3.1. Jesus
3.1.1. Mark 12:18-27 = Matt 22:23-33 = Luke 20:27-40 (Exod 3:6, 15)
Against the Sadducees, Jesus teaches that there will be a resurrection of the dead; at this time there will be no sexual relations among men and women, since they will be like the angels. To prove that there will be a final resurrection, Jesus finds a peculiarity in Exod 3:6: he points out that God said to Moses, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Jacob and the God of Isaac," and draws this not-so-obvious conclusion from these Old Testament passages: "God is not the God of the dead but the living; you are greatly deceived." In other words, Jesus argues that God could not say to Moses that he was the God of the patriarchs unless they were still alive; if Abraham, Jacob and Isaac were no longer, then He would have said to Moses, "I was the God of Abraham, the God of Jacob and the God of Isaac."
3.1.2. John 7:16-24
Jesus defends his healing on the Sabbath by an argument from minor to major, an interpretive rule known in early rabbinic exegesis as qal vahomer ("light and heavy" or minor to major). The Torah requires that a male child be circumcised on the eighth day after birth; since no exceptions to this rule are provided in the Torah, Jews of the second-Temple period assumed that, when the eighth day fell on a Sabbath, one was justified in violating the Sabbath, in order to fulfill the commandment to circumcise on the eighth day (Circumcision was classified as an act of work.) In such a case, both laws cannot be fulfilled, so priority is given to the law of circumcision (There were other exceptions made to the Sabbath law.) Assuming this valid exception to Sabbath law, Jesus argues from minor to major for the rightness of healing on the Sabbath. He argues that, since one can circumcise a child, and thereby "heal" a part of the body, on the Sabbath and not be guilty of sin, one should also be allowed to heal the whole body on the Sabbath. Jesus likely is using a Jewish tradition that identifies circumcision as an act of healing.
3.2. Paul (1 Cor 9:8-9) (Deut 25:4)
In good rabbinic fashion, the apostle Paul presents a argument from minor to major for the financial support of apostles, which allows him to say that the Torah itself supports his position. Quoting Deut 25:4, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," he asks, "Does God care about oxen?" What he means is that God does not care about oxen as much as He cares about human beings. By arguing from minor to major, Paul draws the conclusion, if God requires that the oxen, who labor by treading on the grain helping to separate the husk from the edible kernel, be allowed to benefit from their labor by eating some of the grain, all the more should apostles be allowed to benefit from their labor by being supported materially by those who benefit from them spiritually.
3.3. Hebrews 6:13-17
In Heb 6:13-14, the author of the Letter to the Hebrews explains that, in his promising to Abraham, God swore by himself, because there was none greater by whom to swear. In fact, God made a three-fold promise to Abraham after his successful testing, when he showed himself willing to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. The author cites only one of these three promises: "I will surely bless you and I will surely multiply you" (Gen 22:17) (6:14). He explains in Heb 6:16 that only God swears by himself, unlike human beings, who swear by something or someone greater than themselves. The author's interest in the fact of God's oath to Abraham stems from his interest in Ps 110:4, which he interprets messianically, of Christ, in Heb 5:5-10 in tandem with Ps 2:7: "Yahweh has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek'." Implicitly, the author is appealing to the exegetical principle known to the early rabbis as gezerah shavah ("an equal category"). What is common to both passages is God's swearing of an oath: "By myself I have sworn (ômasa)" (Gen 22:16) and "Yahweh has sworn (ômesen) and will not change his mind" (Ps 110:4). The author believes that what he can determine about God's oath-taking from Gen 22:16-17 may be transfered to Ps 110:4 and used to interpret Yahweh's oath to the son that he is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek in Ps 110:4. In particular, he holds that in Ps 110:4, even though this passage does not say so explicitly, Yahweh must have sworn by himself, as he did when he swore to Abraham, because there is no one greater by whom God could swear. Since God swore by himself it follows that the oath made to Christ in Ps 110:4 is certain. Thus, in Heb 6:16-17, the author's point is that the character of God's promise to the readers is certain insofar as Yahweh swore by himself when he swore that Christ would be a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
