HINDUISM ETHICS

Universal Dharma:

Nature is the most efficient and exquisite designer. From the nautilus spiral of a sea shell to the twin hemispheres of the
human brain to the glowing rings of Saturn, nature's works never cease to evoke human wonder. We usually see the
surface of nature, yet the surface is always supported by an underlying structure: the cellulose framework of a leaf, the
lipid membrane of a cell, the nuclear synthesis of the stars. Ethics is the supporting structure of Hinduism. Within its
framework of good conduct lie the joys of spiritual living and the depths of God consciousness.

Hinduism sees nature as an energy-extension of God, a continuous crystallization of His omniscient Mind into the body of
the physical cosmos. The universe's orderliness is part of an overarching divine pattern that the Hindu rishis called rita
(pronounced ri as in rip, ta as in tub). The seers psychically saw that rita is the law of being, a universal presence that
governs nature, human ethics, conduct and justice.

Rita, one of the most frequently used words in the 3,500-year-old Vedas, evolved into the watershed Hindu concept of
dharma: "an ordered and purposeful pattern." This pervasive cosmic code extends into every facet of human endeavor.
No activity or pursuit is outside of its realms-its only boundary is karma. Yet, karma itself belongs to rita.

The Vedas clearly state the connection between human conduct and the kindness or cruelty of nature. Virtuous living is
rewarded by a more intense awareness of nature's beauty, by abundant harvests and benign climate. This profound
relationship between ethical conduct-both personal and as a society-and nature repeats itself over and over in the body
of Hindu scripture. They warn how moral and religious lassitude would result in disaster, calamity and pestilence. This
century's spate of disasters and rampant, exotic diseases are a vivid reflection of the state of our collective consciousness.
The rishis counsel us that our thoughts and actions psychically contribute to the shaping of planetary nature, weather and
geological activity. One Upanishadic seer even tied the explosive percussion of thunder into his ethics teaching to a pupil:
A human, a deva and an asura (negative being) sought Brahman for advice on self-improvement. Brahman simply uttered
dha, the first syllable in three Sanskrit words meaning self-control, charity and compassion. The kind-eyed rishi then said
the thunder roll would ever remind humanity of "dha, dha, dha."

Without ethics, Hinduism would collapse under the gravity of instinctive action and selfish intellect. No Hindu could walk
the path to nobility and Godness. Indeed, Hinduism does collapse for people who neglect or refute the codes of personal,
societal and spiritual conduct our faith long ago recognized as part of the very fabric of the universe. Hinduism is not
simply a religion one is born into, but a life pattern one constantly upholds, as Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, India's brilliant scholar-
statesman, observed. The Rig Veda, mankind's oldest scripture, advises men to "think of wealth and strive to win it by rita
and by worship." The mystic Atharva Veda tells newlyweds, "Enjoy good fortune by observing rita and always bear
yourselves according to rita." When an individual chooses immorality over morality, he transgresses dharma. It is as if he
or she has suspended or dropped out of dharma. Yet the laws that Hindus know as fact still function: karma returns in full
measure what we have created by thought, word and deed. Only good conduct, grace and penance can soften the impact
of our karmic creations.

It is easy and healthy to be nostalgic about the 35-centuries-old Vedic/Agamic period, when the earth was considered
sacred and kept unpolluted, households were virtuous, commerce fair and war a last resort. The power of virtuous living
was so ingrained in Hindu culture that when Alexander the Great stabbed into India with his Greek legions (twelve
centuries after the Vedas), his generals recorded that the Hindu armies were impeccably honest. Not one act of
licentiousness marred the Hindu bivouacs. This remarkable testimony only has one counterpart in today's world: the
Hindus of Bali. So implicit is their faith in the virtues of the Ramayana and Mahabharata scriptures that crime among the
Balinese is virtually non-existent.

How far did the virtues of rita and dharma extend? One Upanishad dialogue records a king answering a rishi's question on
his kingdom's welfare, "In my kingdom there is no thief, no miser, no drunkard, no man without an altar in his home, no
ignorant person, no adulterer, much less an adulteress." The Hindu code of living includes civil, marital, spiritual and
educational concerns-all the components of enlightened society.

Our Human Duties:

Some people, who are unaware of our scriptural heritage, will say bereft of ethical guidelines. How erroneous this is may
be seen by the Hindu ethical principle that one must not cheat or harm another, even in one's dreams. Denying ethics
gives excuse to deceit and even lying to one's guru to advance in position and life. But a scan of Hindu scripture reveals
that creeds of conduct exist in the historical canons of every Hindu sect. And every great Hindu thinker, from King Janaka
to Sankara, Manikkavasagar and Jnanesvara to Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, offers primacy to ethics
as the bedrock of social and spiritual progress.
Ethics begins with the keepers of the home and family. The Vedas list five primary duties of the householder: study of and
teaching the Vedas; daily worship of the Gods through rituals; bestowing honor upon ancestors; being kind to domestic
animals; extending hospitality to guests and the impoverished.

In the Taittiriya Upanishad is given one of the most eloquent and sweet-voiced creeds. It became the traditional farewell
advice from guru to pupil: "Speak the truth. Practice dharma. Do not neglect the study of the Vedas. Do not neglect your
duties to the Gods and ancestors. Treat your mother and father as God. Treat your teacher as God. Treat your guest as
God."

Gradually an amalgam of all the counsel of the Vedas and Agamas coalesced into what became known as the Pancha Nitya
Karmas, "five constant duties."

Pancha Nitya Karmas

1. Dharma (Virtuous Living)

Proper conduct follows the laws of dharma and includes the teaching of one's favorite moral scripture, remaining celibate
until marriage, obeying sthree dharma for women and purusha dharma for men. It is goodness in thought, word and deed.

2. Upasana (Worship)

Personal worship in the home shrine includes performance of puja, sadhana, japa and religious study. Regular devotions
in the home and temple bring forth love of God and prepare the mind for the practices of meditation.

3. Utsava (Holy Days)

The observance of Hindu festivals in the home and temple, including Guru Puja days, brings deep communion with God
during highly spiritual times of the year. Utsava includes fasting and attending the temple on Fridays, the Hindu holy day.

4. Tirthayatrai (Pilgrimage)

At least once each year every Hindu must make a pilgrimage to a holy place, near or far. This is a time when all worldly
matters are set aside and God becomes the central and singular focus of life.

5. Samskaras (Sacraments)

Sacraments are special ceremonies which mark our passages in life and sanctify these cycles of experience. They include
the rites of birth, learning, marriage, death, monastic vows for monks and more.

Perhaps the most pervasive of Hindu ethical obligations are the yamas and niyamas recorded in sage Patanjali's 2,200-
year-old Yoga Sutras. Patanjali served as a codifier of yoga, not a discoverer. Therefore, the yamas and niyamas reflect
moral do's and don'ts that are old beyond reckoning. And they are leavened through Hinduism like yeast through bread.
They are found in the Kaula schools of Shaktism, the Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabhachariya and Chaitanya schools of
Vaishnavism; Siddha Siddhanta, Pratyabhijna, Lingayat and Saiva Siddhanta of Saivism; and in the Smarta Sampradaya. As
yama means "to rein" and niyama "to unleash," the yamas harness the base nature and the niyamas cultivate the high
soul nature.

Yamas/Niyamas

Yamas

1.) Ahimsa: be non-violent in thought and action, restraining arrogance and anger.

2.) Satya: refrain from lying and betraying promises and confidences, avoiding injustice.

3.) Asteya: do not steal or covet.

4.) Brahmachariya: relinquish lust and all wrongdoing, forsake drunkenness and evil company.

5.) Aparigraha: discipline desire and greed.

Niyamas

1.) Saucha: be pure in body, mind and speech.

2.) Santosha: seek contentment and serenity in life, loving your fellowman.

3.) Tapaha: perform occasional penance, tapas and sacrifice, remaining steadfast in hardship and forbearing with people.

4.) Svadhyaya: study with open mind the scriptures and books of wisdom.
5.) Isvarapranidhana: Cultivate devotion through daily worship and meditation, giving charitably without thought of
reward.

Ahimsa/Vegetarianism:

If the entirety of Hindu thought was stored in a computer and a data search was done for key concepts, one would surface
that is primary among ethics: ahimsa, "non-violence." From ahimsa Hinduism imparted to the world the practice of
vegetarianism. When Hinduism and Buddhism migrated out of India, much of Asia became vegetarian. The American Dietic
Association states, "Most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets."

