Holy: Understanding It Better Through the Classic Argument

I think I finally understand the classic argument for holy meaning whole.  It primarily is a grammatical argument as opposed to rhetorical or logical (though they are involved too)..  It also moves from the nature of personal names to the nature of the word holy.  That is its primary logic or argument. 

 The key here is how "holy" can replace the name "Yahweh."  No other word is substitued quite like it.  In grammar, we all learned that a noun replaces a noun.  That is why we learned about the parts of speech in part is because we learned what can substitute for another and what cannot. 

So in Scriptue we read:

His name is Yahweh.
His name is holy.
Holy be his name.

But we do not read:

His name is righteous (or just).
His name is true.
His name is loving.
His name is good.

So the idea is that holy and God's name must share some common characteristic.  What earlier biblical scholars (like Johann/John Bengel) determined was that the common characteristic was that of being comprehensive. 

This is why you later see John Howe or Jonathan Edwards later calling holy "an attribute of attributes." 

[Over the next few weeks I will transfer this argument to this post.]  In the meantime, please feel free to check out my other posts.  Thank you.

In Christ,

Pastor Jon