Comparative Theology
04 Comparative Theology — Ruth (English → Mandarin)
This document surveys how each of the nine doctrines identified for Ruth (matching doctrine_risk_registry.json) is interpreted across Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, and secular perspectives, with a dedicated column for the destination culture’s dominant traditions — Chinese folk religion, Confucianism, and Daoism — the same traditions the baseline Romans package documents as the primary collision zone for Mandarin theological vocabulary. For each doctrine: agreement/divergence areas, misunderstandings a translation must not invite, and sensitive terminology.
1. Exclusive Worship of Yahweh (Ruth’s Conversion) — Critical
Core passage: Ruth 1:15-17; 2:12
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Ruth’s confession is read as genuine conversion/regeneration — a model of saving faith uniting her to the covenant God, often paired with Rahab as an OT gentile-faith example cited in the NT genealogies. |
| Catholic | Affirms conversion, with added emphasis on Ruth’s free will cooperating with grace; Ruth is sometimes read typologically as prefiguring the Church gathered from the nations. |
| Orthodox | Conversion read as a decisive reorientation of allegiance; Ruth is commemorated among the “Forefathers of Christ”; emphasis on synergy (human response uniting with divine grace). |
| Jewish | The classic rabbinic proof-text for formal conversion (gerut); Ruth’s declaration is cited in halakhic discussions of a convert’s sincerity and becomes the archetype of the righteous convert (giyoret tzedek). |
| Islamic | No direct textual engagement (Ruth is outside the Qur’anic corpus); the exclusive-monotheism shape of her vow loosely resonates with tawhid, but applying Islamic categories to Ruth risks anachronism. |
| Hindu | Henotheistic/monistic frameworks generally accommodate additive devotion (ishta-devata); Ruth’s total renunciation of Chemosh for YHWH risks being read as simply adopting a new personal deity alongside others rather than an exclusive break. |
| Buddhist | Non-theistic framework; devotion to a personal deity is not a central category; risk of reading “God” as one spiritual reality among others or as an expedient means (upaya) rather than an exclusive personal Lord. |
| Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist Tradition (destination-dominant) | Highest collision risk of the nine doctrines. Chinese folk practice commonly worships multiple gods concurrently (city god, kitchen god, ancestral spirits) — additive “stacking” of household devotion is the cultural default, and 神 is the ordinary noun for any deity or spirit. Confucian ancestor veneration could also reframe Ruth’s move as primarily a filial-piety transfer to Naomi’s household rather than religious exclusivity. |
| Secular | Reads the vow as literary language for loyalty/identity assimilation into a new family and culture; “her God” is treated as cultural idiom, not a real theological claim, draining the exclusivity content. |
Agreement: All traditions recognize Ruth’s declaration as a decisive reorientation of identity and allegiance. Divergence: Jewish tradition treats it as a formal legal-conversion paradigm; Christian traditions as spiritual conversion; Hindu/Buddhist/Chinese-folk frameworks default to additive rather than exclusive readings; secular readings drain theological content entirely. Misunderstanding a translation must not invite: That Ruth is merely adding YHWH to her existing devotional repertoire rather than renouncing Chemosh and Moab’s gods entirely. Sensitive terminology: 神 (generic-deity collision, flagged Critical in baseline); 皈依 (guīyī) must be avoided as a gloss for Ruth’s “conversion” — it is the specific technical term for formally taking refuge in Buddhism and would misdirect the doctrine into a Buddhist conversion category.