Hindus are vegetarian because they revere all animal/fish bodies as vehicles for various astral and soul beings, and know
that diet can either heighten or lower one's consciousness. Exposure to Christian schooling by many Hindus has distorted
this paramount knowledge. Hindu scripture speaks clearly and forcefully on vegetarianism. In the ancient Rig Veda, we
read: "O' vegetable, be succulent, wholesome, strengthening; and thus, body, be fully grown." The Yajur Veda summarily
dictates: "Do not injure the beings living on the earth, in the air and in the water." The beautiful Tirukural, a widely-read
2,000-year-old masterpiece of ethics, speaks of conscience: "When a man realizes that meat is the butchered flesh of
another creature, he must abstain from eating it." The Manu Samhita advises: "Having well considered the origin of flesh
and the cruelty of fettering and slaying of corporeal beings, let one entirely abstain from eating flesh," and "When the diet
is pure, the mind and heart are pure." In the yoga-infused verses of the Tirumantiram, warning is given of how meat-eating
holds the mind in gross, adharmic states: "The ignoble ones who eat flesh, death's agents bind them fast and push them
quick into the fiery jaws of Narakaloka [lower consciousness]."

Vegetarianism today is practiced by nearly a billion people, including 10 million Americans and 1.6 million Britons. Many
people become vegetarian by conscience. European geniuses-Leonardo Da Vinci, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein-were
vegetarian by conscience. As the health and ecological sciences have recently discovered, vegetarianism is man's best and
natural diet.

Physiology: The intestinal length of carnivores (meat-eating animals) is three times the body length to allow for quick
removal of flesh wastes that putrefy in the intestines. Man's intestine length, like other herbivores, is six times his body
length and is designed for digesting vegetables, grains and fruits. Carnivores don't chew their food. Herbivores, including
man, chew their food and have a similar pH value in their saliva. Our digestive system is closest to fruit-eating primates.

Health: The meat industry injects and feeds livestock with some 2,700 drugs to sustain and fatten them. Those drugs are
passed to the meat-eater. Meat itself is directly linked to arterial and heart disease and cancer, man's major killers. Meat
urea stiffens human joints. Powerful hormonal secretions are released by livestock at the moment of slaughter. These
are absorbed by meat-eaters and directly affect their mental and emotional tranquility. Conversely, medical evidence
demonstrates that a balanced vegetarian diet provides all the right kinds of protein, minerals, amino acids and nutrients
that the body requires. In 1961, the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association stated that 97% of heart
disease can be prevented by vegetarianism. Current studies show the vegetarian diet as cancer-preventative, and that
vegetable protein and fiber develop low cholesterol levels. Dr. Fischer of Yale University concluded that vegetarians
perform 200% better than meat-eaters. Brussels University proved vegetarians perform physical tests 2-3 times longer
than non-vegetarians and recover from fatigue five times faster.

Protein: The World Health Organization states that 45 grams of protein eaten per day is ideal for tissue regeneration.
This is easily acquired through grains, legumes, vegetables and dairy products. Meat-eaters ingest over 100 grams, an
unhealthy overdose. Meat protein is poor quality. The Max Planck Institute reported that vegetables, fruits, seeds, nuts
and grains are excellent sources of complete proteins and are easier to metabolize.

Earth Ecology: One quarter of the world's vital rain forests have been destroyed to create pasture for beef cattle.
Deforestation is changing global weather and could lead to polar melting, desertification of the major food-producing
regions and oxygen reduction. Meat-eating is the engine behind this environmental destruction. The rain forests could
be gone early in the 21st century. Further, beef cattle are consuming 85-90% of the Western world's grain. The average
meat-eater uses five times the food resources of a vegetarian because cattle require fifteen pounds of vegetable protein
for every pound of flesh protein. An acre of grain produces five times as much protein as that of beef pasture; legumes
and leafy vegetables from ten to fifteen times as much. The world hunger problem would be vastly improved by
converting all pasture land to farming use.

In conclusion, from the engulfing expanse of the cosmos to the ahimsa practice of vegetarianism, the Hindu sees
rita/dharma everywhere. We are bound scripturally and by conscience to practice Hindu ethics.

Source: Hinduism Today

CONFUCIANISM: CONFUCIUS’ MORAL PHILOSOPHY

Confucius is one of the most influential thinkers of Eastern philosophy and a representative of Eastern culture. Confucius,
together with Socrates, Gautama Buddha, and Jesus Christ were regarded by Jaspers as the four paradigmatic individuals,
owing to their extended influence through two millennia and their extraordinary importance for all philosophy. Ancient
Chinese medical ethics was established on the foundation of Confucian ethics whose central theme is humaneness (jen)
and whose distinctive features are deontology and virtue ethics. The traditional ethical standards require that Chinese
physicians reach the moral standard of an ideal Confucian person or chun-tzu, the superior man.5 It will be interesting to
compare the four principles approach to bioethics with the Confucius’ ethics and investigate the intercultural applicability
of the four principles method.

The key concepts of Confucius’ moral philosophy can be concisely delineated as follows:

• The merging of self-cultivation and social-political reform. Confucius believed that political order must be
established on social order, and social order must come from individual cultivation. Therefore, he said, “From the
Son of Heaven down to the mass of the people, the cultivation of the self is the foundation of everything besides.”
“Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were
regulated. Their families being regulated, their States were rightly governed. Their States being rightly governed,
the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy.”

• The pursuit of dao. Dao generally means road or path, method, way, doctrine, the truth, or moral teachings. It
has been interpreted as the supreme metaphysical force that exists everywhere in everything and dominates the
exercise and function of all things in the universe, as well as the universal moral order and the ideal status of moral
achievement for man to define, pursue, and accomplish. According to Schwartz, it is “an all encompassing state
of affairs embracing the ‘outer’ socio-political order and the ‘inner’ moral life of the individual”. Humankind should
seek the comprehension and pursuit of life in accordance with dao. Therefore Confucius said, “What Heaven
imparts to man is called human nature. To follow our nature is called the dao. Cultivating the dao is called
education”. “If a man in the morning hears the dao; he may die in the evening without regret!” Mencius explained,
“Humanity (jen) is the distinguishing characteristic of man. When embodied in man’s conduct, it is the dao.”

• The ethical system of jen(humaneness)-yi (righteousness)-li (rules of propriety). Confucius’ teachings of jen, yi,
and li comprise the most fundamental thought and principles in Confucius’ ethics. Jen has been translated as love,
benevolence, humanity, human heartedness, virtue, perfect virtue, true manhood, and humaneness; it also
signifies the ideal relationship between people. Yi generally means righteousness, appropriateness, obligation,
and justice, and is “the principle of setting things right and proper”. Li indicates ceremony, rites, decorum,
courtesy, etiquette, rules of propriety, and at first represents the ceremonial order, but in the full sense connotes
the sociopolitical order.9Jen (humaneness) and yi (righteousness) could be said to be the inner core of morality
that motivates and guides man to pursue the dao, and li (rules of propriety) could be described as the outer form
and standard of morality that is concrete for man to abide by in the context of human society.

• The moral ideal of chun-tze (the superior man or gentlemen).Chun-tze is the man of high moral achievement
who constantly tries to improve and cultivate himself to achieve various stages of perfection. The moral character
of Chun-tze demonstrates both the qualities of “an autonomous person”, which includes self activation, self
determination, self reliance, and self cultivation, and “a relational person” who is committed to other-regarding
morality and altruism. The ultimate concern and self realisation of a Confucian ideal person consists in giving
security and peace to people, yet in order to achieve this goal one must become a chun-tze first, which requires
incessant moral self cultivation.

• The wu-lun (five basic human relationships). Confucius stresses family values and filial piety through articulating
the five basic human relationships “which govern the relationship between ruler and minister, between father
and son, between husband and wife, between elder and younger brothers, and those in the intercourse between
friends”.10 The wu-lun gave form to Chinese society and social institutions from government down to
interpersonal transactions and has far reaching influence on the East Asian, Confucian ethics based
cultures.8 Confucius believes good family breeding naturally leads to good social intercourse. Therefore: “A
superior man is devoted to the root. When the root is firmly established, the moral law (dao) will grow. Filial piety
(shaw) and brotherly respect (ti) are the root of humanity (jen).”10

In addition to these fundamental concepts, it is important to recognise that Confucius’ ethics were developed in an epoch
of chaos aiming at restoring social order and promoting general welfare through everyone’s moral self-cultivation and
fulfilling one’s own responsibilities. Therefore, apart from the strong deontological and virtue ethics characteristics,
Confucius inevitably adopted a consequentialist approach in many sociopolitical contexts in order to pursue public
interest. Confucius’ morality, with its cardinal claims of “cultivating oneself so as to bring peace and prosperity for
people”10 and “sagely within and kingly without”, professes a sense of solidarity and selflessness that communitarians
advocate. It is then necessary to resort to the “principle of utility” because calculating what might contribute most to the
public interest becomes a fundamental moral value. Based on this basic understanding of Confucian moral values, we now
examine the four bioethical principles and their relevance to Confucian ethics.

