Holiness is Wholeness: According to Many Witnesses

I have been researching for quite some time the topic of holiness and the lack of clarity on this topic is clear. One problem is researching the history of its meaning in Hebrew and Greek. Another problem is researching its history in English or Latin. Yet one thing is very clear and that is that holiness is not clear to many people when they hear it. I want people to be aware of something though that is very clear, yet seldom presented about the meaning of holiness. It is that many prominent witnesses in the past regarded the meaning of holiness as in some sense meaning wholeness.

I am not saying this solves all the problems with regard to clarity, but it is itself clear. These witnesses might use entire, complete, perfect or comprehensive, but the basic idea is the same when you read further. The idea of wholeness is simply that all the parts are present. I would like to list the names of those great teachers of the Bible from whom I have found evidence that they believed that holiness is wholeness, in at least some contexts.

The names include the following:

Martin Luther, John Calvin, Richard Hooker, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Finney, Jonathan Edwards, John Wycliffe, Johann Bengel, the KJV translators, John Howe, Alexander Whyte, Archibald Alexander Hodge, John Dick, John L. Dagg, Albert C. Knudsen, James Petigru Boyce, P. T. Forsyth, Andrew Murray, Charles Henry Brent, S. R. Driver, A. W. Pink, Mary Douglas (anthropologist), Hebert Lockyer (in an editorial role), R. A. Finlayson, J. H. Hertz (Jewish), George C. Bonnell (continuation of Calvin), David S. Shapiro (Jewish), Ray Stedman, Walter Kaiser, Jack Hayford, and Lambert Dolphin (continuation of Stedman), etc. I must also mention Noah Webster (Dictionary) and the Online Etymological Dictionary (Dictionary) as other sources for the view that holiness is wholeness.

What is very clear to me from all these prominent or slightly less prominent names is that the idea that holiness is wholeness is not some "Johnny Come Lately" idea. Many others could be added to this list that are lesser known or whom I have not had time to research since 2006. Yet all five major Protestant groups are shown with their primary leaders in some measure showing this was their definition.

What is very clear to me is that it makes no sense to simply throw out this definition in favor of the idea that holiness is separation, when others of less character may have started the latter idea. I have in mind people like Fredrich Schlieremacher, who I do not regard as a good student of the Bible. Why is it that it is not clear to people that God's providence ought to mean something? I know that not all of history for the church is clear on this definition, yet it is clear that all five major Protestant leaders used words that point in that direction. Is it clear why all five would be wrong?

So again while this does not solve every issue, one thing ought to be clear. If you do not believe that holiness is wholeness, then proceed with caution against such a great cloud of witnesses. You are cutting against the grain of some wonderful human beings, who possessed the character of holiness and wholeness that I wish I could emulate.


In Christ,

Pastor Jon