tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-357587432024-03-12T22:58:15.656-05:00Definition of HolySince 2004, I have been devouring everything I can on the meaning of holy. Now I am writing a book for a publisher on holy. So starting March 24th, 2014, 5 days a week I will posting to this blog on the meaning of holy and its two closest cousins, Blessed and the LORD (Yahweh). My strategy will be to cover one text per week in 5 different dimensions: 1) translation, 2) transfer, 3) total, 4) train, and 5) teach. Please visit often as I write 5 days a week on holy and its closest cousins. Jon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.comBlogger217125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-78012526317746426202015-11-19T22:08:00.001-06:002015-11-19T22:10:08.753-06:00Definition of Holy: The Contribution of Mental Health to Defining it CorrectlyI recently completed a book titled, Mental Health for Everyone, that is one part of what will be two parts to my post-graduate degrees including a Ph.D., where the central thesis will be on the definition of holy. Fortunately, one of advisers for my first thesis paper noticed that my work on definition of holy originally had two papers inside of one paper. As a result, I wrote my book on mental health since it is really my method for approaching the definition of holy. <br />
<br />
I am excited to announce that my book on mental health is now officially published as of October 27, 2015. It is on sites like Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble. <br />
<br />
The link for Amazon.com is:<br />
<br />
http://www.amazon.com/Mental-Health-Everyone-Making-Choices-ebook/dp/B017ADOLBS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447991414&sr=8-1&keywords=mental+health+for+everyone<br />
<br />
The link for Barnes and Noble is:<br />
<br />
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/mental-health-for-everyone-jon-westlund/1122880720?ean=9781498438858<br />
<br />
If either link does not work for you, then use either my full name or the full title or both together. <br />
<br />
You can also see a video on the book on youtube at:<br />
<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC5XDFly3GA<br />
<br />
<br />
If you need to, then copy these links into your browser. I am not convinced that they will work otherwise. <br />
<br />
<br />
The key to a successful definition of holy and blessed is the use of the principles that the mind uses to successfully reach decisions on things in our world. These principles of teaching, coaching, schooling, and educating are the method that I use in solving the differences over the meaning of holy as it is found in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures. There is truly one definition for it, not the many available on the internet!<br />
<br />
My next project will be to write another version of this book on mental health and my method that will fill in the all the footnotes that formed the foundation for my published book. That version will be what I submit for my project for my S.T.M. (Masters of Sacred Theology). I can't wait until it too is complete. <br />
<br />
The following 2 years I hope to devote to the meaning of blessed and holy. Please pray that I might even finish my footnoted version by this coming Spring and then devote myself on THE big project - the definitions of blessed and holy! That wish or goal is a stretch, but I would love it if it happened that way. <br />
<br />
For now, I will let you know what you are looking for as in a definition of blessed and holy with further proof coming in the future. Blessed consists of an exhaustive set of wonderful things. Holy consists of the the fullness of these things. These definitions are a bit abstract, but if you read further I fill the details in more fully. <br />
<br />
May God richly bless you with being mentally healthy and even more with being blessed and holy!<br />
<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br />
JonJon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-3033588550170017332015-05-06T11:53:00.000-05:002015-05-06T11:53:07.327-05:00Definition of Blessed and Holy: Comprehension Scores on my Blogs over TimeYesterday I did some teaching in our public schools. While I was doing that I happened across a great tool for scoring my post or entry values. It is a method of scoring comprehension before and after certain times. I am going to score my entries for this blog and previously by decade leading up to August and September 2014. That is when my comprehension scores again jumped noticeably in a decade. <br />
<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>In 1984, I had no idea what the definition of holy was nor how it applied to my understanding of God. I found the word to be without either clarity (what Pastors were saying) and without real meaning because the word flew over my head or over the cuckoo's nest perhaps. I would give myself a 1 out of 4 for my score during this time - since I at least knew it had no clarity and no meaning for me. I wasn't oblivious to that fact. </li>
<li>In approximately 1994, the beginning of my first decade of real work on the definition of holy (I really was only working on it and not blessed regularly), I realized that the traditional definition of holy needed to be questioned. I learned this from Dr. Daniel Payton Fuller at Fuller Theological Seminary. His own proposal at that time had ties to the meaning of "worth". What I learned most at the time was that there was the threat of an error here and an opportunity for correction from Scripture. Dr. Fuller, though his own definition was not a great substitute, at least made me aware of a different SWOT analysis - strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Beginning with 1994, I would get a 2 out of 4 score due to moving up to a specific awareness of searching the Scriptures and going beyond the translation in English in front of me.</li>