RESPECT FOR AUTONOMY

As Confucius’ ethics is compared to the Western theories of the principle of respect for autonomy, one may find that
among the many virtues which Confucius requires of a chun-tze, the morally ideal person, the virtues of “hsin”
(faithfulness, truthfulness), “gong” (respectfulness), and “jing” (reverence) are virtues which correspond to the principle
of respect for autonomy and its derivative rules of veracity and fidelity. Confucius’ teaching emphasises the importance
of “free will” and “self legislation” in one’s pursuit of humaneness (jen), and questions the efficacy of using law and
punishment in rectifying people’s conduct. He said: “Lead the people with governmental measures and regulate them by
law and punishment, and they will avoid wrong-doing but will have no sense of honour and shame. Lead them with virtue
and regulate them by the rules of propriety (li), and they will have a sense of shame and, moreover, set themselves right.”
Confucius’ version of the golden rule, the principle of jen (humaneness), connotes the love and respect one should have
towards fellow people. On the other hand, Confucius’ concepts of chun-tze (the superior man), which illustrates the
characteristics of self activation, self cultivation, self reflection, self reliance, and moral authenticity, not only fully
expresses the qualities of an autonomous person but also displays the value and dignity of being an individual: “to be an
end of oneself, not a means of others”. In effect, the aim of Confucius’ moral education is for the cultivating of an
autonomous person.

Nevertheless, further investigation into the conceptions concerning “persons” reveals interesting but important
differences. I have argued in another paper that the Western conceptions of personhood—to which modern bioethicists
often refer—and on which the principle of respect for autonomy relies, basically emphasise the standards of rationality
and self consciousness of the moral agent who is hence entitled to liberty and the right to choose for himself. The
Confucian personhood might embrace such ideas with little difficulty but additionally advocates a strong relational
perspective, the “horizontal dimension” of being persons. Specifically, personhood in the Confucian sense comprises not
merely the moral faculties of rationality and self consciousness one is born with, but a moral accomplishment for one to
achieve in a cultural-historical tradition stressing the individual’s relationships with and altruistic responsibility towards
others. “When a person exercises autonomy, he is not choosing in a context-free, conceptual vacuum manner but
considers himself a person-in-relation with many roles to play and responsibilities to take in accordance with different
relationships. A person cannot become fully human without fulfilling his role-specified relation-oriented responsibilities;
the Confucius personhood is to be realised through interpersonal transactions in human society.”

BENEFICENCE AND NON-MALEFICENCE

The principles of beneficence and non-maleficence are here considered as a conjoined moral obligation to be compared
with Confucius’ principle of jen (humaneness) and concept of chun-tze (the superior man). Confucius’ principle
of jen purports “love” and the “golden rule”. It is also expounded through the idea of chung (conscientiousness): “establish
one’s own character” and shu (reciprocity): “also establish the character of others”. This echoes a reciprocity based
justification for beneficence (which includes non-maleficence): “I received benefits from others therefore in return I
promoted their welfare.” Confucius professed his principle of jen in both negative form: “not to do to others what you do
not want them to do to you”, and positive form: “wishing to establish one’s own character, seeks also to establish others;
wishing to be prominent oneself, also helps other to be prominent”. These moral doctrines display a reciprocity based
moral justification and expressly and respectively corresponded to the principle of non-maleficence and the principle of
beneficence. Besides, Confucius made the “negative form” of the golden rule, shu (reciprocity), the minimal standard for
moral agents, “the one word to serve as guiding principle for conduct throughout life”, because non-maleficence is a
perfect duty that everyone should not transgress, while beneficence is a moral ideal to which a chun-tze is committed.

However, in Confucius’ theory when jen pronounces love, it has as its origin biological bond and starts from the intimate
affection and respect learnt and shared in the family. This love then endeavours to extend towards other people, therefore
it is neither “partial” nor “universal” but “gradational”. The natural gradational pattern of love such as a mother’s love
and care for her own children before looking after others’ children is of the most unexceptional human nature, a
“partiality” that is “universally” valid. In considering doing good or being beneficent to others without ignoring the fact
that everyone has but limited resources, paying “attention to the scope” and adapting a pragmatic, progressive, and
stepwise approach based on “gradational love” is sensible. Confucius’ formula professes “Treat with respect the elders in
my family, and then extend that respect to include the elders in other families. Treat with tenderness the young in my
own family, and then extend that tenderness to include the young in other families.” This is to avoid aiming too high for
the ethical idealism of universal love of “caring for strangers as dearly as we care for our parents”, but eventually ending
up “treating our dearly beloved as apathetically as we treat passers-by”. After all, the Confucian utopia is the realisation
of a universal philanthropy starting from intimate love and respect shared within family then progressing step by step
toward clan, community, country, and the world. The approach of gradational love in effect gives the principle of
beneficence a sensible, ethical, and practical strategy for realising it.
Furthermore, the Confucian viewpoints of beneficence and non-maleficence can be interpreted by his moral ideal of
people: the concepts of chun-tze. Chun-tze, as a relational being, through his rational self-consciousness and reflection,
embraced a deep moral concern and altruistic commitment towards others and society. He values his relatedness,
mutuality, and communion with others more than his own separateness, individuality, and distinctiveness. As Hansen has
insightfully pointed out, “A Western theory might portray the world as made up of particulars, whereas Chinese
philosophy regarded objects as parts carved out of a large, basic whole.” In the Confucian view, the “selfhood” is the
centre of relations but its boundary with others is not always clear. The realm of selfhood may include family, community,
country, and the world; moreover, the self seeks in his lifetime to be in unity with the dao (the universal moral order) thus
realises his true selfhood. A chun-tze’s missions in summation, “cultivating oneself so as to give all people security and
peace”, should therefore be understood not only as a process of broadening oneself to embody an ever expanding circle
of human relatedness, but also a course of deepening in self transformation through genuine communion with others.

It becomes clear that, based on the unique sense of Confucian selfhood and the relational personhood, to describe the
principles of beneficence and non-maleficence as an external moral duty added unto one or a utilitarian endeavour to
create the best utility for all would be imprecise. Altruism is intrinsic, immanent, and constituent to what counts as a
Confucian ideal person. It is through altruism one realises one’s true manhood and achieves humanity (jen).

JUSTICE

Justice in Confucius’ ethics can be interpreted by the principle of yi (meaning righteousness, appropriateness, and justice).
When yi purports “righteousness”, it refers to the “substance” or “standard” of morality signifying “the right things to do
and doing the things right”. Confucius’ theory of “rectification of names”, which denotes that everyone should rightly fulfil
one’s role attached responsibilities and thus live up to their “names”, is similar to Socrates’ idea of state of justice: every
class does its own job and minds its own business. Confucius’ concept of the “dao of righteousness” emphasises a person’s
insistence upon “the righteous way” (morality) should never be compromised under any circumstances—poor or rich,
honoured or humble, prosperous or adverse.

When yi indicates “appropriateness”, it asserts the art of applying moral rules with flexibility (chuan), searching to attain
due Mean (chung-yung) out of competing or contradictory moral values, and respecting and abiding by the good social
norms (li, the rules of propriety). Merely holding fast to moral rules without considering their appropriate implications
could make moral life a burden or even a disaster, because moral rules frequently conflict with each other and exceptional
circumstances are simply unavoidable. Confucius’ notions of chuan (flexibility) and chung-yung (the doctrine of the
Mean), when compared to Beauchamp and Childress’ theories of “specifying” moral principles according to the particular
contexts, “balancing and overriding” the conflicting moral principles, and using “reflective equilibrium”2 to reach a
coherence between moral theories and practices, display a great resemblance and deserve further investigation.

When yi denotes “justice” in Confucius’ ethics, it is concerned with regulating the selfish desires and limiting the endless
pursuit of self profit. It represents the judging criterion when one is in the face of “gaining profit”—to take when it is just
to do so, therefore it implies a fair acquisition and distribution of resources. When there are conflicts between public
interest and self interest, individual benefits and moral principles, yi as justice maintains the prioritisation of: first, justice;
second, profit (first, the public interest; second, the self interest) according to Confucius.

After examining the three meanings of yi, I believe that there is no definite material principle of justice in Confucius’ ethics.
When yi indicates righteousness and appropriateness, it advocates both the primacy of morality and the importance of
applying moral rules with flexibility. When yi signifies justice, it purports vaguely the ideas of “desert” therefore referring
to distributive justice. So it is necessary to examine from a broader basis what values in Confucius’ ethics might influence
the specification and application of the principle of justice.

I propose that the “five basic human relationships (wu-lun)” in Confucius’ theory were constructed in hierarchical
patterns.17 The relative positions between father and son, husband and wife, old and young, and ruler and minister were
graded as the higher, authoritative side and the lower, subordinate side; they were obviously unequal. This might have its
cultural, historical background with the aim of restoring and maintaining social order. Yet if mutual respect and each
party’s fulfilling its role specified responsibility can not be established, the unequal status coming from the hierarchy might
cause the rights and autonomy of the lower, subordinate sides to be coerced or exploited by the higher, authoritative
sides therefore undermines justice.