3.3. Second-Temple Jewish Texts
3.3.1. The "World to Come" in Early Rabbinic Exegesis
The concept of the world to come is not explicitly expounded in the Torah, nor in the rest of the Old Testament. Thus the early rabbis resorted to ingenious, less-than-obvious exegesis to justify their belief in such a reality; they would point out peculiarities in Old Testament texts and then interpret them as teaching that there is a world to come. One technique was to interpret any apparently unnecessary multiplicity of expression as implying the existence of the world to come. Duplication of expression when describing the benefits of the righteous in Ps 128:2 suggests that there were too contexts in which the righteous are rewarded for their obedience: "Happy are you and it will go well for you." The clause "Happy are you" is seen as descriptive of the righteous person's blessedness in this world, whereas "And it will go well for you" describes the quality of life in the world to come (m. Abot 4.1; 6.4). The same technique is used in the interpretation of Deut 11:21 in Sipre Deut 47: "'That your days may be multiplied'—in this world—and the days of your children...'—in the days of the Messiah—'as the days of the heavens above the earth'—in the world to come." In the same vein, R. Abiba takes the two occurrences of verb "to cut off" to mean the cutting off of the transgressor in this world and in the world to come (Sipre Num 112) (R. Ishmael disagrees, noting that this is an idiom.) Finally, Prov 4:9 is interpreted as follows: "'She [Wisdom] will give to your head a garland of grace'—in this world— 'a crown of glory will She present you'—in the world to come"; similarly the clause in Prov 3:16, 'Length of days is in her right hand' is said to refer to the world to come, whereas 'In her left hand are riches and honor' refers to this world (Sipre Deut 48). (See also example in Sipre Deut 357; Sipre Num 42 [I.8]; Mek Shirata 6.64-68; Mek Vayassa 1.167-75.)
That the world to come is a reality can also be inferred logically from a careful observation of scripture. When Moses blessed the tribes, he says, "Let Reuben live, and not die" (Deut 33:6). The early rabbis conclude that Moses must have meant that Reuben would live in the world to come—in spite of his sin—since he had already died; otherwise Moses' statement is nonsensical. Likewise, it is reasoned that the promise in Lev 18:5 that the person who obeys God's decrees and laws will live by them assumes the existence of the world to come. The promise, "You shall live " is taken to be incompatible with the view that death is the end of human life (Sipra Lev Ahare Parashah 8.10). Similarly, it follows that, if scripture says of one who is utterly cut off that his iniquity remains upon him, this can only be true if the dead must stand before God in judgment, since iniquity cannot remain upon one who no longer exists (Sipre Num 112). The one upon whom his iniquity remains will be excluded from the world to come. Finally, the scroll eaten by Ezekiel, upon both sides of which were written words of lament and mourning is interpreted symbolically as referring to the two worlds: the front of the scroll signifies this world, whereas its reverse signifies the world to come (Sipre Num 103). Apparently, this is the only explanation for the fact that both sides of the scroll were written upon. (See also Mek Shirata 1.8-10.)
3.3.2. Rabbinic Use of Qal Vahomer Interpretation
In the Mekilta, R. Ishmael argues from minor to major (qal vahomer) that suffering obtains pardon from heaven. He reasons that, since a slave can obtain his freedom if physically injured by his master (Exod 21:26-27), the one who suffers at the hand of God as chastisement for sin should all the more obtain pardon (Mek. Nezikin 9.65-67). Ps 118:18 "The LORD has chastised me severely, but has not given me over to death" is cited as further proof that chastisement for sin will lead to forgiveness and eternal life.
Likewise, R. Jose argues from minor to major that, if so many deaths resulted from Adam's one violation of a negative commandment, how great will the reward be that is coming to the righteous in the coming time. The premise for his argument is that God's attribute of goodness is greater than His attribute of punishment (Sipra Dehobah parashah 12.10). Thus it only stands to reason that God's reward for the righteous must indeed be great, since death is a such a formidable and universal evil.
