著者

川村 輝典

出版者

東京女子大学

雑誌

東京女子大学比較文化研究所紀要 (ISSN:05638186)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.52, pp.41-56, 1991

---

1. The purpose of this paper is to call into question the term "Kokai-ism" a term denoting the concept that the ideal stand of the Christian Church in Japan is evangelical, superdenominational, and independent. Judged from this point of view, many important elements of the real church of Japan in Meiji Era are excluded. 2. Thus the establishment of Presbyterian churches by C. Carrothers, H. Loomis, and J. C. Hepburn has, as a consequence of sentimental reasoning, been treated relatively negatively and as yet not ecclesiastically. From a scientific point of view, this gives the impression of careless thinking. 3. The breakdown of Kokai-ism was achieved not by the independent work of the Presbyterian churches but by the nonecclesiastical character of the Kokai herself. The Presbyterian Church of Japan founded one new church after another and with the Dutch Reformed Church and the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland established the United Church of Japan. 4. The establishment of the United Church of Japan in October, 1877, was quite opportune and an incident of great historical importance for the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Japan. The original ideal of Kokai-ism has been realized not in herself but in the United Church of Japan. This church was established by the several churches, each of which maintained the clear character of the denomination and was as yet not closed, but wished to unite herself with the Congregational Church of Japan.

著者

川村 輝典

出版者

東京女子大学

雑誌

東京女子大学紀要論集 (ISSN:04934350)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.34, no.2, pp.49-59, 1984-03-15

---

The Christology of Heb is developed in two ways: Son of God-Christology and High Priest-Christology. In the discussion of Son of God-Christology the author of Heb emphasizes the divine character of Jesus, while he also talks about His humanity, temptation, and suffering. On the other hand, in the discussion of High Priest Christology he compares Jesus the High Priest with the earthly High Priest and depicts the historical character of Jesus, while Jesus is sketched as one who serves as the heavenly holy of holies. Heb seems to say that Jesus took on true humanity more than He became a real man because He was the Son of God. According to R. Williamson, the sinlessness of Jesus did not belong to His personality from the beginning, but was achieved only after His struggle with sin on the earth. D. Peterson argues against this. He says that Heb emphasizes the width of experience of Jesus as a man. When Heb says "without sin," it is to confirm the victory of Jesus over sin in every point. Further, Peterson, on the basis of Augustine's "On Liberty", says that Jesus is one who has the liberty not to commit sin. He also says that Heb develops on Adam-Christology, like Paul. The present writer agrees with Peterson in so far as he argues against Williamson, but Peterson develops his opinions too dogmatically. The theme must be treated from the standpoint of NT theology, not of dogmatics. "Khoris" means "without entering in...." Therefore, the present writer's interpretation is that when Jesus took on humanity He had the potentiality of committing sin, even though He was the Son of God. In such a condition He struggled with sin without entering into it and rejected all temptation. At what step did Jesus overcome sin? The conclusion of the present writer is that it is the conviction of the author of Heb that Jesus overcame sin every time He was tempted, gaining the final victory on the cross. This conviction is obtained from a tradition based on historical incidents in the life of Jesus and on the tradition of OT prophecy, especially Isaiah 53:9, 11 f.

著者

川村 輝典

出版者

日本新約学会

雑誌

新約学研究 (ISSN:02869055)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.29, pp.37-50, 2001 (Released:2021-09-07)

著者

川村 輝典

出版者

東京女子大学

雑誌

東京女子大学紀要論集 (ISSN:04934350)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.32, no.2, pp.1-15, 1982-03-20

---

The purpose of this paper is to examine the meaning of "Today" in Heb 3:17-4:11 and to clarify how much the salvation mentioned in this letter covers. The first problem which arises in our discussion is the division of the "Today" into three ages: the age of the wilderness generation, that of the Psalmic generation and that of the Hebrew generation. Is this way of division possible or necessary? Does the notion of "Today" apply to each of these three ages? Our conclusion is that there is not so much a three-fold division of "Today" as a two-fold division: the lost "Today" of the wilderness generation and the "Today" which has been effective since the Psalmic generation. The second problem is the destiny of Joshua and his followers: have they dropped off from salvation and missed the chance of entering into rest? They are not those whose bodies fell in the wilderness. In this sense, they did not sin and suffer from the anger of God. However, the author of the Book of Joshua (=Deutronomist) must have thought they did not enter into rest. The Psalmist stands in the same position as the Deutronomist. He thinks of rest as peace in God. According to him, Joshua and his followers did not enter into rest. How about Israel in the age of the Psalms? The Psalmist thinks that the new "Today" is shown to them. There is still a chance for them to enter into rest. Can they really enter into rest, though? As H. Windisch, E. Riggenbach, and H. Strathmann suggest, "Today" is a time extending to the parousia. If we think so, those who wait for salvation, including all the people since the Psalmist told about "Today", have a chance to enter into this rest. Therefore, couldn't we also add Joshua and his followers?