On the other hand, the “gradational love” and the “role specified, relation-oriented ethics” require the exhibition of
unequal love and respect towards different subjects according to the psychological distance, blood ties, or relationships,
which could be reckoned as an application of “unequals should be treated unequally”. However, its misuse might lead to
people treating their loved ones preferentially with public resources, being partial in distributing communal or collective
assets to benefit their families or acquaintances regardless of the fair procedures, and consequently resulting in clanism
and nepotism. Using “relation” or “renqing” (human affection or relation) to influence the communal resources allocation
could also be problematic as it might lead to coercion, corruption, or partiality, thus jeopardising social justice. Therefore,
the gradational love and relational based approach to justice should be modulated by the principle of yi, and its application
should be limited within a non-public scope, so that justice will not be impaired by selfish reasons.

Justice in a sense is about adjudicating competing legitimate claims or conflicting moral values. However, filial piety
seemed to have a special place—even a priority—in Confucius’ ethics when it clashed with other moral duties or principles.
Two stories from Confucian Classics reveal that legal justice or retributive justice had no absolute power in Confucius’ and
Mencius’ ethical theories that social justice might sometimes have to be compromised with or even be overruled by filial
piety and family values. Firstly, it is recorded in the Confucian Analects: The Duke of She told Confucius, “In my country
there is an upright man named Kung. When his father stole a sheep, he bore witness against him”. Confucius said, “The
upright men in my community are different from this. The father conceals the misconduct of the son and the son conceals
the misconduct of the father. Uprightness is to be found in this.” Secondly, it is described in Mencius: Tao Ying asked,
saying, “Shun being sovereign, and Kao-yao chief minister of justice, if Ku-sau [Shun’s father] had murdered a man, what
would have been done in the case?” Mencius said, “Kao-yao would simply have apprehended him”. “But would not Shun
have forbidden such a thing?” “Indeed, how could Shun have forbidden it? Kao-yao had received the law from a proper
source.” “In that case what would Shun have done?” “Shun would have regarded abandoning the kingdom as throwing
away a worn-out sandal. He would privately have taken his father on his back, and retired into concealment, living
somewhere along the seacoast. There he would have been all his life, cheerful and happy, forgetting the kingdom.”

Confucius’ ethics basically asserts that filial piety and fraternal love are the roots of humaneness, the foundation and origin
of human morality; all social goods are extensions of family ethics. Therefore, although Confucius professes the non-
negotiability of holding fast to justice, when filial piety and justice conflict, he is reluctant to harm the roots in order to
preserve the branches. Trying both to comply with filial piety to one’s parents and to discharge one’s various moral duties
toward others at the same time often incurs tension or ethical dilemmas for which no easy solutions are available. In
Confucius’ ethics as well as in a traditional Chinese society, reconciling justice in preserving the virtue of filial piety is a
peculiar moral value that should not be neglected and should be examined.

CONCEPT, CONCEPTIONS, AND APPLICATION

From the foregoing review, the conclusions of this paper are clear. The concepts of respect for autonomy, beneficence,
non-maleficence, and justice and the moral values of these four prima facie principles have been expressly identified in
Confucius’ ethics. It would be plausible to say that Confucius’ moral philosophy,
professing jen (humaneness), yi (righteousness, appropriateness, justice), li (rule of propriety), and chun-tze (the self
cultivated, autonomous man committed to altruism), is compatible with and even perhaps asserts the bioethical principles
of respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. In other words, what Beauchamp and Childress have
advanced as four prima facie moral obligations adopted from the “considered judgements” of “common morality” have
literally been existent and discernible in Confucius’ ethics for the past 2500 years. In this paper I have verified their
presentations in Confucius’ ethics, and reconstructed and interpreted Confucius’ ethics in the light of the Western theories
of the four bioethical principles. To say that people from the Confucian ethics-based societies will find little difficulty in
committing themselves to these four prima facie moral obligations is basically sustainable through this paper’s
examination.

Although Confucius’ ethics share the same “concepts” of the four principles, their “conceptions” of the four principles are
different in certain aspects. By Lindey’s definition “a conception is a particular interpretation or analysis of a concept” and
“an adequate conception must fall within the scope of the basic concept”. Taking Herodotus’ famous story of Darius, the
ancient Persian king, who found that the Callatians (an Indian tribe) customarily ate the bodies of their dead fathers, while
Greeks practised cremation and burned the bodies of their fathers when they died. Darius then summoned some Callatians
and some Greeks and asked them to practice each other’s customs—the Greeks to eat their dead fathers and the Callatians
to burn theirs. Both of them were horrified by the idea and replied that not at any price could Darius make them do such
a dreadful thing. Cultural relativists might use such a story to illustrate that different cultures have different moral codes
and claimed “custom is king”, but it appears perfectly clear to the author that although the rites or social practices—the
conceptions of how to treat dead fathers with respect—might differ greatly, the concept of respecting the deceased
fathers remains the same. Burning a national flag was considered an insult to the state and a crime forbidden in some
countries years ago, but it was later interpreted as an expression of “freedom of speech” which is a protected right by the
Constitution of the United State. Therefore, one “concept” may have many different “conceptions” as it is interpreted and
modulated in various contexts; so similarly with the concepts of the four prima facie moral principles which may have
many diverse but adequate conceptions.

Beauchamp and Childress’ principles oriented framework has defined the four principles to be prima facie binding yet
without a priori ranking. It must be through “specification”, “balancing and overriding” of the principles that one arrives
at coherent and justifiable answers to ethical dilemmas when the principles come into conflict. However, it is conceivable
that cultural factors or social practices could hugely influence these processes. In other words, the conceptions of a certain
concept, more than the concept itself, play the cardinal roles in influencing the actual application, whereas a concept
without specification is merely an abstract guidance.
CONCLUDING REMARKS

I have argued that the two basic elements of a Confucian “person” encapsulated in the moral ideal of chun-tze are crucial
in understanding the “conceptions” of respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice in both Confucius’
ethics and their application in a Confucian culture based society. Firstly, chun-tze is an “autonomous person” who is
rational, self conscious, and commits himself to moral self cultivation. Secondly, chun-tze is a “relational person” who
appreciates filial piety, gradational love, and role specified, relation oriented ethics, and realises altruism in interpersonal
transactions.12 This two dimensional concern, which includes the vertical dimension (the autonomous, self cultivating one)
and the horizontal dimension (the relational, altruistic one), runs through the construction of a chun-tze’s moral life, and
influences how these four principles will be put into practice. Moreover, taking into account many traditional cultural
characterisations and existing social practices, “relational personhood” clearly might have a strong influence in a Chinese
culture based context, and thus gives the “conceptions” or interpretation of the four principles a tendency towards
“relational orientation”.

Accordingly, the Confucian “conceptions” of the four prima facie principles can plausibly echo and buttress the
communitarian and feminist theses which endorse the common good, duty to others and society, the person-in-relation,
and the ethics of care. It also tends to grant beneficence a favourable position that at the same time might diminish the
respect for individual rights and autonomy when moral principles clash. This is different from the Western liberal
viewpoints, which have more and more argued for the centrality, priority, and the stance of “first among equals” of the
principle of respect for autonomy, that constitutes an interesting contrast. As Callahan points out: “Autonomy is, then de
facto given a place of honour because the thrust of individualism, whether from the egalitarian left or the market oriented
right, is to give people maximum liberty in devising their own lives and values.” Nevertheless, if the Confucian “doctrine
of Mean (chung-yung) and a balanced “two dimensional personhood” approach are properly employed, this would require
both theorists and clinicians, who are facing medical ethical dilemmas, to attain due mean out of competing or
contradictory moral principles, thus preventing either “giving beneficence a priority” or “asserting autonomy must
triumph”.

Although bioethical principles and methods have been developed for action guidance and problem solving, tough moral
decisions in medical practice, that may have not simple or direct solutions, still challenge physicians, patients, and their
families every day. This reminds us the complexity of medical ethical decisions and the risks healthcare professionals
undertake in confronting them. Further effort from moral philosophers in articulating and constructing comprehensive
and applicable theoretical frameworks for bioethics discourse is still much needed. In this process, philosophical heritage
from non-Western, non-English speaking cultures might have an important contribution to make. Confucius’ moral
philosophy of antiquity provides unique ideas and insightful understanding of person, humanity, interpersonal
relationships, and moral community, which under careful examination and critical transformation can become useful
resources for further deliberation. On the other hand, the four modern bioethical principles, compared with and
explicated through Confucius’ moral teachings, have become compatible with and hence applicable in the Confucian
cultured based, East Asian societies. Modern medical professionalism has adopted these principles and reasserted that
medicine is a moral career, not a profit-making business. This chimes with the ancient Confucian medical morality, which
requires doctors of “the heart of humaneness and the arts of humaneness” and regards practicing medicine equal to
realizing humaneness.

