Holy: Understanding Its Implications for 2013 and Revival

If you are checking out this blog to find the definition of holy, then I had better not waste any time in first addressing that question.  The definition of holy, you will quickly learn, if you search the internet is less than 100% certain.  If I were to rank the three major options you will find in your search, then they would be as follows (based on the scholarship as 2012 draws to a close):

"Set apart" - {B}
"Pure" - {C}
"Whole" - {D}

The letter grades are parallel to what you would find in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament written by Bruce M. Metzger.  If you are not too familiar with that book, then you can simply imagine the grades that you received on your school tests.  That will be close enough for you.   My main concern is that the {B} grade for "set apart" is usually treated like it is an {A}.  That ranking I regard as unjust to the other two greatest options.  Remember the grade above only rank the current state of things on Dec. 31st, 2012. 

Now looking into the implications of these meanings for 2013, I want to look back in time a little bit.  I was a big fan of Keith Green in my college years, so I became familiar with another name, Leonard Ravenhill.  This may not quite be accurate, but to the best of my knowledge he was Keith Green's primary mentor.  He also was quite a spokesman on the topic of revival.  So I want to present what he had to say on one occasion about holiness and its implications for revival. 

You can find the audio sermon yourself by going to:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=53107192638.   It is a considerable way into this sermon before he defines the word holy, but what he had to say about its definition is very significant for the issue of the implications from the definition of holy.   Each of the most likely three possible definitions also mean something different, when it comes to their significance or implications. 

He has five major points that he makes about holiness (in no particular order):
1) he defines it  as healthiness or the soul's health (this is closest to the meaning of whole above)
2) there is something attractive about holiness
3) there is nothing more beautiful than holiness
4) the passage says to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness, not worship the Lord in his holiness
5) the beauty of holiness is in contrast to supposed cranky holy people

Bill Hybels once wrote a book titled Becoming a Contagious Christian.  Could it be that Christians have lost their trait of attractiveness, beauty or contagiousness, because they are no more attractive than a cranky person?  Does the focus on being "set apart" or "purity" alone have in fact very different implications than does Ravenhill's definition?  Could a changed definition of holy be the reason for Why Revival Tarries (Ravenhill's most famous title)? 

I think we should all pause and consider that the implications from the definition of holiness can be as great as the difference between beautiful and ugly (cranky), attractive and unattractive, and fast versus slow (tarries).   It could be that revival is being slowed by a poor definition of holy.  Ravenhill was not a great biblical scholar, so that we can argue he understood the definition of the word holy is better on his biblical basis.  But we should pause and consider that a {B} ranking for "set apart" means that he also could have been right even if that does not mean he is right. 

We also have to remember that we are to "worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness".   When is the last time you saw God's holiness as beautiful?  May we all have a blessed 2013, filled with the beauty of Yahweh God's holiness!

In Christ,

Jon