<li>In November 2004, the beginning of my second decade of definitive work on the definition of holy, I realized the usefulness of the clarity given to the meaning of holy by the use of Eugene Nida's TEAR or semantic domain analysis in a more simplified form. The problem was that I did not also tie to this the aspect of the meaning level from his dynamic equivalence translation theory. So I missed out on an opportunity to move up to a higher score. The two major developments now was by better knowledge of both a traditional definition ("set apart") and a classical definition ("morally whole"). So I would give myself a 3 out of 4 on most of what appears in my blog. It is clarifying in distinguishing two major candidates for defining holy naturally and Scripturally. </li>
<li>In September 2014, I completed my first manuscript for <i>Mental Health for Everbody: A Field Guide</i> (the title at that time). Since that time, using the pictures or diagrams in that book I was able to figure out that blessed better fit the classical definition for holy and that holy fit with a more meaningful understanding of levels - 1/4 full, 1/2 full, 3/4 full, 4/4 full. The kind of holy being defined by holy fit with the 4/4 idea. So now I can score myself as barely inside 4/4 - maybe a 4-. After I finish my work on mental health, I may achieve a 4. After that and with the completion of a paper specifically on the definitions of blessed and holy in the effort to earn a full Ph.D., then I could maybe get a 4+. The point is that there is always a little more to do in the next race you run. </li>
</ol>
<br />
How well I can persuade others is not yet part of this score. This only scores how well I am persuaded myself. It is my self-score. That is a great beginning but it is not the ending.<br />
<br />
Feedback like scores in seminary will come later, as I work on getting my ideas out there and before professors. I am persuaded, though, that the definition I have arrived at is the one that in essence will stick with me for the long haul. <br />
<br />
That fact is what will make my Ph.D. work so worth pursuing further. Having a good idea when you start a race of where you are going is a good thing and not a bad thing. Take care. <br />
<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
Jon<br />
<br />Jon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-3703001161374564902015-05-06T10:24:00.000-05:002015-05-06T10:24:51.365-05:00Blessed and Holy: A Quick Exciting UpdateThere was a saying I used to hear that never made much sense to me, when I was very young. Maybe now this saying has some meaning - "You will know, when you know". I sort of feel that way now about the meaning of holy (and blessed). Things have come full circle for me after a lot of study, but the key study has been for my book <i>Mental Health for Everyone: In Captivating, Motivating, Inspiring, Meaningful Pictures</i>. (That book is the main reason you have not seen me posting here regularly in this last year.) So I now am convinced that holy does in fact mean whole, but in a different sense than the materials that I have presented previously in this blog. <br />
<br />
Let me explain this in short version today, because my ultimate goal is to write as my final Ph.D. paper on the topic of the definitions for both blessed and holy. The paper could end up with a title something like this: <i>Blessed and Holy is Yahweh and His Followers</i>.<br />
<br />
Let me give you a glimpse first into my start into the race of knowing the meaning of these two key biblical words - blessed and holy. Let me define what I mean by a classical and traditional definition of holy before I talk about the history of the definition of holy. <br />
<br />
When I speak of the classical definition of holy, I am talking about its definition beginning no later than the 1500s (16th ct.) and extending into the 1900s (20th ct.). During this time, beginning from the Reformation, scholars relied heavily on the renaissance (renewal) of classical thinking. <br />
<br />
The traditional definition refers to a definition that began in the late 1800s to gain a real foothold among scholars and it extends into the 1900s (20th ct.). It is a movement that primarily tries to remove the errors of classical thinking, dating back to the Greeks and Romans and including the Renaissance. <br />
<br />
Each of these has a longer history, I am sure. What I am doing here is limiting it to the scholarship of these times. The evidence outside of these time periods is much more susceptible to different interpretations. The emergence of another renewal of science in the late 1800s removed some of the mist surrounding the meanings that biblical scholars were expressing. This made the separation of the two definitions much more clear and meaningful. A little book on holy, by Andrew Murray, a pastor and not a scholar technically, summaries the benefits of the work of scholarship in the late 1800s (19th ct.). <br />
<br />
With those imposed limits, the history of the definition of holy can be boiled down to this:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Classical definition of holy (16th - 20th ct.) - whole as in righteous, just, true, loving, and good. Whole as perfect; whole as the summation of God's character, etc. </li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Traditional (19th-20th ct.) definition of holy - set apart; separate; relational separation; moral separation; object separation; etc. </li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
These were the two competing views, when I started my best efforts to settle the issue of the definition of holy. <br />
<br />
I have now arrived at a definition for holy that uses the insights from the classical definition of holy, but also applies a corrective. I likewise am convinced that elements of the traditional view are helpful here, though its helpfulness varies from scholar to scholar. <br />
<br />
My goal is to arrive at a definition for blessed and holy that is both natural (fits with all of nature) and Scriptural (fits with all of Scripture). That is a very tall order, but I think a worth finish line. <br />