Source: D F-C Tsai, BMJ Journals

CHRISTIAN ETHICS

BASIC DOCTRINES (PART 1)

The Gospel Is the Power of God unto Salvation

(John Piper, Desiring God.org Articles)

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew
first and also to the Greek.

Be Shamed, but Not Ashamed

Last week I focused on the first words of Romans 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel.” I tried to make
plain that there is a difference between being shamed for the gospel and being ashamed of the gospel. If you
are a faithful Christian, you will be shamed for the gospel. That is, you will be the target of shaming behavior. But
there is a very good reason why you do not have to be ashamed when that happens.

I compared Paul’s reason with Jesus’s reason for not being ashamed when they were shamed for the gospel.
Hebrews 12:2 says, “For the joy that was set before him [Jesus] endured the cross, despising the shame.” The
shaming behavior against Jesus was as ugly and cruel and demeaning as it gets. But instead of letting the
shame eat him up, or make him ashamed, or turn him into someone as weak and ugly as his shamers, he fixed
his heart on the joy set before him.

In other words, the assured triumph of his death and resurrection to save sinners and vindicate his
righteousness and bring him home to God kept him from being ashamed or disobedient. When he was tempted
to feel ashamed, he focused his mind on the joy set before him. He endured short -term pain because of long-
term gain.

And Paul was like that. He said, “I am not ashamed of the gospel,” I am not ashamed of the message and the
reality of Christ crucified for sinners and raised with power and saving all who trust in him. Why not? Because
“[the gospel] is the power of God for [or unto] salvation to everyone who believes.” This is the same way that
Jesus overcame feelings of shame when he was shamed for the gospel. Jesus looked to the joyful triumph of his
cross and resurrection. Paul looked to the joyful triumph of the gospel in eternal salvation.

“The gospel alone brings forgiven sinners to final, everlasting joy.”

We do not avoid feelings of shame by altering the gospel to make it popular and inoffensive (see 1 Corinthians
1:18). We avoid feelings of shame by remembering that the gospel is going to be vindicated in the end. We
remind ourselves that the gospel alone brings forgiven sinners to final, everlasting joy.

Nothing in the world can do this except the gospel of Jesus Christ. Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam — they
do not have a Savior who can solve the problem of separation from a holy God through sin, and offer sinners
hope by grace and not works. Only one message saves sinners and brings them safely into the presence of
God: the gospel of Jesus Christ. It alone is the power of God unto salvation.

Therefore, Paul would say — Jesus himself would say — suffer, yes. Be misunderstood, yes. Be shamed, yes.
But do not be ashamed. Because the message of God’s saving work in Christ is the only final triumphant
message in the world. Short-term pain. Long-term gain. For the joy set before you, for the salvation that only the
gospel can gain, take up your cross, follow Jesus and despise the shame.

What Is This Salvation?

Today, I want to dwell on the words, “for it [the gospel] is the power of God for salvation to everyone who
believes.” And I will take up only one question: What is this salvation that the gospel so powerfully brings about?
We will see in answering this how our faith relates to the gospel in bringing about our salvation.

There are other crucial questions, especially the question of how the gospel becomes the power to save. But
that is the point of verse 17, which we will plan to take up on August 9th. “The gospel . . . is the power of God
[unto] salvation . . . for [because] in it the righteousness of God is rev ealed from faith for faith” — that’s why the
gospel is the power of God to salvation.

So, the question today is: What is this salvation that the gospel so powerfully brings about? “The gospel is the
power of God for [unto] salvation.” Does this mean, “The gospel is the power of God to win converts”? Now, I do
think that is true, but I don’t think that is what this statement means.

The reason I think it is true that the gospel converts people — brings them to faith and repentance — is because
Romans 10:17 says, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” And 1 Peter 1:23–
25 says, “You have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding
word of God. . . . And this word is the good news that was preached to you.” So, it is true that we are born of
God and converted by means of hearing the powerful word of God, the gospel.

And it’s true that this conversion is called “salvation” in the New Testament. For example, Ephesians 2:8 –9: “For
by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of
works, so that no one may boast.” So, conversion to Christ by faith is called “being saved.”

If you are a believer in Christ this morning, you “have been saved.” The book of Romans should be precious
beyond words to you, because, like no other book in the Bible, it unfolds for you what has already happened in
God’s saving you — your election, your predestination, your calling, your justification, your sanctification, and the
obedience of faith. These are all part of the salvation that is already true of you through faith.

The Final Triumph of the Gospel

But what is the salvation that Paul has in mind in Romans 1:16 when he says, “For [the gospel] is the power of
God for salvation to everyone who believes”? I think he has in mind not primarily the first event of conversion,
but primarily the final triumph of the gospel in bringing believers to eternal safety and joy in the presence of a
holy and glorious God. There are four reasons why I think this is what he means. Looking at these reasons is the
best way to unpack the meaning of the verse.

1. The power of the gospel is what frees us from being ashamed of the gospel.

The first reason is that the power of the gospel to bring about salvation is what frees us from being ashamed of
the gospel. “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation.” But if this meant only that
the gospel has the power to make converts, why would that solve the shame problem? Lots of religions make
converts. Lots of different religious and secular movements win people over to their faith. When Paul said that
the gospel has such a powerful effect that you don’t have to be ashamed of it, did he simply m ean that it does
what other religions do: Win converts? I don’t think so.

“The gospel doesn’t just make converts — it saves those converts.”

Jesus triumphed over shame by looking at the future joy that was set before him as he died. I think this is what
Paul, as well, has in mind in Romans 1:16. You don’t have to be ashamed of the gospel because it doesn’t just
make converts — it saves those converts utterly. It brings them to final safety and ever-increasing joy in the
presence of a glorious and holy God forever and ever. This is what makes us bold with the gospel — not that it
can make converts; any religion can do that — but that it is the only truth in the world that can really save people
forever and bring them to everlasting joy with God.

2. Salvation is future-oriented elsewhere in Paul and the New Testament.

The second reason I think “salvation” in verse 16 refers to the final triumph of the gospel in bringing believers to
eternal safety and joy in the presence of a holy and glorious God is that the phrase “for salvation” or “unto
salvation” has this future-oriented meaning elsewhere in Paul and other New Testament writers.

For example, in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 Paul says, “God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved [or for salvation],
through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” Now, here, salvation is not just what happens at
conversion, which leads to sanctification, but salvation is what comes later “through sanctification” and is in the
future. In other words, salvation is the future triumph that brings the saint into God’s presence with everlasting
joy.

Or again, in 2 Corinthians 7:10, Paul speaks to Christians who are already converted and saved, but need fresh
repentance for their sins: “Godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation, whereas worldly grief
produces death.” Here again “to salvation” refers not to conversion, but to the final, future state of safety and joy
in the presence of God (see also 2 Timothy 3:15).

Similarly, Hebrews 9:28 says, “Christ . . . will appear a second time . . . to save [or for salvation to] those who
are eagerly waiting for him.” This final, complete salvation happens at the second coming. First Peter 1:5 says,
“[Believers] are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” This salvation
is “ready to be revealed in the last time.” It is not conversion. It is the last great work of God to rescue us and
bring us to safety and joy in his presence forever.

In Romans 5:9–10, Paul talks about this future salvation as rescue from the final wrath of God: “Since, therefore,
we have now been justified by his blood [that’s the present reality of salvation!], much more shall we be saved by
him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son
[here again is the present reality of salvation!], much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his
life.” In other words, the full experience of salvation, in Paul’s thinking, is still future. Romans 13:11: “Salvation is
nearer to us now than when we first believed.”
So, when Paul says in Romans 1:16 that “[the gospel] is the power of God for salvation,” I take him to mean that
the gospel is the only message in the world that powerfully can bring a person not just to conversion, but to
everlasting safety and joy in the presence of a holy and glorious God.

3. Ongoing belief is the condition for this salvation.

The third reason I think “salvation” in Romans 1:16 is the final triumph of the gospel in br inging believers to
eternal safety and joy in the presence of a holy and glorious God is that ongoing belief is the condition for this
salvation. Notice that verse 16 does not say, “The gospel is the power of God to bring about faith and salvation.”
It says, “The gospel . . . is the power of God for [unto] salvation to everyone who is believing [present tense in
Greek, signifying continuous action].”

In other words, Paul’s point here is not that the power of the gospel creates faith, but that, for those who have
faith, the gospel brings about salvation. So, the point is not that the gospel is the power for conversion to faith.
The point is that the gospel is the power to bring about future salvation through a life of faith.

The tense of the verb “believe” here is crucial. It signifies ongoing action, not just the first act of faith when you
were converted: “The gospel . . . is the power of God for salvation to everyone who is believing” — who goes on
believing. It’s the same as 1 Corinthians 15:1–2, where Paul says, “I preached to you [the gospel], which you
received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you —
unless you believed in vain.” Faith that does not persevere is a vain and empty faith — what James calls dead
faith (James 2:17, 26).

