Holiness Is Wholeness: According to Many Angles of Proof

While I confess that the idea that holiness is wholeness remains somewhat controversial at the present, that does not mean there is not a lot of support for that view. Like a wasp's nest, its support is not from just one angle, but many angles. Right now I would like to present the kinds of proof that I have found. These proofs go beyond just learning from examining the history of holy as a word and how it was understood.

The relevance of holy. The first proof, if you can call it that, is in my original quest to discover what solution from Scripture could possibly solve the problems of myself and the church. As a former scout in sports where it was my job to find the weaknesses in opponents, I thought it would be interesting to find the primary weakness in the church. The more I probed, the more I realized that the reason some solutions were succeeding while other solutions were failing is because some solutions were complete and others were incomplete. Wholeness provides the glue that holds the parts together that are all part of the solution for myself and the church. As I taught from the Word of God, I found I had to use each of the major lessons that I grew up with in the church, and not just any one of them, to solve problems in my life and in the life of the church. And this solution also seems to be related to the recognition that church health is the primary issue for the church in the 21st century.

The words of holy. While the proof goes beyond this point, its authority starts here. My first clue that holy meant whole was in Strong's Concordance where one of the words listed for the original word in Hebrew was wholly. This struck me as odd at first, since I was looking for the words in Scripture that had to do with whole, and I had never considered holy as an option until then. The words for holy also include: sanctification and hallow in our modern translations and in the KJV. Adding wholly to the list began my quest which you can examine more thoroughly in the previous blog (minus this first step of wholly). There I go into details about the words of holy. There is more than one word with it all coming down to the main meaning the word is meant to communicate to us.

The context of holy. While proof begins with the word holy itself, the context in which holy is found is also important. The context says that "holy, holy, holy" is the Lord God Almighty. No other word gets this exalted status of being repeated three times like this, not just in Isaiah, but also in Revelation. Not love, not relationships, not truth, not goodness and not even humility get this status in the context! I also found this out the hard way in real life! The text is written for our instruction, etc. So the context of holy is very important because it helps us test the language of holy or the word holy against the words that surround it to see that it rings true with the context and the text of Scripture. So from this context we can see not only its meaning but its meaning as to importance. Another context that gets more at its meaning is that of the Sabbath commandment that we keep the Sabbath day holy. This is usually interpreted to mean that we keep it separate from the other six days. That is certainly there in the context because by description "the" means only one and the name "Sabbath" is only applied to the one day of the week which would make it separate from the others. The problem in the context then is that holy when interpreted as separate becomes simply redundant or at best there for emphasis. We don't know for certain that is its purpose from the context. So there remains the door open for an exciting possibility. It is that the context could allow that the idea is that you keep the whole Sabbath day of rest, a day of rest, and not just part of the day. It would mean not only in the evening you do no work, not only in the night you do no work, not only in the morning you do no work, but also through the afternoon you do no work. That means the whole day you do no work and then to profane it would be to allow ourselves to work during any part of that day which is defined by the word Sabbath as rest. I think this better fits the context, because it avoids the problem of being potentially vain repetition of a point already made that the day is separate from the other six. Please consider this in your hearts. It is exciting isn't it?
The history of holy. While the proof begins with understanding holy itself, it is always important to understand that we do not learn a word without other smart people before us and after us to assist us in understanding. So I take very seriously that five major people in the Protestant tradition, from which I am an heir, understood holiness as wholeness. While the clarity differs from one tradition to the other and while their is not clear consistency, mostly because of the word sanctification, still all had some sense of wholeness. Their names in historical order are: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Richard Hooker, John Wesley and Charles Spurgeon. A longer list can be found in more than one previous blog.