<br />
I am not at all interested in classical view or traditional views unless they first meet those criteria. In some ways they do not. That is the main reason why I depart from their views. I find good among the efforts under each umbrella, but where I find unnatural things I remove them. I do the same, when I find un-scriptural things as well. I eliminate them. <br />
<br />
So here are my preliminary definitions:<br />
<br />
blessed . blessed as in righteous, true, loving, and good. (ex. Abraham has many sons)<br />
<br />
holy - whole as in wholly just, wholly humble, wholly perfect, wholly great. (ex. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - the whole of the day)<br />
<br />
The proof of all this will be mainly in my first book to be published soon, <i>Mental Health for Everyone</i> and it will be further supported by my final paper for my S.T.M. Degree (a 2 year doctoral program). It too will be titled <i>Mental Health for Everyone</i>, but it will have a different subtitle like - <i>The Evidence from the Original Languages of Scripture</i>. <br />
<br />
The reason for the proof being separate is that my advisers in seminary recognized that I had two projects going in my thesis proposal. These two projects are each big enough alone to merit individual treatment. So I am doing my mind-related work first, because the mind is the natural thing to address when we are working on definitions. Without first thinking well, it will be very hard to define blessed and holy well. It will end up very sloppy. Mental health eliminates the basic errors in definition that we otherwise make. <br />
<br />
I am very excited about the definitions that I give. My mental health material which addresses the mind more naturally also addresses the mind more scripturally or biblically. Those two sources furnish a ton of evidence for those willing to give up being classical and traditional when it contradicts nature or Scripture. I am willing. <br />
<br />
So I am now speaking from the finish line of my first race on the definition of blessed and holy. I will enter another race soon after I am done writing on mental health for seminary. <br />
<br />
That race will then be run for a minimum of 2 years. I can't wait to start the next leg of my journey. I know that I know at the first finish line, if you know what I mean! May God truly bless you and make you holy even as he is blessed and holy. <br />
<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br />
Jon<br />
<br />
<br />Jon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-50204366493798487952014-07-09T10:47:00.002-05:002014-07-09T10:47:42.843-05:00Blessed and Holy: An Explanation on My Change of FocusSometimes a speaker must adapt to their audience rather than wait for the audience to adapt to them. This has come to a real threshold the last couple of months. There is no vigilance by scholars or lay people on the topic of holy - the ability to hold a topic in the attention span long enough for it to make a difference. So this is one of those times that I must adapt to my audience and start equipping them further back in the process.<br />
<br />
As I have dealt with holiness, I have noticed that Christian minds especially are not well-equipped to handle the topic. Their emotions and thinking are sloppy. I don't say this to insult anyone. But "the fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom". So in this case, the fear that our thinking may be sloppy is the right place to begin. So I am taking a new approach.<br />
<br />
I'm narrowing my focus in TEACHING AND MINISTRY (down from holiness) due to emotional aimlessness and due to a lack of mental focus or over-focus among Christians. So the solution, I figure, is to focus on the first health the US and Christians in the US need - mental health. I'll deal with world mental health later, since the issues are different across the globe. I'll also go back to other health areas under holiness later.<br />
<br />
Please don't think that I have lost my vigilance on holiness. I am not at all distracted from the topic, but there comes a time as a teacher when adaption is your only option. Even my supervisor at my current seminary didn't seem to get what I was accomplishing. So I believe that there are basics that are missing. I need to provide those to those I teach. <br />
<br />
If you go to my communication basics blog, I will be producing much more there than here for the time being. I am also under a self-imposed deadline to finish the transcript for my book by the end of July - "Mental Health for Everybody". It will focus on the mind and how it is supposed to work and how we should equip our minds as opposed to the current approach. That will then form a basis both emotionally and logically for what holiness means by definition, by implication and by significance. <br />
<br />
Go there for more. Thank you for your understanding. I will say this, I have more and more reasons to believe from the biblical text and not from etymology or cognate languages that holy as translated from words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek means ethical or moral wholeness. Have a blessed day.<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br />
JonJon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-25994139707319210022014-06-17T16:10:00.002-05:002014-06-17T16:10:24.255-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better When the Understanding is Right Under Your NoseHave you ever had someone tell you, when you are looking for something, "It is right under your nose!" I have. And I have a confession to make. The definition of holy that I have proposed has left its proof right under my nose. <br />
<br />
One of my best teachers over the years still remains on my top ten list. His name is Dr. Daniel P. Fuller. He set a high standard in our classes. He wanted us to learn to do inductive Bible study, where we rely not so much on lexicons and commentaries as on our own observation of the text of Scripture. <br />