So, the point of Romans 1:16 is that you don’t have to be ashamed of the gospel, because it is the only truth in
the world which, if you go on banking on it day after day, will triumph over every obstacle and br ing you to
eternal safety and joy in the presence of a holy and glorious God.

4. Paul says the gospel is for believers, not just unbelievers.

The last reason I think this is what “salvation” means in verse 16 is that the verse is given as the reason Paul
wants to preach the gospel to believers (not just unbelievers). We’ve seen this, but look again. In verse 15 Paul
says, “I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.” He is eager to preach the gospel to “you”
— you believers, not just unbelievers. Then he gives the reason: “for I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the
power of God for salvation to all such believers.”

“Faith that does not persevere is a vain and empty faith.”

So, I conclude that the reason Paul is not ashamed of the gospel is that it is the only truth in all the world that will
not let you down when you give your life to it in faith. It will bring you all the way through temptation and
persecution and death and judgment into eternal safety and ever-increasing joy in the presence of a holy and
glorious God.

All the other “gospels” in the world that win so many converts will fail you in the end. Only one saves from the
final wrath of God and leads to fullness of joy in his presence and pleasures at his right hand forever . Therefore,
there is no need to be ashamed of it, no matter what others say or do. And oh, how eager we should be to speak
this gospel to believer and unbeliever alike.

Do You Feed on the Gospel Day by Day?

I close with one huge implication of what I have said. Do you feed your faith day by day with the promises of this
triumphant gospel? Do you, as a believer, go to the gospel day by day and savor its power in verses like
Romans 8:32: “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him
graciously give us all things?” The gospel is the good news that God gave us his Son, so as to obtain for us
everything that would be good for us.

Therefore, the gospel is the power that gives us victory over temptation to despair and to pride and to greed and
to lust. The gospel alone can triumph over every obstacle and bring us to eternal joy. Whatever it costs, stand in
it, hold it fast, believe on it, feed on it, savor it, count it more precious than silver or gold. The gospel wi ll save
you — and it alone.

I love to tell the story; for those who know it best

Seem hungering and thirsting to hear it, like the rest.
And when, in scenes of glory, I sing the new, new song,
’twill be the old, old story that I have loved so long.
I love to tell the story,
’twill be my theme in glory
To tell the old, old story
Of Jesus and his love.
(PART 2)
The Suffering of Christ and the Sovereignty of God (John Piper)

The Ultimate Reason for Suffering

I believe the entire universe exists to display the greatness of the glory of the grace of God. I might have said
more simply that the entire universe exists to display the greatness of the glory of God. That would be true. But
the Bible is more specific. The glory of God shines most brightly, most fully, most beautifully in the manifestation
of the glory of his grace. Therefore, this is the ultimate aim and the final explanation of all things — including
suffering.

God decreed from all eternity to display the greatness of the glory of his grace for the enjoyment of his
creatures, and he revealed to us that this is the ultimate aim and explanation of why there is sin and why there is
suffering, and why there is a great suffering Savior. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came in the flesh to suffer and
die and by that suffering and death to save undeserving sinners like you and me. This coming to suffer and die is
the supreme manifestation of the greatness of the glory of the grace of God.

Or to say it a little differently, the death of Christ in supreme suffering is the highest, clearest, surest display of
the glory of the grace of God. If that is true, then a stunning truth is revealed, namely, suffering is an essential
part of the created universe in which the greatness of the glory of the grace of God can be most fully revealed.
Suffering is an essential part of the tapestry of the universe so that the weaving of grace can be seen for what it
really is.

Or to put it most simply and starkly: the ultimate reason that suffering exists in the universe is so tha t Christ
might display the greatness of the glory of the grace of God by suffering in himself to overcome our suffering.
The suffering of the utterly innocent and infinitely holy Son of God in the place of utterly undeserving sinners to
bring us to everlasting joy is the greatest display of the glory of God’s grace that ever was, or ever could be.

“There could be no greater display of the glory of the grace of God than what happened at Calvary.”
In conceiving a universe in which to display the glory of his grace, God did not choose plan B. This was the
moment — Good Friday — for which everything in the universe was planned. There could be no greater display
of the glory of the grace of God than what happened at Calvary. Everything leading to it and everythi ng flowing
from it is explained by it, including all the suffering in the world.

The Biblical Pathway to Truth

Walk with me now, if you would, on the biblical pathway that has led me to this truth. To this point, it just looks
like high-sounding theology or philosophy. But it is far more than that. It is what the very words of Scripture
clearly teach.

Before the Foundation of the World

Let’s begin with Revelation 13:8. John writes, “All who dwell on earth will worship [the beast], everyone whose
name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.” That
is a good, careful, literal translation. This means that before the world was created there was a book called the
“book of life of the Lamb who was slain.”

The Lamb is Jesus Christ crucified. The book is the book of Jesus Christ crucified. Therefore, before God made
the world, he had in view Jesus Christ slain, and he had in view a people purchased by his blood written in the
book. Therefore, the suffering of Jesus was not an afterthought, as though the work of creation did not go the
way God planned. Before the foundation of the world God had a book called “the book of life of the Lamb who
was slain.” The slaying of the Lamb was in view before the work of creation began.

A Display of Glory

Then consider 2 Timothy 1:9. Paul looks back into eternity before the ages began and says, “[God] saved us and
called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave
us [that is, he gave us this grace] in Christ Jesus before the ages began.” God gave us grace [undeserved favor
— favor toward sinners, grace!] in Christ Jesus before the ages began. We had not yet been created. We had
not yet existed so that we could sin. But God had already decreed that grace — an “in Christ” kind of grace,
blood-bought grace, sin-overcoming grace — would come to us in Christ Jesus. All that before the creation of
the world.

So there is a “book of life of the Lamb who was slain,” and there is “grace” flowing to undeserving sinners who
are not yet created. And don’t miss the magnitude of that word “slain” (esphagmenou): “the Lamb who was
slain.” It is used in the New Testament only by the apostle John, and means literally “slaughte r.” So here we
have suffering — the slaughter of the Son of God — in the mind and plan of God before the foundation of the
world. The Lamb of God will suffer. He will be slaughtered. That’s the plan.

Why? I’ll give you the biblical text that tells the answer, but let me state it again: it’s because the aim of creation
is the fullest, clearest, surest display of the greatness of the glory of the grace of God. And that display would be
the slaughter of the best being in the universe for millions of undeserving sinners. The suffering and death of the
Lamb of God in history is the best possible display of the glory of the grace of God. That is why God planned it
before the foundation of the world.

To the Praise of His Glorious Grace

Here’s the Biblical support, first from Ephesians 1 and then from Revelation 5. In Ephesians 1:4–6a, Paul says,

[God] chose us in him [that is, in Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and
blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of
his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace.
The goal of the entire history of redemption is to bring about the praise of the glory of the grace of God.

But notice that twice in these verses Paul says that this plan happened “in Christ” or “through Christ” before the
foundation of the world. He says in verse 4: God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world in order to
bring about the praise of the glory of his grace. And he says in verse 5: God predestined our adoption through
Christ before the foundation of the world to bring about the praise of the glory of his grace. What does it mean
that “in Christ” we were chosen and that our adoption was to happen “through Christ”? We know that in Paul ’s
mind, Christ suffered and died as a redeemer so that we might be adopted as children of God (Galatians 4:5).
Our adoption could not happen apart from the death of Christ.

Therefore, what Paul means is that to choose us “in Christ” and to plan to adopt us “through Christ” was to plan
the suffering and death of his Son before the foundation of the world. And verse 6 and 12 and 14 make plain that
the goal of this plan was to bring about “the praise of the glory of the grace of God.” That is what God was
aiming at. And that is why he planned the suffering and death of his Son for sinners before the creation of the
world.

The Lamb Who Was Slain

Now consider the second biblical support for this from Revelation 5:9–12. Here the hosts of heaven are
worshiping the Lamb precisely because he was slain — killed, slaughtered.

And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain,
and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. . . .”
Then I looked, and I heard around the throne . . . myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a
loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor
and glory and blessing!”

“The centerpiece of worship in heaven will be the display of the glory of God’s grace in the slaughtered Lamb.”

The hosts of heaven focus their worship not simply on the Lamb, but on the “Lamb who was slain.” And they are
still singing this song in Revelation 15:3. Therefore we can conclude that the centerpiece of worship in heaven
for all eternity will be the display of the glory of the grace of God in the slaughtered Lamb. Angels and all the
redeemed will sing of the suffering of the Lamb forever and ever. The suffering of the Son of God will never be
forgotten. The greatest suffering that ever was will be at the center of our worship and our wonder forever and
ever. This is not an afterthought of God. This is the plan from before the foundation of the world.

Everything else is subordinate to this plan. Everything else is put in place for the sake of this plan: the display of
the greatness of the glory of the grace of God in the suffering of the Beloved is the goal of the creation and the
continuing of the universe.

