如同周知，「天」始出於周初的文?中，由《書經》可知字義其自始便與政權的正當性密切相?。它是令人畏怖的存在，但基本上是賞善罰?、具備道義上的合理性。孔子繼承「天」的合理性與道?性，他認同天命的存在，但理解「天」為維繫道德秩序的法則，而非宗教信仰的對象。孟子的政治期望是在「道」、「勢」一致的情況下，做到由「王道」達成的一君萬民的天下一統。他開始注意天命與民意之間的關聯；認為判定君王的政治是否合於天命的基準，在於其是否能安定民生。從孔孟到朱子，「天」漸漸發展成同時能賦予「道」普遍性、又能賦予君主支配權和指導權、保證治權的正當性和永續性的概念。儒者在以道自任的同時，也堅持有?者受命論、期許「王道」政治終將實現。 然而，對於堅信血統、皇統之連續性的日本人而言，梁?王篇中論及臣?君、湯武伐桀紂的篇章，卻成了大逆不道的議論。近代儒學者，則試圖透過詞句釋意、譬喻、文本選擇、內容置換等方式、來弱化「德治」和「血脈」之間的扞挌，強調日本才能真正繼承東亞傳統、日本思想中早已孕育東方思想本源的觀點，賦與日本的思想文化以一種普遍的價值。 筆者選取近代日本儒學者在進行此類論述時慣常使用的概念「道」、「王道」與「皇道」，以概念史的研究方法來分析他們採取什麼詮釋手段來解釋這些特定概念，再以思想史的研究方法將儒者的概念解釋置於近代日本思想史的脈絡中加以考察。以此比較近代中日儒學者對儒學用語詮釋所造成的不同影響、及其所造成的不同效用。

　　　　　The word “Heaven” was first documented in the texts of the Zhou dynasty and, as one finds in the Book of Record, was closely associated with the legitimacy of political power. This concept of “heaven” denoted a fearful being, which, by rewarding the good and punishing the evil, also achieved its moral status. From the time of Confucius to that of Zhu Xi, the concept of “heaven” had gradually developed into the idea of the entity, which endows both the dao with prevalence and the ruler with the power to dominate and guide the people, ensuring the righteousness and perpetuity of the sovereign. When Confucian scholars committed themselves to the dao, they insisted that the virtuous receive the Mandate and the kingly way be realized. In contrast, for the Japanese convinced of the continuity of the royal lineage and imperial legacy, the discourse of regicide, such as the revolutions of Tang and Wu against Jie and Zhou in the “King Liang Hui” chapter of Mencius, meant unforgivable, heinous treason. In modern Japan, Confucian scholars tried to soften the conflict between rule of “the virtuous” and rule of the “royal lineage” with textual reinterpretation, analogy, and replacement of contents. This essay aims to distinguish the interpretative approaches and characteristics of modern Japanese Confucianism by analyzing the keywords used by Japanese Confucian scholars, such as “Dou” (dao), “Oudou” (wangdao),” and “Koudou” (huangdao). I not only identify the means these Confucian scholars assumed to interpret those keywords but also examine such Confucian interpretations in the context of modern Japanese thought. To be more specific, I compare various interpretations of Confucian terms made by Chinese and Japanese Confucian scholars as well as reveal different consequences derived from the discrepancy of these interpretations.