and is used to refer to the person as a whole. But is this a literal meaning established by customary usage, which broadens the term from a specific to a general sense? Or does its original linguistic meaning remain, with the whole being conveyed by necessary implication? There are two views on this.

The same applies to the other bodily members. For example, suppose a man says to his slave, “Your hand or your foot is free,” or to his wife, “Your hand or your foot is divorced,” on condition that he is given a thousand, and then cuts off the limb before payment. Those who hold that the expression refers to the whole person consider the divorce and emancipation effective. Those who hold that the term refers only to the limb maintain that emancipation does not extend to the rest of the person, since no partial emancipation has occurred. They therefore hold that neither takes effect in this case.

This same principle underlies the interpretation given by those who explain “Everything will perish except His Face” in this way, as has also been said concerning His words:

“Everyone upon it will perish.”

“And the Face of your Lord, full of majesty and honor, will remain.”

For the abiding of His Face, described as possessing majesty and honor, is the abiding of His very Being.