God Ordains but Doesn’t Commit Sin

Do you see what this implies about sin and suffering in the universe? According to this divine plan, God permits
sin to enter the world. God ordains that what he hates will come to pass. It is not sinful in God to will that there
be sin. We do not need to fathom this mystery. We may content ourselves by saying over the sin of Adam and
Eve what Joseph said over the sin of his brothers, when they sold him into slavery: “As for you, you meant evil
against me, but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:20).

As for you, Adam and Eve, you meant evil against God as you rejected him as your Father and Treasure, but oh
what an infinite good he planned through your fall! The Seed of the woman will one day bruise the head of the
great Serpent, and by his suffering he will display the greatness of the glory of the grace of God. You have not
undone his plan. Just as Joseph was sold sinfully into slavery, you have sold yourselves for an apple. You have
fallen, and now the stage is set for the perfect display of the greatness of the glory of the grace of God.

For not only did sin enter the world, but through sin came suffering and death. Paul tells us that God subjected
the world to futility and corruption under his holy curse. He put it like this in Romans 8:20–23:

The creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation
itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glor y of the children of God. For we
know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the
creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adopti on
as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
When sin entered the world, horrible, horrible things followed. Diseases, defects, disabilities, natural
catastrophes, human atrocities — from the youngest infant to the oldest codger, from the vilest scoundrel to the
sweetest saint — suffering is no respecter of persons. That’s why Paul said in Romans 8:23, “We ourselves, who
have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our
bodies.”

Ezekiel tells us that God does not delight in this suffering. “As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in
the death of the wicked” (Ezekiel 33:11). But the plan remains, and Jeremiah gives us a glimpse into the
mysterious complexity of the mind of God in Lamentations 3:32–33, “Though he cause grief, he will have
compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the
children of men.” Literally: “He does not from his heart [millibbô] afflict or grieve the chi ldren of men.” He ordains
that suffering come — “though he cause grief” — but his delight is not in the suffering, but in the great purpose
of creation: the display of the glory of the grace of God in the suffering of Christ for the salvation of sinners.

The stage has been set. The drama of redemptive history begins to unfold. Sin is now in its full and deadly force.
Suffering and death are present and ready to consume the Son of God when he comes. All things are now in
place for the greatest possible display of the glory of the grace of God.

Therefore, in the fullness of time, God sent his Son into the world to suffer in the place of sinners. Every
dimension of his saving work was accomplished by suffering. In the life and death of Jesus Christ, suffering finds
its ultimate purpose and ultimate explanation: suffering exists so that Christ might display the greatness of the
glory of the grace of God by suffering in himself to overcome our suffering.

Everything — everything — that Christ accomplished for us sinners, he accomplished by suffering. Everything
that we will ever enjoy will come to us because of suffering.

Glory Through Suffering

Consider the display of the glory of the grace of God in the achievements of Christ by his suffering.

1. Christ absorbed the wrath of God on our behalf — and he did it by suffering.

Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us — for it is written,
‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’” The wrath of God that should hav e caused our eternal suffering
fell on Christ. This is the glory of grace, and it could only come by suffering.

2. Christ bore our sins and purchased our forgiveness — and he did it by suffering.

First Peter 2:24: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree.” Isaiah 53:5: “He was wounded for our
transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities.” The sins that should have crushed us under the weight of guilt
were transferred to Christ. This is the glory of grace, and it could only come by suffering.

3. Christ provided a perfect righteousness for us that becomes ours in him — and he did it by suffering.

Philippians 2:7–8: “He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And
being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a
cross.” The obedience of Christ by which many are counted righteous (Romans 5:19) had to be an obedience
unto death, even death on a cross. This is the glory of grace, and it would come only by suffering.

4. Christ defeated death — and he did it by suffering death.

Hebrews 2:14–15: “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the
same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and
deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.”

“The ultimate achievement of the cross is not freedom from sickness but fellowship with God.”
“‘O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?’ The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is
the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:55 –57).
This is the glory of grace and it would come only by suffering.

5. He disarmed Satan — and he did it by suffering.

Colossians 2:14–15: “[The record of debts against us] he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers
and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.” With the recor d of all our
lawbreaking nailed to the cross and canceled, the power of Satan to destroy us is broken. Satan has only one
weapon that can damn to hell. Unforgiven sin. This weapon Christ stripped from Satan’s hand on the cross. This
is the glory of grace, and it could only come by suffering.

6. Christ purchased perfect final healing for all his people — and he did it by suffering.

Isaiah 53:5: “Upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.” “The
Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water, and God
will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Revelation 7:17). The Lamb was slaughtered and the Lamb was
raised from the dead, and the Lamb together with the Father will wipe every tear from our eyes. This is the glory
of grace, and it could only come by suffering.

7. Christ will bring us finally to God — and he will do it by his suffering.

First Peter 3:18: “Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to
God.” The ultimate achievement of the cross is not freedom from sickness but fellowship with God. This is what
we were made for: seeing and savoring and showing the glory of God. This is the glory of grace, and it could
only come by suffering.

The Ultimate Reason Suffering Exists

The ultimate purpose of the universe is to display the greatness of the glory of the grace of God. The highest,
clearest, surest display of that glory is in the suffering of the best Person in the universe for millions of
undeserving sinners. Therefore, the ultimate reason that suffering exists in the universe is so that Christ might
display the greatness of the glory of the grace of God by suffering in himself to overcome our suffering and bring
about the praise of the glory of the grace of God.

Oh Christian, remember what Carl Ellis and David Powlison and Mark Talbot and Steve Saint and Joni
Eareckson Tada said: they all, in their own way, said that whether we are able or disabled, e nduring loss or
delighting in friends, suffering pain or savoring pleasure, all of us who believe in Christ are immeasurably rich in
him and have so much to live for. Don’t waste your life. Savor the riches that you have in Christ and spend
yourself no matter the cost to spread your riches to this desperate world.
What Is the Gospel?

What is the gospel? I’ll put it in a sentence.

The gospel is the news that Jesus Christ, the Righteous One, died for our sins and rose again, eternally triumphant
over all his enemies, so that there is now no condemnation for those who believe, but only everlasting joy.

That’s the gospel.

You Can’t Outgrow the Gospel

You never, never, never outgrow your need for the gospel. Don’t ever think of the gospel as, “That’s the way you get
saved, and then you get strong by leaving it and doing something else.”

No! We are strengthened by God through the gospel every day, till the day we drop.

You never outgrow the need to preach to yourself the gospel.

How the Gospel Strengthens

Here’s an illustration, and I use it not because it’s any big deal to speak from my life, but because it’s what I walked
through and where I most pointedly in the last year experienced the power of the gospel to make me strong. (Many of
you are walking through things much heavier than prostate cancer — much heavier.)

Do you remember the verses that I shared with you back in February that were almighty for me? It was that moment
right after the doctor said, “I think we need to do a biopsy” — when this stab of fear comes. It didn’t last long,
mercifully.
And then came — what? First Thessalonians 5:9–10. It’s just as pure gospel as you can get.

God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that
whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him.

Settled. Peace like a river.

The Gospel Is Perfect for Your Needs

That’s just gospel — perfectly timed, perfectly applied, perfectly suited to my need. That’s why the Bible is so thick:
because there are so many different needs that you have. And there are suitable places where the gospel is unfolded
for you, so that if you immerse yourself in the whole book, always with an eye for what Christ has wrought for you and
purchased for you in this thick, glorious history of God’s interaction with people, he will give you what you need.

Therefore, everything in me says — and I hope to say it until the day I die — “Now, to him who is able to strengthen
me, according to Paul’s gospel, to him — to that God — be glory forever and ever” (see Romans 16:25–27).

God came into history in Jesus Christ. He died in order to destroy the power of hell and death and Satan and sin, and
he did it through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

A Plea to Believe

I know that there are people reading this who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect
condemnation. So I’m just going to plead with you here at the end: Lay down that rebellion. Lay it down. And simply
embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Righteous One, died for your sins. He was raised on the
third day, triumphant over all his enemies. He reigns until he puts all of his enemies under his feet. Forgiveness of
sins and a right standing with God come freely through him alone, by faith alone.

I plead with you: Don’t try to be strong in your own strength. It will not be there when you need it. Only one strength
will be there: the strength that God gives according to the gospel.

Don’t put it off.

(PART 3)

How to Count It All as Loss

Article by John Piper
Founder & Teacher, desiringGod.org

What does it mean to count everything as loss for the sake of Christ? What does it mean to renounce all that we
have for Christ’s sake?

Paul said he does this. “I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my
Lord” (Philippians 3:8). And a few verses later he said, “Brothers, join in imitating me” (Philippians 3:17).

So this is commanded of all believers.