3.3.3. Rabbinic Use of Gezerah Shavah (Mek. Nezikin 1.31-43) In Exod 21:2, it is stipulated that a Hebrew slave must be released after six years of service to his or her master. The question is raised concerning the meaning of "Hebrew." Based on the use of "Hebrew" in Deut 15:12 "If your brother, a Hebrew...be sold to you," it is concluded that "Hebrew" means "Israelite." In other words, the fact that "Hebrew" is in apposition to "brother" in Deut 15:12, and therefore means fellow countryman or Israelite, allows one to import this meaning into other passages where "Hebrew" occurs, such as Exod 21:2. The conclusi
3.1. Jesus
3.1.1. Mark 12:18-27 = Matt 22:23-33 = Luke 20:27-40 (Exod 3:6, 15)
Against the Sadducees, Jesus teaches that there will be a resurrection of the dead; at this time there will be no sexual relations among men and women, since they will be like the angels. To prove that there will be a final resurrection, Jesus finds a peculiarity in Exod 3:6: he points out that God said to Moses, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Jacob and the God of Isaac," and draws this not-so-obvious conclusion from these Old Testament passages: "God is not the God of the dead but the living; you are greatly deceived." In other words, Jesus argues that God could not say to Moses that he was the God of the patriarchs unless they were still alive; if Abraham, Jacob and Isaac were no longer, then He would have said to Moses, "I was the God of Abraham, the God of Jacob and the God of Isaac."
3.1.2. John 7:16-24
Jesus defends his healing on the Sabbath by an argument from minor to major, an interpretive rule known in early rabbinic exegesis as qal vahomer ("light and heavy" or minor to major). The Torah requires that a male child be circumcised on the eighth day after birth; since no exceptions to this rule are provided in the Torah, Jews of the second-Temple period assumed that, when the eighth day fell on a Sabbath, one was justified in violating the Sabbath, in order to fulfill the commandment to circumcise on the eighth day (Circumcision was classified as an act of work.) In such a case, both laws cannot be fulfilled, so priority is given to the law of circumcision (There were other exceptions made to the Sabbath law.) Assuming this valid exception to Sabbath law, Jesus argues from minor to major for the rightness of healing on the Sabbath. He argues that, since one can circumcise a child, and thereby "heal" a part of the body, on the Sabbath and not be guilty of sin, one should also be allowed to heal the whole body on the Sabbath. Jesus likely is using a Jewish tradition that identifies circumcision as an act of healing.
3.2. Paul (1 Cor 9:8-9) (Deut 25:4)
In good rabbinic fashion, the apostle Paul presents a argument from minor to major for the financial support of apostles, which allows him to say that the Torah itself supports his position. Quoting Deut 25:4, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," he asks, "Does God care about oxen?" What he means is that God does not care about oxen as much as He cares about human beings. By arguing from minor to major, Paul draws the conclusion, if God requires that the oxen, who labor by treading on the grain helping to separate the husk from the edible kernel, be allowed to benefit from their labor by eating some of the grain, all the more should apostles be allowed to benefit from their labor by being supported materially by those who benefit from them spiritually.
3.3. Hebrews 6:13-17
In Heb 6:13-14, the author of the Letter to the Hebrews explains that, in his promising to Abraham, God swore by himself, because there was none greater by whom to swear. In fact, God made a three-fold promise to Abraham after his successful testing, when he showed himself willing to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. The author cites only one of these three promises: "I will surely bless you and I will surely multiply you" (Gen 22:17) (6:14). He explains in Heb 6:16 that only God swears by himself, unlike human beings, who swear by something or someone greater than themselves. The author's interest in the fact of God's oath to Abraham stems from his interest in Ps 110:4, which he interprets messianically, of Christ, in Heb 5:5-10 in tandem with Ps 2:7: "Yahweh has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek'." Implicitly, the author is appealing to the exegetical principle known to the early rabbis as gezerah shavah ("an equal category"). What is common to both passages is God's swearing of an oath: "By myself I have sworn (ômasa)" (Gen 22:16) and "Yahweh has sworn (ômesen) and will not change his mind" (Ps 110:4). The author believes that what he can determine about God's oath-taking from Gen 22:16-17 may be transfered to Ps 110:4 and used to interpret Yahweh's oath to the son that he is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek in Ps 110:4. In particular, he holds that in Ps 110:4, even though this passage does not say so explicitly, Yahweh must have sworn by himself, as he did when he swore to Abraham, because there is no one greater by whom God could swear. Since God swore by himself it follows that the oath made to Christ in Ps 110:4 is certain. Thus, in Heb 6:16-17, the author's point is that the character of God's promise to the readers is certain insofar as Yahweh swore by himself when he swore that Christ would be a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