2. The Kinsman-Redeemer — Critical
Core passage: Ruth 2:1,12,20; 3:9,12-13; 4:1-10,14
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Central OT type of Christ: Boaz’s willing, costly redemption of Ruth (his future bride) at personal expense prefigures Christ’s redemption of the Church. Heavily used in typological preaching. |
| Catholic | Shares the typological reading; also links redemption to the Church’s inclusion of the nations and, via the Davidic line, to Mariology. |
| Orthodox | Reads Boaz as a type of Christ who redeems humanity into the divine family, within a cosmic theosis framework. |
| Jewish | Go’el is read strictly within Torah law on land-redemption (Leviticus 25) and levirate-adjacent marriage (Deuteronomy 25); rabbinic commentary (Ruth Rabbah) praises Boaz’s act as hesed exceeding the letter of the law (lifnei mishurat hadin), without a messianic-redeemer typology — though the resulting birth of Obed feeds directly into later Davidic-messianic hope. |
| Islamic | No parallel doctrine; Islam rejects vicarious/substitutionary redemption theology. The nearest cultural analogue is kinship obligation (asabiyyah), without redemptive theology attached. |
| Hindu | No direct equivalent; liberation (moksha) is self- or guru-attained, not kinsman-redeemed; risk of reframing Boaz as a guru-like liberator figure. |
| Buddhist | No redeemer figure; liberation is self-attained through practice; risk of reading Boaz’s act as bodhisattva-like compassionate merit-transfer, reintroducing the merit-ledger (功德) problem the baseline Romans package already flags for “grace.” |
| Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist Tradition (destination-dominant) | Clan-based kinship obligation (宗族义务) is a strong native category; risk of reading Boaz’s action purely as fulfilling clan/filial duty (本分) or insider honor-code obligation (义气) rather than an act with redemptive-typological significance pointing toward Christ, which requires explicit teaching since the Mandarin legal-kinship vocabulary alone carries no salvific connotation. |
| Secular | Reads Boaz’s action as admirable ancient property/marriage law and personal generosity — a “chivalrous” act with no redemptive-theological significance. |
Agreement: All traditions that engage the text recognize Boaz’s action as legally and relationally significant, exceeding minimum obligation. Divergence: Only Christian traditions read it typologically toward Christ; Jewish tradition keeps it within Torah/hesed ethics; other traditions lack a redeemer category altogether. Misunderstanding a translation must not invite: That 至近的亲属 is a bare legal-kinship footnote, or that Boaz’s redemption is merely honor-bound clan duty (本分/义气) or Buddhist-style merit transfer (功德). Sensitive terminology: 救赎 (must be used deliberately and explicitly, not left implicit); 本分; 义气; 功德 (forbidden per baseline).
3. Hesed (Covenant Loving-kindness) — High
Core passage: Ruth 1:8; 2:11,20; 3:10
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Hesed reflects God’s own covenant faithfulness mirrored in human relationships; Ruth and Boaz model Christlike self-giving love flowing from God’s character. |
| Catholic | Connects hesed to caritas and mercy (misericordia); Ruth exemplifies virtuous charity beyond legal obligation. |
| Orthodox | Links hesed to philanthropia and eleos (mercy) as participation in divine compassion. |
| Jewish | A central rabbinic-ethical category (gemilut chasadim, “acts of loving-kindness”); Ruth is read liturgically at Shavuot precisely because it is considered the paradigmatic book of chesed. |
| Islamic | Parallel concepts of rahma (mercy) and ihsan (excellence in kindness beyond duty) resonate structurally, though with no direct textual link to Ruth. |
| Hindu | Daya (compassion) and dharma-based family duty exist as adjacent categories, but are grounded in cosmic order (dharma) rather than a personal covenant-keeping God. |
| Buddhist | Karuna (compassion) is central; risk of assimilating hesed to a detached universal compassion rather than covenant loyalty rooted in a specific, personal, promise-keeping relationship. |
| Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist Tradition (destination-dominant) | High collision risk. 义气 (insider honor-code loyalty, e.g. sworn-brotherhood loyalty) and 孝 (filial piety) are the nearest cultural categories, but both differ structurally: 义气 is typically owed only within a closed insider circle and is often transactional; hesed in Ruth is extended by and to an outsider (a Moabite) and is modeled on God’s own initiating faithfulness. Also at risk of collapsing into the baseline’s soteriological 恩典. |
| Secular | Reads hesed simply as loyalty or “going above and beyond” — an admirable humanistic virtue, without theological grounding. |
Agreement: All traditions value loyal kindness/mercy highly; Jewish and Christian traditions share deep textual authority for hesed as YHWH’s own defining covenant attribute. Divergence: Only Judaism and Christianity ground hesed explicitly in YHWH’s covenant character; other traditions have adjacent virtue categories with different theological grounding. Misunderstanding a translation must not invite: That hesed is earned/reciprocal insider loyalty (义气) or that it is identical to the baseline’s soteriological grace term 恩典. Sensitive terminology: 恩待/慈爱 (established renderings — see glossary #3); 义气; 恩典 (contrast, not substitute); 孝 (contrast).