Basic Christianity

This is what it means to be a Christian. It is not advanced discipleship; it is basic Christianity. This is confirmed
in Jesus’s words, “Any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33).
Renouncing all we have is the same as “counting everything as loss.” This is what happens in conversion. You
can’t be a disciple without it. Jesus said this.

“Counting everything as loss happens in conversion. You can’t be a disciple without it.”
He describes this conversion in a parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man
found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field” (Matthew 13:44).
Selling all you have with joy, in order to have the treasure of the kingdom, is a parable-way of saying: count
everything as loss in order to gain Christ.

So, to become a Christian is to awaken from the blindness of spiritual death and find Jesus so all -sufficient and
all-satisfying that (1) we count everything as loss, (2) we renounce all our possessions, and, in parable-
language, (3) we sell all we have to possess the treasure of Christ.

How to Count Everything As Loss

In everyday, practical terms, what does it mean to do this? It means at least these four things:

1. Renouncing all (counting all as loss) means that, if we must choose between Christ and anything else, we will
choose Christ.

That is, even though God does not bring us to the crisis of either-or at every point, nevertheless, we are ready,
and have resolved in our hearts that, if the choice must be made, we will choose Christ.

2. Renouncing all (counting all as loss) means that we will deal with everything in ways that draw us nearer to
Christ, so that we gain more of Christ, and enjoy more of him, by the way we relate to everything.

That is, we will embrace everything pleasant by being thankful to Christ, and we will endure everything hurtful by
being patient through Christ.

3. Renouncing all (counting all as loss) means that we will seek to deal with the things of this world in ways that
show that they are not our treasure, but rather that Christ is our treasure.

That is, we will hold things loosely, share things generously, and ascribe value to things in relation to Christ. We
will seek to live the paradox of 1 Corinthians 7:30–31: “Let [Christians] buy as though they had no goods, and
those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it.”

4. Renouncing all (counting all as loss) means that if we lose any or all the things this world can offer, we will not
lose our joy, or our treasure, or our life — because Christ is our joy and our treasure and our life.

That is, in smaller losses we will not grumble (Philippians 2:14), and in greater losses we will grieve, but not as
those who have no hope (1 Thessalonians 4:13).

A Settled, Joyful, Defining Resolve

“To become a Christian is to find Jesus all-sufficient and all-satisfying.”

This is what I believe it means to find Jesus so all-sufficient and all-satisfying that (1) we count everything as
loss (Philippians 3:8), (2) renounce all our possessions (Luke 14:33), and, (3) “sell” all we have to possess the
treasure of Christ (Matthew 13:44).

None of us loves Christ this perfectly, or lives so consistently. But to be a follower of Jesus, to be a true
Christian, means that these four ways of dealing with “everything” will be the settled, joyful, defining resolve of
our lives. This is what we will mean when we say with Paul, “I count everything as loss because of the
surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.”
TRINITY (PART 4)

Receive the Holy Spirit

Article by Jon Bloom
Staff writer, desiringGod.org

On the evening of Resurrection Sunday, as most of the disciples were locked away in their hideout, trying to
come to terms with the implications of an empty tomb and the odd encounters some reported to have had with
the risen Lord, Jesus suddenly appeared among them. He reassured them of who he was and spoke peace to
their troubled, disoriented hearts (Luke 24:33–43; John 20:19–21).

And then Jesus did something remarkable: “He breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’”
(John 20:22).

When Jesus breathed on his disciples — a resurrection miracle in itself! — and then said, “Receive the Holy
Spirit,” he was communicating something of astonishing, fathomless profundity. And his disciples would have
understood the implication. For the Holy Spirit proceeds only from God. And the Holy Spirit was proceeding from
the Lord Jesus. Thomas, who wasn’t even there to witness this moment, confirmed that he grasped the
implication eight days later when he called Jesus, “my Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).

Breath Personified

We don’t know how much the apostles understood of the Holy Spirit’s nature in the moment Jesus breathed on
them, but they would soon come to understand that the Spirit was also their Lord and their God. He was not
merely a vague emanation of the presence of God; the Breath of God was not like the breath of humans. The
Breath was not an it but a he. He was not simply the force or power of God, but God himself. The Holy Spirit was
the breath of God personified.

That’s why Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit in personal terms (notice the pronoun he throughout):

The Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your
remembrance all that I have said to you. (John 14:26)

But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the
Father, he will bear witness about me. (John 15:26).

I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you.
But if I go, I will send him to you. (John 16:7)

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but
whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he
will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:13–14)

Father, Son, Spirit

What Jesus revealed to his apostles when he came was that the one God (Mark 12:29) exists in three persons:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). The fact that the apostles fully embraced the Spirit’s personhood
is clearly seen in how they speak of him in the New Testament. As my colleague, David Mathis, has so helpfully
catalogued,

[The Holy Spirit] can be lied to (Acts 5:3), resisted (Acts 7:51), grieved (Ephesians 4:30), blasphemed (Matthew
12:32; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10). He comforts us (Acts 9:31), guides and directs (Acts 13:2, 4; 15:28; 16:6; 20:23;
21:11), transforms us into the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:17–18), and empowers the everyday Christian life
(Romans 14:17; 15:13; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Jude 20). He appoints leaders in the church (Acts 20:28), confirms
God’s word with miraculous gifts (Hebrews 2:4), sanctifies our imperfect efforts (Romans 15:16), knits us
together as a fellowship (2 Corinthians 13:14; Hebrews 6:4), and fills us with praise (Acts 2:4) and with boldness
for ministry (Acts 1:8; 4:8, 31; 6:5; 7:55; 9:17; 11:24; 13:9, 52). He communicates the Father’s love to us
(Romans 5:5; Ephesians 3:14–19) and infuses the Christian life with joy (Acts 13:52; Romans 14:17; 15:13; 1
Thessalonians 1:6). In him we are sealed, kept, and secured by God till the end (Ephesians 1:13–14).

These attributes, affections, and actions are clearly those of a person — a person who has a mind and who
intercedes for us (Romans 8:27); a person to be known and trusted and loved and honored and worshiped; a
person to be experienced.
Fellowship of the Holy Spirit

This is why Jesus said, “It is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to
you” (John 16:7). I’ve offered an explanation elsewhere why the Helper’s coming necessitated Jesus’s absence.
But the great advantage to us of the Helper’s coming is that in him we are given the unspeakable gift of
experiencing God in all the ways listed above (which are not scripturally exhaustive).

Listen to how Jesus speaks of this reality:

I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. . . . In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you
in me, and I in you. Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves
me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him. . . . If anyone loves me, he will
keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. (John 14:18,
20–21, 23)

The Holy Spirit is given to us so that, with him dwelling in us, we are able to fellowship with the Father and the
Son. The Spirit’s primary work is to show us the unique glory the Father receives from the Son and the Son from
the Father in the plan of salvation (John 17:1–5). He especially points us to the Son. He teaches us the Son’s
teachings (John 14:26), he testifies of the Son to us (John 15:26), he discloses to us what the Son wants to tell
us (John 16:15), and he comforts us with the comfort the Father and Son want us to have (2 Corinthians 1:3 –4).

But that’s not all. The Spirit is also given to us so that, with him dwelling in us, we are able to have fellowship
with one another. It is the Spirit who distributes gifts from God “for the common good” of church communities (1
Corinthians 12:7–11). It is the Spirit who inspires us to address each other “in psalms and hymns and spiritual
songs” and to “[submit] to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:18–21). And it is only in the
Spirit that we will experience together “unity . . . in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3).

This is the great gift of the Holy Spirit: that in him we have fellowship with God and fellowship with one another
(1 John 1:3). Paul simply calls it “the fellowship of the Holy Spirit” (2 Corinthians 13:14).

Whenever we speak of the nature of the Trinity, or any of the distinct persons, we are way over our heads. We
are attempting to put words to things too wonderful for us. The best Christian minds spent the better part of five
centuries defending, clarifying, and codifying for the rest of us the great mystery revealed in Scripture of the
divine unity in diversity.

When we’re tempted to cynically question the strangeness of it all, it’s helpful to remember that we find all of
reality strange the deeper we delve into it. The collective human genius still does not understand things like
gravity, human consciousness, and even what matter is at the subatomic levels — things we experience all the
time. It turns out, the most important things in life are not simple. They blow our minds.

We find reality easier to experience than to explain — both physical and spiritual reality. That’s not to say that
we shouldn’t attempt to explain how the Holy Spirit functions with the Father and the Son. We must. But we can
only go so far. The nature of the Holy Spirit is revealed to us not to dissect, but to receive and embrace and trust
and love.

When Jesus, God the Son, breathed on his disciples, he didn’t say, “Comprehend the Holy Spirit.” He said,
“Receive the Holy Spirit.” For in receiving the Holy Spirit, they — and we — also receive the indwelling of the
Father and the Son, or as Paul says, “all the fullness of God” (Ephesians 3:19).

Receive, don’t resist, the Holy Spirit.