<br />
One of his favorite stories was of a teacher insisting that his students continue making observations even after they thought they had exhausted all the possibilities. Though the object was right under their nose, they might have missed something. <br />
<br />
I have missed something. It is so obvious. So right under my nose for so long that I can't believe I missed it!<br />
<br />
Here's the Biblical text that has been right under my nose for years. I knew this was a primary text in the discussion of the meaning of holy, but I did not realize just how very valuable it is. Here it is from Biblical Gateway: <br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" class="multipassage" id="table1"><tbody>
<tr><td class="multipassage-box first-col version-col-0" width="50%"><div class="heading">
<h3>
1 Peter 1:14-16</h3>
<div class="txt-sm">
New International Version (NIV)</div>
<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="passage version-NIV result-text-style-normal text-html">
<span class="text 1Pet-1-14" id="en-NIV-30389"><sup class="versenum">14 </sup>As obedient<sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-30389A" title="See cross-reference A">A</a>)"></sup> children, do not conform<sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-30389B" title="See cross-reference B">B</a>)"></sup> to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance.<sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-30389C" title="See cross-reference C">C</a>)"></sup></span> <span class="text 1Pet-1-15" id="en-NIV-30390"><sup class="versenum">15 </sup>But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do;<sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-30390D" title="See cross-reference D">D</a>)"></sup></span> <span class="text 1Pet-1-16" id="en-NIV-30391"><sup class="versenum">16 </sup>for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”<sup class="footnote" value="[<a href="#fen-NIV-30391a" title="See footnote a">a</a>]">[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201%3A14-16&version=NIV;SBLGNT#fen-NIV-30391a" title="See footnote a">a</a>]</sup><sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-30391E" title="See cross-reference E">E</a>)"></sup></span><br />
<div class="footnotes">
<h4>
Footnotes:</h4>
<ol type="a">
<li id="fen-NIV-30391a"><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201%3A14-16&version=NIV;SBLGNT#en-NIV-30391" title="Go to 1 Peter 1:16">1 Peter 1:16</a> Lev. 11:44,45; 19:2</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
<div class="publisher-info-bottom">
<strong><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/">New International Version</a> (NIV)</strong>Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by <a href="http://www.biblica.com/">Biblica, Inc.®</a> Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.</div>
</td><td class="multipassage-box last-col version-col-1" width="50%"><div class="passage-updatetranslation" style="width: 325px;">
<br />ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α΄ 1:14-16</div>
<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
<div class="heading">
<div class="txt-sm">
SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT)</div>
<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="passage version-SBLGNT result-text-style-normal text-html">
<span class="text 1Pet-1-14" id="grc-SBLGNT-7212"><sup class="versenum">14 </sup>ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, μὴ συσχηματιζόμενοι ταῖς πρότερον ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ ὑμῶν ἐπιθυμίαις,</span> <span class="text 1Pet-1-15" id="grc-SBLGNT-7213"><sup class="versenum">15 </sup>ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον καὶ αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε,</span> <span class="text 1Pet-1-16" id="grc-SBLGNT-7214"><sup class="versenum">16 </sup>διότι γέγραπται <sup class="footnote" value="[<a href="#fgrc-SBLGNT-7214a" title="See footnote a">a</a>]">[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201%3A14-16&version=NIV;SBLGNT#fgrc-SBLGNT-7214a" title="See footnote a">a</a>]</sup>ὅτι Ἅγιοι <sup class="footnote" value="[<a href="#fgrc-SBLGNT-7214b" title="See footnote b">b</a>]">[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201%3A14-16&version=NIV;SBLGNT#fgrc-SBLGNT-7214b" title="See footnote b">b</a>]</sup>ἔσεσθε, ὅτι ἐγὼ <sup class="footnote" value="[<a href="#fgrc-SBLGNT-7214c" title="See footnote c">c</a>]">[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201%3A14-16&version=NIV;SBLGNT#fgrc-SBLGNT-7214c" title="See footnote c">c</a>]</sup>ἅγιος.</span><br />
<div class="footnotes">
<h4>
Footnotes:</h4>
<ol type="a">
<li id="fgrc-SBLGNT-7214a"><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201%3A14-16&version=NIV;SBLGNT#grc-SBLGNT-7214" title="Go to ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α΄ 1:16">ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α΄ 1:16</a> <b>ὅτι</b> WH NIV] – Treg RP</li>
<li id="fgrc-SBLGNT-7214b"><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201%3A14-16&version=NIV;SBLGNT#grc-SBLGNT-7214" title="Go to ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α΄ 1:16">ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α΄ 1:16</a> <b>ἔσεσθε</b> WH Treg NIV] γίνεσθε RP</li>
<li id="fgrc-SBLGNT-7214c"><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201%3A14-16&version=NIV;SBLGNT#grc-SBLGNT-7214" title="Go to ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α΄ 1:16">ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α΄ 1:16</a> <b>ἅγιος</b> WH Treg] + εἰμι NIV RP</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
<div class="publisher-info-bottom">
<strong><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/SBL-Greek-New-Testament-SBLGNT/">SBL Greek New Testament</a> (SBLGNT)</strong></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