4. God’s Providence in Ordinary Life — High
Core passage: Ruth 1:6,20-21; 2:2-3,12,20; 4:13-17
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Classic proof-text for sovereign providence working through ordinary “coincidences” (2:3, “she happened to come”); often taught alongside Romans 8:28. |
| Catholic | Providence affirmed alongside cooperative human freedom (concursus) — God’s ordinary grace working through everyday circumstance. |
| Orthodox | Providence (pronoia) as God’s loving governance in synergy with human virtue — Ruth’s hesed choices matter within providence, not despite it. |
| Jewish | Hashgacha pratit (individual divine providence) is a major rabbinic theme; Ruth is a key proof-text, with Boaz’s “chance” field read as divinely orchestrated. |
| Islamic | Qadar (divine decree) and tawakkul (trust in God’s provision) parallel providence strongly, within a framework of divine predetermination distinct from covenantal-relational providence. |
| Hindu | Karma and cosmic order (rita/dharma) provide an impersonal ordering principle; risk of reading providence as karmic destiny rather than a personal God’s purposive care for specific people. |
| Buddhist | Dependent origination (pratityasamutpada) explains events through impersonal causal chains; risk of reading Ruth’s “fortunate” field as karmic fruit ripening rather than personal divine care. |
| Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist Tradition (destination-dominant) | High collision risk. 天意 (Heaven’s impersonal intention), 命运 (fate), and 缘分 (a predestined-seeming folk-Buddhist connection) are the default explanatory categories for “coincidences” like Ruth’s field selection — the same caution the baseline Romans package raises for 8:28, intensified because Ruth’s entire plot structure depends on this single providential “coincidence.” |
| Secular | Reads the “coincidence” as ordinary luck or narrative device; may reduce the doctrine to literary structure or historical happenstance. |
Agreement: Nearly all traditions except strict secular readings affirm some governing order behind events in Ruth’s story. Divergence: Only Jewish and Christian traditions read it as YHWH’s specific, personal covenant care; other frameworks read it through impersonal fate/karma categories. Misunderstanding a translation must not invite: That 眷顾 is equivalent to 天意/命运/缘分. Sensitive terminology: 天意; 命运; 缘分; 全能者 (must not be conflated with impersonal cosmic power such as 气).
5. The Inclusion of Gentiles in God’s Redemptive Plan — High
Core passage: Ruth 1:4,16,22; 2:2,6,10,21; 4:5,10-17
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Ruth is a major OT foreshadowing of the gospel’s reach to all nations, culminating in Matthew 1’s genealogy naming Ruth explicitly; a strong missiological teaching text. |
| Catholic | Shares this reading; Ruth is honored as a forebear of Christ and sometimes typologically linked to the Church “gathered from the nations.” |
| Orthodox | Ruth’s inclusion is read within the broader economy of salvation extending to the nations, commemorated liturgically among Christ’s forefathers. |
| Jewish | Ruth is the paradigmatic “righteous convert” (giyoret tzedek); her incorporation into Israel and David’s line validates the full inclusion of righteous converts in the covenant community — foundational to later halakhic conversion law, though not framed as “mission to all nations.” |
| Islamic | No direct parallel; general Islamic universalism (an umma open to all who accept Islam) offers only a loose structural analogy, with no textual engagement with Ruth. |
| Hindu | Traditional caste/community boundaries are comparatively rigid regarding an outsider’s full incorporation into a specific lineage’s religious/family status; Ruth’s full incorporation into the Davidic lineage has no direct doctrinal parallel. |
| Buddhist | The sangha is in principle open to all who take refuge regardless of origin, offering loose structural resonance, though without the covenant-lineage/Davidic-messianic dimension. |
| Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist Tradition (destination-dominant) | High collision risk. The classical Hua-Yi (华夷) civilized-insider/outsider distinction, already flagged in the baseline Romans package, is directly reversed by Ruth’s story — a Moabite outsider becomes ancestress of Israel’s greatest king. Additionally, CUV’s rendering “your people” as 国 (“nation/country”) risks a modern reader treating Ruth’s vow as political naturalization rather than covenantal-familial-religious re-identification, missing the deliberate high-stakes reversal (Moab was explicitly excluded from Israel’s assembly, Deuteronomy 23:3). |
| Secular | Reads Ruth’s inclusion as an admirable ancient story of cross-cultural marriage and social mobility, without theological-redemptive significance. |
Agreement: Nearly every tradition recognizes Ruth’s rise from foreign widow to honored ancestress as narratively remarkable. Divergence: Christian traditions read it as proto-missiological/gospel-universal; Jewish tradition reads it as validating covenant conversion without a “to all nations” frame; Hua-Yi-influenced Chinese cultural default resists full insider/outsider reversal; secular reading drains theological content into social commentary. Misunderstanding a translation must not invite: That 国 signals mere political citizenship, or that Ruth’s inclusion is a lesser, provisional status rather than full covenantal belonging; the Hua-Yi collision must be surfaced explicitly in teaching notes, and this doctrine must always be taught together with Doctrine 1 (神-exclusivity) as one indivisible declaration. Sensitive terminology: 外邦人 (baseline reuse); 国; 华夷 collision (teaching note, not a translation term).
