chinese this is not
necessary and even not welcome. In conclusion, only
if the uniqueness of Christian wisdom is emphasized
can Christians bring about a discussion hospitable to
others by contributing themselves and without
distorting themselves. A genuine wisdom reading of
Christianity and other religions can be developed for
mutual nourishment. David Ford is undoubtedly a
practitioner of this virtue of mutual respect in his
scriptural reasoning with other religious believers.
The spirit is felt by and influences those around
him. I pay tribute to his work.
ENDNOTES
[i] Augustine of Hippo,
Confessions, trans. F. J. Sheed (Indianapolis:
Hackett, 1993), 11.14.
[ii]. Ronald Murphy, �Wisdom
in the OT�, in Anchor Bible Dictionary,
922.
[iii]. Peter K. H. Lee, �Jesus
Christ as Divine Wisdom�, in Dancing with the
Dragon and the Phoenix (HK: Logos & Pneuma,
2004), 94-111.
[iv]. But Lee is not saying
that incarnation is not acceptable to the Chinese,
but incarnated wisdom a strange concept.
[v]. John Hick ed., The
Myth of God Incarnate (London: SCM, 1977); also
Michael Goulder ed., Incarnation and Myth: the
Debate Continued (London: SCM, 1979).
[vi]. E.g. Geoffrey W. H.
Lampe�s 1976 Bampton Lectures God as Spirit
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1977) became a very good case
study for the discussion in that period.
[vii] Cf. James D. G. Dunn,
The Christ and the Spirit Vol.2 - Pneumatology
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 336-337, 341.
[viii]Cf. Dunn, 338-341.
[ix] I am inspired by the
approach taken by Paul Tillich in Systematic
Theology Vol.2 (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1957), 161-162, though he underestimated the
importance of ascension.
[x]� Dunn, 155f.
[xi]� Cf. David H. Kelsey,
The Fabric of Paul Tillich�s Theology (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), 168.
[xii]� Cf. Dunn, 350-351.
[xiii]� Ibid., 348-349.
[xiv] The lectures are not
yet published, but I am grateful to Prof. Lai for
generously allowing me to read his manuscripts.
Title Page |
Archive
© 2008, Society for Scriptural
Reasoning
|