What the text contains is a parallel notion to holy, not just once but twice. So it assists us in defining holy. The other great thing is that it is also quoting from Leviticus 11:44, 45 or 19:2. So it also pulls in not just a definition for Greek, but also one that we can be sure would also apply in those contexts in Hebrew. <br />
<br />
So what did I miss that was right under my nose? Here it is: "be holy in all you do" or as some translations have it "be holy in all your conduct". (I did notice this at an earlier time based on past notes, but like in the book of James I was like a man who looks in the mirror and then forgets what he saw.) There is a further clue before even this one. It is a negative contrast to holy: "do not conform to your evil desires". <br />
<br />
These are great parallels, if like me, you believe that one of the possible meanings of holy is: "moral wholeness or "ethical wholeness". So let's examine the evidence further.<br />
<br />
Whether you translate the Greek as "in all you do" or "in your manner of life" or "in all your conduct", the idea is quite similar. What matters most is the use of "all" in English translation or πάσῃ (pase) in the original Greek. <br />
<br />
Many people are not aware that the Greek πάσῃ is also used for the Hebrew word <span style="background-color: #fdfeff; color: #001320; font-family: 'Ezra SIL', 'SBL Hebrew', Cardo, Cambria, 'Palatino Linotype', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 26px;">כֹּל (kol). </span><span style="background-color: #fdfeff; color: #001320; font-family: 'Ezra SIL', 'SBL Hebrew', Cardo, Cambria, 'Palatino Linotype', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 26px;">כֹּל </span>in its core definition is the idea of "whole" more than the idea of "all". Gesenius in his lexicon and others wisely note that the Greek equivalent of πάσῃ is the Greek meaningful equivalent, but not an exact equivalent. Gesenius' description says it is a grammatical difference between the languages. I think it is something more. <br />
<br />
Thinking right to left as Hebrews of ancient Israel would do, you would start with "whole" and proceed left to "all the parts". It appears that in Koine Greek of the first century, Greek moves from the left to the right and so from "all the parts" to the "whole". Each side expresses the other, but yet with a different emphasis or starting point. <br />
<br />
So it would not be illegitimate to substitute the idea of whole into our text and read it as "in the whole of your doing", or "in the whole of your manner of life", or "the whole of your conduct". You've changed emphasis and starting point, but not equivalence. <br />
<br />
So the logic goes like this. Since "be holy in all you do" in Greek is the equivalent to "be holy in the whole of what you do" in Hebrew, we as English speakers could then see that "moral wholeness" (holy) and "the whole of what you do" could be very near fully synonymous. If this is not enough proof, we also have the idea of evil desires in contrast to being holy. If holy were to have more than one part, it is easy to explain the use of a plural being used in contrast to it. With many parts of good may come plural evils. <br />
<br />
But the key idea that I have overlooked is that "whole" is once again placed at the very doorstep of "holy" and is hardly being noticed not only under my nose, but also under the noses of biblical exegetes or biblical readers everywhere. Let's begin to notice what is right under our nose. Holy can certainly mean "moral or ethical wholeness". I can't see why not. <br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
JonJon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-37701633599499194092014-05-31T21:46:00.000-05:002014-05-31T21:46:48.217-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Both Better Through Improving our Mental HealthI know you are likely checking out this blog to find the definition of holy. I won't disappoint, if you can wait until I give the issue some context and then give you a definition in the third paragraph. <br />
<br />
You may have noticed lately that in the United States there is a mental health crisis. The mass shootings with a concluding suicide in our schools and elsewhere is only the tip of the iceberg. Insanity is much deeper in our society than meets the eye. I would conclude that 90% of the insanity is not even noticed except to the trained observer, who knows that what is happening above the surface and is obvious is only a small part of a bigger problem. I agree with those who say that health is the next big issue that faces us in the coming of age of our times. Mental health is only one part, but a significant part toward all types of health. Blessed and holy are words that actually have a lot to say about that bigger picture of health or being wbole, but it is being missed due to a poor job of defining both words. I do believe that this problem starts with poor mental health.<br />
<br />
I think most of us would agree that a mentally healthy person is healthy both emotionally and logically. Likewise a mentally healthy person or sane person has more credibility than a mentally unhealthy or insane person who has little credibility. In fact, the significant feature we like in any person is that they are mentally credible. You can rely on what they say. The problem is that you cannot always rely on what is given as the definition of blessed and holy. I am not going to go into detail in this post, but let me state what I believe is the definition for blessed and then for holy that has the most credibility. Then I will give you some direction for finding that credibility. So the definition of blessed that I find is most credible is that of "I am who I am". It is a character trait of a person being who they are consistently. There is no variance. What people don't realize is that the popular definition of blessed of "blessings" is not the definition of blessed but its significance. If you are who you are, then will reap blessing as a consequence. "Blessed are the peacemakers" is because they are "peacemakers" and not war mongers. So how about the definition of holy that I find most credible. I find moral or ethical wholeness to be the best definition. What is missed is that meaning is not the same as definition. One of the meaning is that of significance and that is where "set apart" fits. But it is not the definition of the word, a different kind of meaning. <br />
