今に至るまで働く神 - ヨハネの福音書と安息日 - 伊藤明生 聖書釈義研究 24号 77～ 90 2013年12月 査読有り 依頼有り 日本語 研究論文（学術雑誌） 「今に至るまで働く神：ヨハネの福音書と安息日」.pdf をダウンロード
その他 09181458 The Fourth Commandment stipulates Sabbath observance. It is commanded on the basis of God’s rest after the creation. In John 5 Jesus’ healing of the man who had been an invalid for thirty eight years led to a Sabbath controversy. In the midst of the discussion, Jesus’statement that his Father is working until now (v.17) appears to contradict the creation account of Genesis. We find a similar saying in Philo’s writings (Legum 1:5-6). Both John and Philo record similar statements, but we must not overlook differences. Jesus’saying in John 5 concerns an eschatological ‘now’, whereas Philo does not show much interest in eschatological perspectives. The soteriological meaning seems to make sense in the context of John's Gospel, while Philo seems to understand God's ongoing work as creation of spiritual spheres. Jesus’statement in John 5 can be understood to mean that both God the Father
and God the Son are engaged in eschatological and soteriological works extending beyond the creation. Therefore, in Jesus’ view, the Sabbath is meant to be a day for God’s activities and blessings, and not merely for rest and inactivity as interpreted by the contemporary Jews.
「見えない神のかたち」 コロサイ人への手紙1章15節 伊藤明生 聖書釈義研究 22号 89～ 100 2011年12月 査読有り 依頼有り 日本語 研究論文（その他学術会議資料等） 「見えない神のかたち」（木内氏訂正）.pdf をダウンロード09181458 Trying to answer the question why the second commandment of
the decalogue, i. e., the prohibition of idolatry, is not violated by
worshipping the incarnate Son of God, the paper approaches the ‘image of
the invisible God (ei˙kw»n touv qeouv touv aÓora¿tou)’ (Col. 1:15) exegetically.
After a short survey of the usage of the word ei˙kw/n in the New Testament
and the phrase ‘the image of God’, the paper is devoted to an analysis of
the hymn of Christ (1:15-20), where the phrase occurs. Since the hymn
presents the Son of God as the creator and the redeemer, it follows that he
himself is God. The paper concludes with the suggestion that the Son is
presented as the image of the invisible God rather than God Himself
because of the historical background of the Imperial Cult and the Roman
political ideology, which take advantage of images of emperors to
insinuate the imperial rule into the whole populace of the Roman empire.
ローマ3章27〜31節における信仰義認と唯一神信仰 伊藤明生 聖書釈義研究 21巻 2010年12月 査読有り 依頼有り 日本語 研究論文（学術雑誌） EXEG 21 伊藤.pdf をダウンロード09181458 Paul abruptly refers to monotheism in the course of his
argument for justification by faith towards the end of chapter 3 of his
letter to the Romans. Romans 3:22 states that the righteousness of God (is
given) through faith in/of Jesus Christ (dia» pi÷stewß ΔΔIhsouv Cristouv) for
all who believe. Then Paul briefly describes the redemptive work of Christ
in terms of aÓpolu/trwsiß (redemption) and i°lasth/rion (propitiation/mercy
seat). After this he refers to the exclusion of the Jewish boasting by the
no/moß of faith, not of works. By the no/moß of faith he means justification
by faith, i.e., one is justified by believing in Christ on the basis of Christ’s
atoning work apart from the works of the law. Since God who justifies the
circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised by the same faith is the only
God, he is not God of Jews only, but of Gentiles also. Since both Jews and
Gentiles are sinners before God, both can join the people of God through
the same route, i.e., by faith. Gentiles can join the people of God without
becoming Jews. There is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles before
God since God is not only God of Jews but also God of Gentiles. From the
beginning of Romans he has consistently argued on the basis of the divine
impartiality, which represents an aspect of monotheism. Paul’s teaching of
justification by faith seems to be directed against the Jewish
misunderstanding because he asserts that it has excluded the Jewish
boasting, and he introduces monotheism in the midst of his argument
without any explanation and argument.
THE WRITTEN TORAH AND THE ORAL GOSPEL: ROMANS 10:5-13 IN THE DYNAMIC TENSION BETWEEN ORALITY AND LITERACY 伊藤明生 Novum Testamentum 48巻 3号 234～ 260 2006年01月 査読有り 英語 研究論文（学術雑誌） 00481009 This article attempts to locate Rom. 10:5-13 within the tension of orality and literacy.1 There has been a debate concerning the precise nature of the relationship between Lev. 18:5 cited in 10:5 and Deut. 30 cited in 10:6-8. Here it is argued that Paul emphasizes the antithesis between the orality of the Gospel and the literacy2 of the Torah because he understands himself as living and working in the tradition of the "herald" of Isaiah 52. Against the orality of the Gospel he stresses the literacy of the Torah when he introduces the Leviticus citation with "Moses writes" in 10:5.