3.3. Second-Temple Jewish Texts
3.3.1. The "World to Come" in Early Rabbinic Exegesis
The concept of the world to come is not explicitly expounded in the Torah, nor in the rest of the Old Testament. Thus the early rabbis resorted to ingenious, less-than-obvious exegesis to justify their belief in such a reality; they would point out peculiarities in Old Testament texts and then interpret them as teaching that there is a world to come. One technique was to interpret any apparently unnecessary multiplicity of expression as implying the existence of the world to come. Duplication of expression when describing the benefits of the righteous in Ps 128:2 suggests that there were too contexts in which the righteous are rewarded for their obedience: "Happy are you and it will go well for you." The clause "Happy are you" is seen as descriptive of the righteous person's blessedness in this world, whereas "And it will go well for you" describes the quality of life in the world to come (m. Abot 4.1; 6.4). The same technique is used in the interpretation of Deut 11:21 in Sipre Deut 47: "'That your days may be multiplied'—in this world—and the days of your children...'—in the days of the Messiah—'as the days of the heavens above the earth'—in the world to come." In the same vein, R. Abiba takes the two occurrences of verb "to cut off" to mean the cutting off of the transgressor in this world and in the world to come (Sipre Num 112) (R. Ishmael disagrees, noting that this is an idiom.) Finally, Prov 4:9 is interpreted as follows: "'She [Wisdom] will give to your head a garland of grace'—in this world— 'a crown of glory will She present you'—in the world to come"; similarly the clause in Prov 3:16, 'Length of days is in her right hand' is said to refer to the world to come, whereas 'In her left hand are riches and honor' refers to this world (Sipre Deut 48). (See also example in Sipre Deut 357; Sipre Num 42 [I.8]; Mek Shirata 6.64-68; Mek Vayassa 1.167-75.)
That the world to come is a reality can also be inferred logically from a careful observation of scripture. When Moses blessed the tribes, he says, "Let Reuben live, and not die" (Deut 33:6). The early rabbis conclude that Moses must have meant that Reuben would live in the world to come—in spite of his sin—since he had already died; otherwise Moses' statement is nonsensical. Likewise, it is reasoned that the promise in Lev 18:5 that the person who obeys God's decrees and laws will live by them assumes the existence of the world to come. The promise, "You shall live " is taken to be incompatible with the view that death is the end of human life (Sipra Lev Ahare Parashah 8.10). Similarly, it follows that, if scripture says of one who is utterly cut off that his iniquity remains upon him, this can only be true if the dead must stand before God in judgment, since iniquity cannot remain upon one who no longer exists (Sipre Num 112). The one upon whom his iniquity remains will be excluded from the world to come. Finally, the scroll eaten by Ezekiel, upon both sides of which were written words of lament and mourning is interpreted symbolically as referring to the two worlds: the front of the scroll signifies this world, whereas its reverse signifies the world to come (Sipre Num 103). Apparently, this is the only explanation for the fact that both sides of the scroll were written upon. (See also Mek Shirata 1.8-10.)
3.3.2. Rabbinic Use of Qal Vahomer Interpretation
In the Mekilta, R. Ishmael argues from minor to major (qal vahomer) that suffering obtains pardon from heaven. He reasons that, since a slave can obtain his freedom if physically injured by his master (Exod 21:26-27), the one who suffers at the hand of God as chastisement for sin should all the more obtain pardon (Mek. Nezikin 9.65-67). Ps 118:18 "The LORD has chastised me severely, but has not given me over to death" is cited as further proof that chastisement for sin will lead to forgiveness and eternal life.
Likewise, R. Jose argues from minor to major that, if so many deaths resulted from Adam's one violation of a negative commandment, how great will the reward be that is coming to the righteous in the coming time. The premise for his argument is that God's attribute of goodness is greater than His attribute of punishment (Sipra Dehobah parashah 12.10). Thus it only stands to reason that God's reward for the righteous must indeed be great, since death is a such a formidable and universal evil.