The theology of holy. While proofs do not all have the same weight, theology provided the earliest indications that there was going to be a problem later in the life of the church that has now reached a major threshold of burden and frustration. When someone has a medical problem like a cut finger, it is important to care for it early on rather than wait until infection has spread to an entire arm or limb. The difficulty in putting together a comprehensive systematic theology was one of the earliest indicators of a problem. And the biggest problem was usually trying to find what the major theme would be that would unite all theology. Ironically, I think it was close to the surface in each effort, yet never got all the attention it deserved. Lutheran theology focused on righteousness and sanctification, Calvinism focused on humility (a part of truth) and sanctification, Anglicanism focused on comprehensiveness or sanctification (as synonymous), Methodism focused on perfect love and entire sanctification (as near synonyms), and Baptists focused on goodness (and from it maturity) and holiness. In each case holiness or wholeness was a major theme alongside another theme whether you use sanctification or holiness as the word to express it. Our studies themselves should have told us long ago that all this disagreement on where to begin and what is the major theme points to a future problem of greater magnitude, if we do not clear it up. Pushing theology aside it not working but only letting the infection grow.

The major parts of holy. The Bible is the ultimate standard of authority. Holy is not the only description of who God is in the Bible, so we need to make sense of that fact. In it we read that God is righteous (Ps. 7:11). We also read that He is true (John 3:33). We read again that he is holy (Ps. 99:9). Then we read that God is love (1 John 4:8). And finally, but not exhaustively, we read that God is good (Ps. 73:1). Which one is He? Why not say He is all of these. These are some incredible verses about who God is and what His character is. Many have argued that one or another of these characteristics are most important. The Bible teaches that all of these are very important because all of them are very frequently mentioned and sometimes we are explicitly told they are more important than other characteristics. I would never leave out God's love in any basic description of who He is (1 Cor. 13). Yet the Bible itself, in two places, puts holy above even love. It says in Isaiah 6:3 that God is "holy, holy holy." It says again in Revelation 4:8 that He is "holy, holy holy." No where else do any of the descriptions of God get repeated three times for emphasis of importance. I believe that each of these parts is a special or major part of holy. All of them are biblically the most important character traits of God demonstrated by the number of times they are repeated versus the other ways that God is described. They are all very important. Only one is most important, because it includes all the others in it, holy.

The language of holy. While language is specific to holy itself, there are also general rules of language that also apply. For a long time there has been a fascination with the number 8 in Western Culture as though it has some mythical qualities in discovering the parts to something. Witness the 8 parts of speech for Greek, the 8 parts of speech for Latin and the 8 parts of speech for English as instances. By the way, all of the systems recognize a different set of 8. I am convinced that language studies now recognize that there is the whole of language and there are the parts of language, but that the 8 parts are not it. I learned a different system from Wycliffe Bible translators that recognizes 4 parts or 4 classes as they called them which I think replaces the 8 parts and happens to work in more than just 1 language. With some modifications from their words, I recognize language that expresses wholes and parts including of, to, in, etc. and then I recognize the parts as being: (1)amounts, (2)relationships, (3)actions, (4)things. Holiness in context goes beyond any one of the part even that of relationships or things in the idea of separation and I think in context functions as a direct expression of the whole. This would make it very important in language as well as in the text of Scripture when we say: Holy, holy, holy.

The science of holy. In science their is an increasing call beginning with Albert Einstein for an "explanation of everything." I believe holiness or wholeness can match that call and prove to science and scientists that the Bible is the book of God and not of mere mortals who err.

The philosoply of holy. In philosophy there is a strong leaning toward a system that is not reductionistic but holistic (or wholistic). Holiness is not reductionistic but wholistic in the right sense of the term. To be reductionistic is to think that you can reduce everything to the same thing that does not apply to all those things. Holiness allows for diversity among the parts that make up wholeness. So you do not reduce each part to being all the same part. On a bike their are different parts like the handle bars or chain. They cannot replace each other because they are distinct parts and cannot be reduced to the same thing.

So with varying degrees each of these supports the meaning that holiness is wholeness. Again, like the wasp's nest built by nature's God, the angles of support are numerous. I love to think that this also proves that God is a lot smarter than all of us. I know it does more than humbles me, it makes me want to shout His praises!

In Christ,

Pastor Jon