6. Loyalty and Faithfulness — High
Core passage: Ruth 1:8-18; 2:1; 3:10; 4:15
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Ruth’s loyalty is read as fruit of, and evidence for, her genuine conversion — covenant faithfulness lived out in ordinary family devotion. |
| Catholic | Loyalty framed as the virtue of fidelity cooperating with grace; Ruth as a moral exemplar. |
| Orthodox | Loyalty read within synergy — human faithful response united to grace; ascetic tradition sometimes cites Ruth’s renunciation of home/security as a model of self-denial. |
| Jewish | Ruth’s loyalty, especially the oath, is a foundational text on the sincerity of a convert’s motive — she had nothing material to gain by staying with an impoverished widow — cited in rabbinic discussion of testing conversion sincerity. |
| Islamic | Strong resonance with Islamic family-loyalty ethics, particularly toward elders/in-laws, though the specific self-maledictory oath form has no direct parallel. |
| Hindu | Resonates with pativrata/family-dharma ideals of a widow’s loyalty to her husband’s family, but these are grounded in caste/family duty (dharma) rather than a personal covenant relationship with a specific God. |
| Buddhist | Loyalty/compassion toward family is valued, but the teaching of non-attachment sits in some tension with Ruth’s fierce, binding, permanent vow of attachment. |
| Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist Tradition (destination-dominant) | High collision risk. Confucian filial piety (孝) and the historically idealized “chaste/loyal widow” (节妇, imperially monumentalized) are the nearest cultural categories; risk of reducing Ruth’s loyalty to a filial-duty performance or the 节妇 social-honor ideal rather than surfacing its covenantal register (echoing “forsaking/returning to YHWH” language) and its free, faith-motivated, non-obligatory character — Ruth was under no legal obligation to remain with Naomi. |
| Secular | Reads Ruth’s loyalty as touching interpersonal devotion — a “chosen family” narrative — without covenantal dimension. |
Agreement: Loyalty/faithfulness within family bonds under adversity is universally admired. Divergence: Confucian/Hindu frameworks tend to ground this loyalty in social/caste duty; Christian/Jewish traditions ground it in free covenantal response to a personal God; secular framing drains theological grounding. Misunderstanding a translation must not invite: That Ruth’s loyalty is owed filial/widow duty (节妇 ideal) rather than free, faith-shaped covenantal devotion; that her oath-formula is generic folk swearing-by-heaven. Sensitive terminology: 孝; 节妇; 指天为誓 (contrast).