3.3.3. Rabbinic Use of Gezerah Shavah (Mek. Nezikin 1.31-43) In Exod 21:2, it is stipulated that a Hebrew slave must be released after six years of service to his or her master. The question is raised concerning the meaning of "Hebrew." Based on the use of "Hebrew" in Deut 15:12 "If your brother, a Hebrew...be sold to you," it is concluded that "Hebrew" means "Israelite." In other words, the fact that "Hebrew" is in apposition to "brother" in Deut 15:12, and therefore means fellow countryman or Israelite, allows one to import this meaning into other passages where "Hebrew" occurs, such as Exod 21:2. The conclusi
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
3.1 . พระเยซู
3.1.1 . มาร์ค 12 : 18-27 = = ลุคแมท 22 : 23-33 20:27-40 ( exod 3 : 6 , 15 )
กับ Sadducees พระเยซูสอนว่า จะมีการคืนพระชนม์ของคนตาย ในเวลานี้จะไม่มีความสัมพันธ์ทางเพศระหว่างหญิงและชาย เนื่องจากพวกเขาจะเป็นเหมือนเทวดา เพื่อพิสูจน์ว่า จะมีการคืนพระชนม์สุดท้าย พระเยซูพบความไม่ชอบมาพากลใน exod 3 : 6 : เขาชี้ให้เห็นว่าพระเจ้าตรัสกับโมเสส" เราเป็นพระเจ้าของอับราฮัม พระเจ้าของยาโคบ และพระเจ้าของอิสอัค และดึงนี้ไม่ได้ข้อสรุปชัดเจนจากพันธสัญญาเดิมหัวข้อ : " พระเจ้ามิได้เป็นพระเจ้าของคนตาย แต่ใช้ชีวิต คุณจะล่อลวง . " ในคำอื่น ๆที่พระเจ้าว่าพระเจ้าสามารถพูดกับโมเสส ว่าเขาเป็นพระเจ้าของพระสังฆราช ถ้าพวกเขายังมีชีวิตอยู่ ถ้าอับราฮัมอิสอัคยาโคบ และก็ไม่มีอีกต่อไป then He would have said to Moses, "I was the God of Abraham, the God of Jacob and the God of Isaac."
3.1.2. John 7:16-24
Jesus defends his healing on the Sabbath by an argument from minor to major, an interpretive rule known in early rabbinic exegesis as qal vahomer ("light and heavy" or minor to major). The Torah requires that a male child be circumcised on the eighth day after birth; since no exceptions to this rule are provided in the Torah, Jews of the second-Temple period assumed that, when the eighth day fell on a Sabbath, one was justified in violating the Sabbath, in order to fulfill the commandment to circumcise on the eighth day (Circumcision was classified as an act of work.) In such a case, both laws cannot be fulfilled, so priority is given to the law of circumcision (There were other exceptions made to the Sabbath law.) Assuming this valid exception to Sabbath law, Jesus argues from minor to major for the rightness of healing on the Sabbath. He argues that, since one can circumcise a child, and thereby "heal" a part of the body, on the Sabbath and not be guilty of sin, one should also be allowed to heal the whole body on the Sabbath. Jesus likely is using a Jewish tradition that identifies circumcision as an act of healing.
3.2. Paul (1 Cor 9:8-9) (Deut 25:4)
In good rabbinic fashion, the apostle Paul presents a argument from minor to major for the financial support of apostles, which allows him to say that the Torah itself supports his position.ส่วน deut 25 : 4 ด้าย , " คุณจะไม่ปากกระบอกปืนวัวเมื่อดอกยางออกจากเมล็ดข้าว " เขาถามว่า " พระเจ้าดูแลวัว ? สิ่งที่เขาหมายถึงคือพระเจ้าไม่ได้ดูแลเกี่ยวกับวัวเท่าที่เขาเป็นห่วงมนุษย์ โดยให้เหตุผลจากเล็กไปใหญ่ พอล วาดรุป ถ้าพระเจ้าต้องการให้วัวที่คลอดโดยเหยียบเม็ดช่วยแยกแกลบออกจากเมล็ดข้าวที่กินได้ได้ประโยชน์จากแรงงานของพวกเขา โดยกินบางส่วนของเมล็ดข้าวทั้งหมดขึ้นควรอัครสาวกได้รับอนุญาตที่จะได้รับประโยชน์จากแรงงานของตนเอง โดยได้รับการสนับสนุนอย่างมาก โดยผู้ที่ได้รับประโยชน์จากจิตวิญญาณของพวกเขา
3.3 . ฮีบรู 6:13-17