<br />
So where can you find evidence for what I am saying. Let me begin with this blog. In my past posts up until very recently, you will find a lot of arguments from biblical texts, etc. What they boil down to is that I am saying that the definition of "set apart" is illogical. It is not mentally healthy in that sense. It has as many holes as Swiss cheese. You will not find much on the emotional aspect that is also very important. I owe everyone an apology for that, because it is a key component of being mentally healthy and spotting mental illness. <br />
<br />
Let me give you an example. I am going to leave out nay names to keep what I have to say anonymous, but what I am describing actually happened while I was a student in one of my three seminaries that I have attended. I wanted to present my argument for the definition of holy in all its grand glory in an Old Testament class. Fortunately for me, I had a very smart colleague in the class who warned me "not to put strange fire on the altar". Here's what he meant. I would not get a good grade and it would not be pretty in class if I were to present a definition for holy that was contrary to my professor's definition for holy. In other words, there would not be a great dialogue on this topic. He was exactly right. I did a much more tempered approach and got a reluctant OK from the professor. Emotionally, this is not a good sign. It should have been that I could present a well-reasoned argument that would get full consideration in a calm and peaceful atmosphere. I think my classmate was right to see that emotionally I was only going to get some level of anger for what I said. <br />
<br />
This is not how it should be in seminary. I was not going to present a view that it anywhere near to some classical heresy. In fact, I would have been introducing a kind of classical orthodoxy from Luther to Spurgeon in the Protestant perspective, which is what this seminary belonged to at its core. So there was not an openness to a mentally healthy dialogue between competing views, but a sense of subtle suggestion that it would be treated like "strange fire on the altar". <br />
<br />
From nearly the earliest part of my writing 10 years ago, I have known about the logical issues. But now I realize their are emotional issues as well that need to be faced and not ignored. We need healthy people who know the basics of mental health. They need to know the feelings of:<br />
<br />
!) Acceptance versus shame<br />
2) Joy versus grief<br />
3) Emulation versus jealousy<br />
4) Confidence versus fear<br />
5) Peace versus anger<br />
<br />
Now the second examples in each case are not in all cases to be avoided. We need those emotions too. But these are not ones we should take pleasure in. Remember that statement: "Rejoice not that your enemy has fallen, but that your names are written in heaven. Our joy becomes a double joy when we share it with others. That is a reason for pleasure. But what pleasure should there be in separation from an enemy. Should that predominate? I don't think so. <br />
<br />
I think you also see this in Paul's advice in Ephesians where we are told to: "Be angry, and sin not". So how do we do that? We "do not let the sun go down on our anger". Instead, we go to be in peace rather than anger. So what is the benefit of that? We "do not give the devil an opportunity". See, if we cannot discuss definitions without negative emotions predominating, we are giving the devil a foothold. We are not helping one another. <br />
<br />
I think it is good advice when people disagree on the meanings of words that we don't go to sleep with shame, grief, jealousy, fear, or anger. At some point we have to realize these are those emotions that while necessary, we should not get pleasure from them. This is what I think Luther realized, when he said that 'anger" was for God an alien thing. Sometimes God has to get angry, but we have to remember he does not enjoy it. <br />
<br />
So I do think that to have a mentally healthy definition of blessed and holy, you have to consider not just the issues of logical versus illogical, but also the issues of emotional versus ill emotional. Was it right to consider in seminary a classic definition of holy as strange fire? I don't think it was. But behind it was an emotion of both fear for the students and anger for the teacher. At least, I think that his what my wise fellow classmate was trying to tell me. <br />
<br />
Let's rise now to a healthy level. Let's rise to both healthy emotions and healthy logic. Then we can all take pleasure in mental health while we take not pleasure in mental illness. We also then too might get the definition of blessed and holy right as well as each definition's significance and meaning in that sense. Have a great night and remember healthy emotions before bed. Soak them up and sleep well. Ah, the devil will hate you for that. Pleasure only in the good? Take care.<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br /><br />JonJon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-6234941110258749322014-05-20T16:46:00.001-05:002014-05-20T16:46:20.983-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better By Understanding the Emotion of FearToday, I read an immensely sad article,<i> How We Forgot the Holiness of God,</i> in an email from Christianity Today (5/20/14). The article should lead to the emotion of grief, not to the emotion of joy. Once again an author makes a plea for the Rudolph Otto kind of holiness that inspires fear and awe. Hey, those are necessary emotions in the right context, but there is the possibility of emotional manipulation going on in this plea. There is no concern for logical exegesis in the article, only getting people like you and me off our chair or couch and instead being fearful of being a sinner in the hands of an angry God. But this is not like Jonathan Edwards' sermon that has an authentic basis for fear. This instead comes off as a rather shoddy and cheap way of dealing with fear as an emotion. Holiness for me means a lot of more than this author in Christianity Today is implying. A great deal more. For me it means ultimately moving from an emotion of jealousy (I don't want to be like you) to an emotion of emulation (I want to be like you). <br />