7. Genealogy Pointing to David and Christ — High
Core passage: Ruth 4:13-17; 4:18-22
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Ruth 4’s genealogy directly anticipates the incarnation, cited by Matthew 1:5; central to “salvation history” teaching, with Ruth highlighted alongside Tamar, Rahab, and Bathsheba as evidence of grace working through unlikely/marginalized women. |
| Catholic | Shares the genealogical significance and connects it to Mariology (Ruth as forebear in Christ’s human lineage, paralleling Mary’s own role). |
| Orthodox | Ruth is commemorated among the ancestors of Christ liturgically; genealogy read within the Church’s veneration of the incarnation’s historical rootedness. |
| Jewish | Genealogy establishes David’s legitimacy and messianic-Davidic hope (2 Samuel 7); Ruth’s Moabite ancestry in David’s line is a notable rabbinic discussion point, resolved by the halakhic ruling that Deuteronomy 23:3’s exclusion applied only to Moabite men, not women (Yevamot 8:3). |
| Islamic | Significant only insofar as Dawud (David) is a recognized prophet; no engagement with Ruth or this genealogical line; Isa (Jesus) is not read messianically through Davidic descent in the same theological sense. |
| Hindu | No structural parallel; the avatar concept does not require a specific human bloodline in this way. |
| Buddhist | No structural parallel; no doctrine of a lineage-based coming savior requiring physical descent. |
| Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist Tradition (destination-dominant) | Unusually strong native resonance: 族谱 (family genealogy records) and 宗族 (ancestral clan) make Ruth 4’s genealogy culturally intelligible and weighty. The risk runs opposite to most doctrines here: over-assimilation toward ancestor-veneration categories (reading Obed’s birth primarily as securing 香火, incense-line continuation, for Elimelech) rather than recognizing its unique redemptive-historical, Messianic-trajectory significance. |
| Secular | Reads the genealogy as a conventional ancient closing device establishing dynastic legitimacy — a historical footnote, not doctrinally freighted. |
Agreement: All traditions that engage genealogy recognize its function in establishing legitimacy/continuity. Divergence: Only Christian traditions read the genealogy as culminating in Christ; Jewish tradition stops at Davidic-messianic hope; Chinese lineage-consciousness offers strong resonance but risks ancestor-rite framing. Misunderstanding a translation must not invite: That 后代 stands alone without being bridged to 大卫的后裔 (Romans 1:3); that Obed’s birth is chiefly about 香火/祭祖 continuation rather than redemptive-historical purpose. Sensitive terminology: 族谱; 香火; 祭祖 (contrast/bridge notes); 大卫的后裔 (baseline reuse, mandatory bridge).
8. Covenant Oath-Making and Vow-Keeping — High
Core passage: Ruth 1:17; 3:13
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Ruth’s vow models costly, binding commitment, often connected typologically to divine covenant assurance (Romans 8:35-39), with care taken not to conflate the human vow with God’s own promise. |
| Catholic | Vows are a significant category (religious/marriage vows); Ruth’s vow resonates with the theology of vowed commitment as a serious, sacred act. |
| Orthodox | Similar seriousness attached to vows invoking divine judgment as witness/enforcer, resonant with Orthodox liturgical oath practice. |
| Jewish | Oaths (shevuot) invoking God’s name are a major halakhic category with detailed law on binding force; Ruth’s oath is read as an unusually strong and sincere formula. |
| Islamic | Oaths (qasam) invoking Allah are similarly serious and legally binding (with expiation categories, kaffara) — structurally resonant, though theologically distinct. |
| Hindu | Vows (vrata, sankalpa) are a significant devotional category, but the self-maledictory form has only loose parallels. |
| Buddhist | Vows (e.g. bodhisattva vows, monastic precepts) are framed around compassionate aspiration or self-discipline rather than invoking divine judgment on oneself. |
| Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist Tradition (destination-dominant) | High collision risk. 指天为誓 (“swearing by Heaven”) and 发誓 (folk oath-taking, sometimes invoking ancestral spirits as witnesses) are the nearest cultural categories, but typically invoke an impersonal Heaven or ancestral spirits rather than a personal covenant God understood to actually enforce the oath as a moral, relational judge. |
| Secular | Reads the oath as moving rhetoric/resolve — a literary high point without binding theological weight. |
Agreement: All traditions treat oath-taking as a serious, binding speech-act with real consequences. Divergence: Only Jewish/Christian/Islamic traditions ground the oath’s force in a personal God’s own moral authority as enforcer; Chinese folk/Hindu/Buddhist frameworks tend toward impersonal cosmic or ritual enforcement; secular reading drains binding force to rhetoric. Misunderstanding a translation must not invite: That Ruth’s oath is generic 指天为誓 folk swearing; that it is theologically identical to God’s own unconditional covenant promise. Sensitive terminology: 指天为誓 (contrast); 发誓 (generic, avoid for the formal oath); 起誓 (preferred formal term, must retain 耶和华 by name).