ในชั้น 6:13-14 , เขียนจดหมายถึงชาวฮีบรู อธิบายว่า เขาสัญญากับอับราฮัม พระเจ้าทรงสาบานด้วยตัวเขาเองเพราะไม่มีมากขึ้นโดยผู้ที่สาบาน ในความเป็นจริง พระเจ้าได้สัญญาไว้กับอับราฮัมสามพับ หลังจากการทดสอบที่ประสบความสำเร็จของเขา เมื่อเขาพบว่าตัวเองยื่นให้ไอแซคเป็นผู้เสียสละ ผู้เขียนอ้างเพียงหนึ่งในสามสัญญา : " ผมจะอวยพรให้คุณและฉันก็จะทวีคุณ ( Gen 22 : 17 ) ( 6 : 14 ) เขาอธิบายในฮีบรู 6 : 16 ที่พระเจ้าเท่านั้นที่สาบานโดยตัวเอง ไม่เหมือนมนุษย์ who swear by something or someone greater than themselves. The author's interest in the fact of God's oath to Abraham stems from his interest in Ps 110:4, which he interprets messianically, of Christ, in Heb 5:5-10 in tandem with Ps 2:7: "Yahweh has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek'." Implicitly,ผู้เขียนจะดูดไป exegetical หลักการรู้จักพระต้น gezerah shavah ( " หมวดหมู่ " เท่ากัน ) สิ่งที่เป็นปกติทั้งทางเดินก็สบถสาบานของพระเจ้า : " ฉันได้สาบาน ( เป็นการ Masa ) " ( Gen ) ) และ " พระเยโฮวาห์ทรงปฏิญาณ ( เป็นการ mesen ) และจะไม่ เปลี่ยนใจ " ( PS 110 : 4 ) ผู้เขียนเชื่อว่า สิ่งที่เขาสามารถตรวจสอบเรื่องของพระเจ้าแล้ว การสร้าง : 22 จาก16-17 may be transfered to Ps 110:4 and used to interpret Yahweh's oath to the son that he is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek in Ps 110:4. In particular, he holds that in Ps 110:4, even though this passage does not say so explicitly, Yahweh must have sworn by himself, as he did when he swore to Abraham, because there is no one greater by whom God could swear. Since God swore by himself it follows that the oath made to Christ in Ps 110:4 is certain. Thus, in Heb 6:16-17, the author's point is that the character of God's promise to the readers is certain insofar as Yahweh swore by himself when he swore that Christ would be a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
3.3. Second-Temple Jewish Texts
3.3.1." โลกที่จะมา " ในช่วงต้นเกี่ยวกับกฎหมายยิวอรรถกถา
แนวคิดของโลกมาเป็นอย่างชัดเจนอธิบายในโตราห์หรือส่วนที่เหลือของพระคัมภีร์ไบเบิลฉบับเก่า ดังนั้น ก่อนพระใช้ความคิดสร้างสรรค์น้อยกว่าอย่างเห็นได้ชัดอรรถกถาที่จะปรับความเชื่อของพวกเขาเช่นในความเป็นจริง they would point out peculiarities in Old Testament texts and then interpret them as teaching that there is a world to come. One technique was to interpret any apparently unnecessary multiplicity of expression as implying the existence of the world to come. Duplication of expression when describing the benefits of the righteous in Ps 128:2 แสดงให้เห็นว่ามีด้วยบริบทที่คนชอบธรรมจะได้รับรางวัลสำหรับการเชื่อฟังของพวกเขา : " ความสุขคือคุณและมันจะไปได้ดีสำหรับคุณ . " ข้อ " ความสุขที่คุณ " จะเห็นเป็นแบบของคนเป็นความสุขในโลกนี้ ในขณะที่ " และจะไปได้ดีสำหรับคุณ " อธิบายถึงคุณภาพ ชีวิตในโลกหน้า ( ม. abot 4.1 ; 6.4 )เทคนิคเดียวกันกับที่ใช้ในการแปลความหมายของ deut 11 : 20 ใน sipre deut 47 " ที่วันของคุณอาจจะคูณ ' - ในโลกนี้และวันของเด็ก . . . . . . . ' - ในวันอัล - 'as วันสวรรค์บนดิน ' - ในโลกที่จะมา . " ใน หลอดเลือดดำเดียวกัน . Abiba takes the two occurrences of verb "to cut off" to mean the cutting off of the transgressor in this world and in the world to come (Sipre Num 112) (R. Ishmael disagrees, noting that this is an idiom.) Finally, Prov 4:9 is interpreted as follows: "'She [Wisdom] will give to your head a garland of grace'—in this world— 'a crown of glory will She present you'—in the world to come"; similarly the clause in Prov 3:16, 'Length of days is in her right hand' is said to refer to the world to come, whereas 'In her left hand are riches and honor' refers to this world (Sipre Deut 48). (See also example in Sipre Deut 357; Sipre Num 42 [I.8]; Mek Shirata 6.64-68; Mek Vayassa 1.167-75.)