<br />
I'll show you how much more holiness means to me by pointing out all kinds of errors in the article. Perhaps before the author suggests we all fear, the author should fear more than anyone else. You see fear is a great emotion, when it is understood properly. But only when understood properly. It cannot be used for manipulation or without emotional intelligence. You have to have the latter to also avoid the former, even when by accident and not purposeful. <br />
<br />
Let me illustrate. When I was young and first learning to use a table saw my dad taught me to fear it, because it did not only cut off inches but also fingers. That was good. I haven't cut a finger off due to a healthy respect. But he did not leave me stuck in fear. He also taught me how to confidently avoid cutting off a finger so that my hand and fingers remained attached. You need to move people from fear to confidence. You don't start off with the silly idea of walking up to a table saw and using it fearlessly without lessons. My dad was not manipulating me, but he was training me. He made me a person confident in how to do what I wanted. I wanted to accomplish the result ofcutting a board to the right length with a square cut end. So he gave me a lesson in the emotions of fear and confidence, but also in the logic of how and why. <br />
<br />
So let's look at the errors. Keep in mind that I have been writing on holiness for around 10 years. This blog has a link to some of my earliest beginnings in a separate blog. I have read nearly everything that pertains to the topic that is worthwhile. <br />
<br />
THE FIRST MISTAKE<br />
<br />
So why is this author so confident that Rudolph Otto's right and the prior 400 years of Protestant exegesis is wrong? My dad taught me to fear a table saw. Why is this author not afraid that he's wrong in his definition of holy? My dad taught me to fear a table saw, because a saw CAN do things. I think we should be a little more fearful that Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley, and Spurgeon COULD do things. I am a lot more fearful of their abilities than I am of Otto's CANNOT. <br />
<br />
Otto's own weakness and can't do attitude is revealed by himself in his study of holiness' meaning. He gets to a point where he is not sure of the meaning of the word for holy, so he chooses the one which fits better with his preferred philosophy. Doesn't that scare you? It scares me, like working with a table saw carelessly. Otto is careless and carefree which means he is what is otherwise known as fearless. I am confident, but I am not fearless as a result. I know when to fear and when to be confident. Don't let me ever get careless at the table saw. But let's use it how it is to be used confidently. <br />
<br />
THE SECOND MISTAKE<br />
<br />
It is great to bring in Isaiah 6 as Otto uses this too as a central passage. That makes perfect sense. So it is true that Isaiah experiences fear in the passage. But that does not define holy. It is funny how the author misses other parts in the context. He wants to go with Otto's definition having to do with fear and awe, but he ignores the concept of "whole" in the "whole earth is full of his glory". He misses the argument for "moral wholeness" that Jonathan Edwards, Johann Bengel, and many others make from other contexts for their definition. He skips past it. Perhaps he has a historical bias about conclusions based on time and place. Otto comes later, so he's correct. He does not test Otto's view with other witnesses to see what they witnessed. He does not ask famous commentators for their testimony. One testimony in a real sense is enough. The author and Otto experience no sadness in their testimony separating from leaders over a four hundred year period. He misses out on the joy of finding the same conclusions with others. No shared joy over a 500 year period to celebrate. He's not worried about joy and connections with others. <br />
<br />
THE THIRD MISTAKE<br />
<br />
He takes the second mistake still further as far as emotions are concerned. Not only is he not saddened by his break with past testimonies, he is also not afraid of going forward without an act of experimentation. <br />
<br />
Let me illustrate. Just yesterday I could not find my coffee mug that I uses on a regular basis. I was not confident where it was. I decided that rather than dilly dally in my brain, I would instead start to experiment with the different possible locations by going to them and seeing if the cup was there. If it was, then I could be confident where it was. If I did not find it, at least my confidence would grow from eliminating possible locations. So off to my car I went. It was not in the passenger's seat though I knew I had in the car the prior day. So I went back to the most obvious, the kitchen where I normally kept it. Not on the counters nor in the cupboard. So off to other rooms in the house beginning with the most likely to the least likely. Not there either, so I returned to the most obvious location again, the kitchen. And there it was. I couldn't see it yet, but there was my lunch container. I was pretty sure my cup was inside it, because I recalled placing something in there that normally I did not. I had forgotten to empty it the night before like I usually did. So I opened it - I experimented with the idea that the cup was in my lunch container - sure enough there it was.<br />
<br />