ΝΟΜΟΣ (ΤΩΝ) ΈΡΓΩΝ AND ΝΟΜΟΣ ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ THE PAULINE RHETORIC AND THEOLOGY OF ΝΟΜΟΣ 伊藤明生 Novum Testamentum 45巻 3号 237～ 259 2003年01月 査読有り 英語 研究論文（学術雑誌） NomosErgonNomosPisteosNovT2003.pdf をダウンロード00481009 Since Paul intended his epistles to be read aloud to the congregation from the beginning to the end without going back and forth, they must have made some sense to the audience at the first reading. However, this does not deny that deeper meanings are hidden beneath the surface meaning. A superficial reading and the in-depth theological reading must be compatible and complementary. From this perspective this essay attempts to resolve the debate on the meaning of the νόμος πίστεως and νόμος (των) έργων in Rom. 3:27, whether they refer to the law in a general sense or the Torah.
Romans 2: A Deuteronomistic Reading 伊藤明生 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 59号 21～ 37 1996年01月 査読有り 英語 研究論文（学術雑誌） Romans2JSNT1995.pdf をダウンロード0142064X Despite various proposals to solve the crux interpretum of Romans 2, none of them is satisfactory. This article proposes to incorporate elements of these solutions by paying attention to the covenantal perspective (i.e. the Deuteronomistic framework) and Paul's argumentative flow. Not only in 2.7-10, 29 but also in 2.14-15, 24 allusions to Deuteronomy 27-30 can be detected. With this Deuteronomistic frame work and other clues in mind, the Gentiles who without the law 'do by nature what the law requires' (vv. 14-15) can be identified with Christian Gentiles. On the other hand, the list of Jewish transgressions in vv. 17ff. can be understood as referring to the state of the spiritual 'exile' rather than their actual transgressions. Furthermore, the argumentative flow of Romans explains why Paul expresses himself so vaguely that the passage can be interpreted so differently: Paul deliberately avoids using Christian categories and expressions not to encourage Gentile Christians to boast over the Jews.
MATTHEW AND THE COMMUNITY OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLL 伊藤明生 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 48号 23～ 42 1992年01月 査読有り 英語 研究論文（学術雑誌） その他 0142064X This article first surveys possible parallels between Matthew and the Dead Sea Scrolls. From the survey it argues that: (1) Matthew and the community of the DSS did not seem to have a close relationship, partly because the parallels do not concern the distinctive characteristics of the DSS, and partly because the Matthaean parallels seem redactional; and that (2) various possible parallels between Matthew and the DSS (for example, the revelatory function of Jesus and the Teacher of Righteousness, interpretation of the Hebrew prophets, strict interpretation of the Law, the presence of the scribal role, the open canon and so on) seem to point to a common apocalyptic background. It can be concluded that both Matthew and the community of the DSS probably belonged to a broadly apocalyptic stream of the Judasim of the time, although they did not have a close relationship with each other.
THE QUESTION OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BAN ON SWEARING (MATTHEW 5.33-37) 伊藤明生 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43号 1991年01月 査読有り 英語 研究論文（学術雑誌） The Question of the authenticity of hte ban on swearing.pdf をダウンロード0142064X This is a critical reply to G. Dautzenberg's arguments against the authenticity of Jesus' prohibition of swearing (Mt. 5.33-37), which are: (1) widespread Jewish negative attitudes towards oaths, (2) a tension between the prohibition and Jesus' use of asseverations and 'amen', (3) James' ignorance of its dominical origin (Jas 5.12) and (4) Paul's ignorance of the prohibition. Against these, the following arguments should be put forward. (1) However fine the distinction may appear, Jesus' prohibi tion is more radical and comprehensive than other Jewish negative attitudes. (2) Although a tension can be detected, it is quite possible to harmonize it. (3) Although James does not attribute the prohibition to Jesus, he probably assumes its dominical origin. (4) Although Paul does not acknowledge the prohibition, we can detect his awareness of it. Therefore, Dautzenberg's arguments are not sufficient to disprove its authenticity.
Matthew's Understanding of the Law with special reference to the Fourth Antithesis 1989年09月 査読有り 英語 学位論文