That the world to come is a reality can also be inferred logically from a careful observation of scripture. When Moses blessed the tribes, he says, "Let Reuben live, and not die" (Deut 33:6). The early rabbis conclude that Moses must have meant that Reuben would live in the world to come—in spite of his sin—since he had already died; otherwise Moses' statement is nonsensical. Likewise,มันคือเหตุผลที่สัญญาในเลฟ 18 : 5 คนที่เชื่อฟังคำสั่งและกฎหมายของพระเจ้าจะอยู่กับพวกเขาถือว่าการดำรงอยู่ของโลกมา สัญญา " คุณจะมีชีวิตอยู่ " ถ่ายจะไม่เข้ากันกับมุมมองว่า ความตายเป็นจุดสิ้นสุดของชีวิตของมนุษย์ ( sipra เลฟ ahare parashah 8.10 ) ในทำนองเดียวกัน มันเป็นไปตามนั้น if scripture says of one who is utterly cut off that his iniquity remains upon him, this can only be true if the dead must stand before God in judgment, since iniquity cannot remain upon one who no longer exists (Sipre Num 112). The one upon whom his iniquity remains will be excluded from the world to come. Finally, the scroll eaten by Ezekiel,เมื่อทั้งสองข้างซึ่งถูกเขียนคำรำพันครวญถูกตีความสัญลักษณ์เป็นหมายถึงสองโลก : หน้าของคัมภีร์ หมายถึงโลกใบนี้ ในขณะที่มันกลับหมายถึงโลกมา ( sipre Num 103 ) เห็นได้ชัดว่า นี่เป็นคำอธิบายสำหรับข้อเท็จจริงที่ว่าทั้งสองด้านของคัมภีร์ถูกเขียนเมื่อ ( เห็นเมฆ shirata 1.8-10 )
3.3.2 .ใช้ราบของ
ตีความ vahomer เขากล่าวว่า ใน mekilta , R อิชมาเอลแย้งจากเล็กไปใหญ่ เขากล่าวว่า vahomer ) ทุกข์นั้นได้รับโทษจากสวรรค์ เขามีเหตุผลว่า ตั้งแต่ทาสที่ได้รับอิสรภาพของเขา ถ้าร่างกายได้รับบาดเจ็บ โดยเจ้านายของเขา ( exod 21:26-27 ) คนที่ทนทุกข์ทรมานจากพระหัตถ์ของพระเจ้าเป็นลงโทษสำหรับบาปทั้งหมดจะยิ่งได้รับอภัยโทษ ( เม็ก . nezikin 9.65-67 ) PS 118 :18 " พระเจ้าทรงตำหนิฉันอย่างรุนแรง แต่ไม่ได้ให้ฉันตาย " อ้างเป็นหลักฐานว่าลงโทษสำหรับบาปจะนำไปสู่การให้อภัยและชีวิตนิรันดร์
และ R . Jose แย้งจากเล็กไปใหญ่ ถ้าคนตายเยอะเกิดจากอดัมหนึ่งละเมิดพระบัญญัติ ลบ วิธีการที่ดีจะได้รับรางวัลนั้นคือที่มาที่ชอบธรรมในเวลาที่มาหลักฐานสำหรับอาร์กิวเมนต์ของเขาคือ คุณลักษณะของพระเจ้าของพระเจ้ามากกว่าคุณลักษณะของการลงโทษ ( sipra dehobah parashah 12.10 ) ดังนั้นมันจึงเป็นเหตุผลว่ารางวัลของพระเจ้าสำหรับคนชอบธรรมจะแท้จะดีมาก เพราะความตายเป็นเรื่องที่น่ากลัวและความชั่วร้ายสากล
3.3.3 . ใช้ราบของ gezerah shavah ( เม็ก . nezikin 1.31-43 ) คือ exod , it is stipulated that a Hebrew slave must be released after six years of service to his or her master. The question is raised concerning the meaning of "Hebrew." Based on the use of "Hebrew" in Deut 15:12 "If your brother, a Hebrew...be sold to you," it is concluded that "Hebrew" means "Israelite." In other words, the fact that "Hebrew" is in apposition to "brother" in Deut 15:12, and therefore means fellow countryman or Israelite, allows one to import this meaning into other passages where "Hebrew" occurs, such as Exod 21:2. The conclusi
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..