9. Levirate-Adjacent Kinship and Preservation of the Family Line — Medium
Core passage: Ruth 4:5-6; 4:7-10
| Tradition | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Protestant | Read as background legal custom illuminating Boaz’s righteousness and God’s providential use of ordinary ANE law; typically taught with care to distinguish Ruth 4 from strict Deuteronomy 25 levirate marriage. |
| Catholic | Similar careful legal-historical treatment, connected to the theology of family continuity. |
| Orthodox | Emphasis on the sanctity of marriage and family continuity as participating in God’s generative providential purposes. |
| Jewish | Native halakhic territory: rabbinic literature carefully distinguishes Ruth 4’s voluntary go’el redemption-plus-marriage from strict yibbum (Deuteronomy 25, technically applying only to a surviving brother); the sandal-removal (4:7-8) is explicitly noted as an adapted custom, not the halitzah shame-ritual of Deuteronomy 25:9-10. |
| Islamic | Islamic inheritance law (mirath) and widow/orphan care are highly developed but structurally distinct; no direct levirate-marriage institution. |
| Hindu | Traditional niyoga (a historically attested, later controversial practice allowing a widow to conceive with a kinsman to continue the family line) offers a partial structural parallel, though largely obsolete in later Hindu law. |
| Buddhist | No direct parallel; monastic tradition de-emphasizes lineage-continuation in favor of renunciation of family ties. |
| Chinese Folk Religion / Confucian-Daoist Tradition (destination-dominant) | High resonance, moderate risk: concern for a family’s 香火 (incense-line) and 传宗接代 (continuing the family line) is a deeply resonant Chinese category, making this doctrine unusually intelligible — but readers may assume the point is fundamentally ancestor-worship ritual continuity (ensuring someone performs 祭祖 rites) rather than God’s providential preservation of a family within his covenant and redemptive-historical purposes. |
| Secular | Reads the transaction as a window into ancient property/inheritance law and social-welfare provision for widows — historically curious, not doctrinally significant. |
Agreement: Nearly every tradition recognizes some mechanism for continuing a deceased man’s family line and caring for widows. Divergence: Only Jewish tradition possesses the precise adjacent halakhic categories (yibbum/halitzah vs. go’el redemption) needed to correctly distinguish Ruth 4’s custom; Chinese 香火/传宗接代 categories are strongly resonant but risk collapsing the doctrine into ancestor-rite continuation. Misunderstanding a translation must not invite: That 脱鞋 is the Deuteronomy 25 shame-ritual; that the nearer kinsman’s refusal is a moral failure rather than a legitimate legal choice; that family-line preservation is chiefly about 香火 continuation rather than redemptive-historical purpose. Sensitive terminology: 香火; 传宗接代; 脱鞋; 祭祖 (contrast/bridge notes).
Cross-Doctrine Summary
| Doctrine | Sharpest Cross-Tradition Divergence | Destination-Culture Collision Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Exclusive Worship of Yahweh | Additive (Hindu/Buddhist/Chinese-folk) vs. exclusive (Jewish/Christian) reading of “your God my God” | Highest |
| The Kinsman-Redeemer | Typological-Christological (Christian) vs. Torah-ethical (Jewish) vs. absent (Islamic/Hindu/Buddhist) redeemer category | High |
| Hesed | Covenant-grounded (Jewish/Christian) vs. dharma/karma-grounded adjacent virtues (Hindu/Buddhist) vs. insider honor-code (Chinese 义气) | High |
| God’s Providence in Ordinary Life | Personal-purposive (Jewish/Christian/Islamic) vs. impersonal fate/karma (Hindu/Buddhist/Chinese folk) | High |
| Inclusion of Gentiles | Missiological-universal (Christian) vs. conversion-validating (Jewish) vs. Hua-Yi insider/outsider default (Chinese) | High |
| Loyalty and Faithfulness | Free covenantal response (Jewish/Christian) vs. dharma/caste or filial-duty framing (Hindu/Confucian) | High |
| Genealogy to David and Christ | Christological culmination (Christian) vs. Davidic-hope-only (Jewish) vs. strong-but-misdirectable lineage resonance (Chinese) | Medium-High (resonance is strong but must be redirected) |
| Covenant Oath-Making | Personal-God-enforced (Jewish/Christian/Islamic) vs. impersonal-Heaven-enforced (Chinese folk) | High |
| Levirate-Adjacent Kinship | Halakhically precise (Jewish) vs. strongly resonant but ritual-leaning (Chinese) | Medium |
This document must be read together with analysis/11_doctrine_analysis.md and assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json before Phase 2 translation planning for Ruth begins.