HHMI Newsgroup Archives
From:
James Trimm
To:
heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
Subject: 7 Rules of Hillel in
NT
Hillel's seven rules and the New Testament
1. Kal V'Khomer (light and heavy)
Kal v'khomer is the
first of the seven rules for understanding the
scriptures written by Hillel. Hillel did not invent the
rules, in fact
they are so old we see them used in the Tenach.
The kol v'komer
thoughtform is used to make an argument from lesser
weight based on one of greater weight. It may be expressed
as:
If X is true of Y
then how much more X must be true of Z
(Where Z is of greater weight than Y)
A kol v'khomer argument is often, but not always, signaled by a
phraselike "how much more..."
The Rabbinical writers
recognize two forms ok kol v'khomer:
kal v'khomer meforash
- In this form the kal v'chomer argument appears explicitly.
kal v'khomer satum -
In which the kal v'khomer argument is only implied.
There are several
examples of kal v'khomer in the Tenach. For
example:
Behold the righteous
shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked
and the sinner. (Prov. 11:31)
And:
If you have run with
footmen and they have wearied you, then how can you
contend with horses? (Jer. 12:5a)
Other Tenach examples to look at:
Dt. 31:27; 1Sam. 23:3;
Jer. 12:5b; Ezkl. 15:5; Esther 9:12
For those who wish to look as rabbinical usage of implied
occurrences:
Num. 12:14 & b. BK
25a; Dt. 21:23 & m. San. 6:5
Lev. 21:16-21 &
Num. 8:24-25 & b.Hul. 24a
There is also an
important limitation to the kal v'khomer
thoughtform. This is the dayo (enough) principle.
This is that the
conclusion of an argument is satisfied when it is like the major
premise.
In other words the conclusion is equalized to the premise and
neither a
stricter nor a more lenient view is to be taken. (m.BK
2:5) Rabbi Tarfon
rejected the dayo principle in certain cases (b.BK 25a)
There are several
examples of kal v'khomer in the New Testament.
Yeshua often uses this form of argument. For example:
If a man receives
circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the Law of
Moses should not be broken, are you angry with me
because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? (Jn. 7:23)
And:
What man is there
among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a
pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it
out? Of how much more value
then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful
to do good on the Sabbath. (Mt. 12:11-12)
Other examples of Yeshua's usage of kal v'khomer are:
Mt. 6:26, 30 = Lk.
12:24, 28
Mt. 7:11 = Lk. 11:13
Mt. 10:25 & Jn.
15:18-20
Mt. 12:12 & Jn.
7:23
Paul uses kal v'khomer in:
Rom. 5:8-9, 10, 15,
17; 11:12, 24
1Cor. 9:11-12; 12:22
2Cor. 3:7-9, 11
Philip. 2:12
Phil. 1:16
Heb. 2:2-3; 9:13-14;
10:28-29; 12:9, 25
2. G'zerah Shavah (Equivalence of expressions)
An analogy is made between two separate texts on the basis of a
similar
phrase, word or root.
Tenakh example:
Judges 13:5 & 1Sam. 1:10
3. Binyan ab mikathub echad (Building of the father from
one text)
One explicit passage serves as a foundation or starting point so
as to
constitute a rule (father) for all similar passages or cases.
Ex. 3:4 God addressed Moses "Moses, Moses..." all the
time.
Heb. 9:11-22 aplies "blood" from Ex. 24:8=Heb. 9:20 to
Jer. 31:31-34
4. Binyab ab mishene kethubim (Building of the father from
two or more
texts)
Ex. 21:26-27
two texts or provisions in a text serve as a foundation for a
general
conclusion.
In Heb. 1:5-14 Paul sites:
Ps. 2:7 = Heb. 1:5
2Sam. 7:14 = Heb. 1:5
Deut. 32:43/Ps. 97:7/(Neh. 9:6) = Heb. 1:6
Ps. 104:4 = Heb. 1:7
Ps. 45:6-7 = Heb. 1:8-9
Ps. 102:25-27 = Heb. 1:10-12
Ps. 110:1 = Heb. 1:13
to build a rule that the Messiah is of a higher order than
angels.
5. Kelal uferat (the general and the particular)
Gen. 1:27 > Gen. 2:7, 21
a general statement is first made and is followed by a single
remark which
particularizes the general principle.
6. Kayotze bo mimekom akhar (analogy made from another passage)
Two passages may seem to conflict until a third resolves the
conflict.
Lev 1:1 & Ex. 25:22 > Num. 7:89
2Sam. 24:9 & 1Chr. 21:5 > 1Chr. 27:1
Ex. 19:20 & Dt. 4:36 > Ex. 20:19 (m.Sifra 1:7)
Paul shows that the following Tenach passages SEEM to conflict:
The just shall live by
faith (Rom. 1:17 = Hab. 2:4)
with
There is none
righteous, no, not one... (Rom. 3:10 = Ps. 14:1-3
= Ps. 53:1-3; Eccl. 7:20
and:
[God] will render to
each one according to his deeds. (Rom. 2:6 = Ps. 62:12;
Prov. 24:12)
with
Blessed are those
whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are
covered; Blessed is the man whom YHWH shall not impute
sin. (Rom. 4:7-8 = Ps. 32:1-2)
Paul resolves the apparent conflict by citing Gen. 15:6 (in Rom.
4:3, 22):
Abraham believed God,
and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Thus Paul resolves the
apparent conflict by showing that under certain circumstances, belief/faith/trust (same word in Hebrew)
can act as
a substitute for righteousness/being just (same word in Hebrew).
7. Davar hilmad me'anino (Explanation obtained from context)
the total context, not just the isolated statement must be
considered for
an accurate exegesis.
James Trimm
This message brought to you by SANJ and its affiliates:
http//www.nazarene.net
SANJ is a non-profit organization
**********************************************************************
Return to
Newsgroup Archives Main Page
Return to our Main Webpage
©2011
Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by
Web Design by JB.