You see, it is very important to experiment with ideas by doing something with them, not just assuming the outcome from some hypothetical action. I did something. In this case of exegesis (reading a passage from an insider's perspective, not an outsider's), nothing is done except a connection between Isaiah's dread and what holy means. That is a very sloppy experiment. In my experiment above, I experimented with all the possibilities until I arrived at one that ruled out any others. Is this kind insisting they found the thing they were looking for immediately without any failed experiments? Did they even consider other possibilities at all?<br />
<br />
The problem with Otto and this author is they try one possibility for fear - God's holiness - and stop there. They don't consider other possibilities. Maybe Isaiah had read how no one can see God's face an live and he thought he had seen his face and that regardless of holy or not, you die. Or maybe the main issue was his uncleanness and he was ashamed of himself before such a clean assembly. Like a wedding guest attending a wedding feast without proper clean attire. He nor Otto does even look at that as a possibility in itself as a reason for fear. Jesus was holy and yet it did not automatically lead to dread. The Holy Spirit is in us, yet it does not lead automatically to dread. I think fear and dread come in certain instances to us. I don't think that is the constant state before holiness. I would think the great emotion there is that of emulation - I want to be like Him. <br />
<br />
An added problem inside the text that is not considered from an insider's perspective is that 'the whole earth is full of his glory" is much closer in the context to "holy, holy, holy" than the material on fear and dread. Maybe what should be experimented with is the idea that God's "moral wholeness" is reflected in a view of the "earth's wholeness". It possesses the glory that God has even if only a reflection of it as the moon is a reflector of the light of the sun. <br />
<br />
So my question is why the author does not feel fear? Why is he so cavalier and fearless as to make illusion to Otto's sloppy exegesis? Why doesn't he have a goal of preferring the more immediate context over the more distant? <br />
<br />
It appears he does not possess the skills of an exegete. If he does not, then he should fear and stay away from exegetical comments based on an outsider, who admits his exegesis was built on an outsider philosophical perspective. <br />
<br />
<br />
Holy, Holy, Holy is Yahweh God Almighty,<br />
the whole earth is full of his glory. <br />
<br />
<br />
Those words are the immediate context. That is where the test is. The testimony has to come from the most immediate. The ones with the eye witness kind of testimony. Not from the second rate witness in the next room or the larger context beyond that. Stick to the most immediate. <br />
<br />
Likewise, experiment. Don't just show up with one option as a place to find the lost. Check around until you find what you are looking for. But don't stop short or you will end up like "U2" and "still trying to find what you are looking for". <br />
<br />
THE FOURTH MISTAKE<br />
<br />
I dislike it when people set up a straw man argument or a wet paper sack argument. In other words, they make it so easy to win by having no competition. I see this every year, when some college team rolls over some weakling and the polls move that team up to #1, only to see them get trounced three weeks later. What this author is arguing about is supposed to be why holiness is forgotten, not about whether people are afraid of God or not. I was expecting an emotional and logical argument. I only got the former. <br />
<br />
Here's his straw man argument. People don't know the definition of holy, because they are not afraid of God's holiness. People when asked for God's attributes don't mention holiness, because they want to avoid an attribute that leads to fear. He even illogically treats love not as a requirement, but as a kindness or gift. He is illogical here. The commandment (requirement) is love. How is that like compassion? It is mixing demands with gifts. <br />
<br />
Listen, I have gone to churches with public sharing. That is not a good forum for deciding whether the church teaches holiness or not. As for the definition, they don't know it, because there are too many options. Who's fault is that? To blame it on the common people not fearing enough from their pews is to set up a straw man argument. The sad thing is the argument he gives cannot fight its way out of a wet paper sack (weakling!) either. <br />
<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
<br />
There are more errors, but suffice it to say, "Why is this author asking others to fear God, when he does not fear his own lack of ability?" Lack of ability is the basic reason to fear. Its counter part is another's ability to do what I cannot. <br />
<br />
Take the table saw again. The table saw CAN cut off a finger. My finger CANNOT stop the table saw blade from doing just that, if it is in the wrong place at the wrong time. So you bet I fear God. I fear him more than this author in Christianity Today does. <br />
<br />
But God has also given me good teachers, so that I am not just caught up in God's alien nature (as Luther called it), but I am caught up more in what I can do through God's compassion and God's heaven sent instructors on exegesis. May God's children have more confidence and may this erring child of many mistakes realize what he CANNOT do and have greater fear. Don't instruct others in what you yourself do not possess - healthy fear and a definition for holiness. <br />
<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br />
Jon<br />
. Jon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-12047100771180621502014-05-19T15:54:00.001-05:002014-05-19T15:54:38.076-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through 1 Kings 18 as the Text and Now Your TestimonyPeople want to know things like definitions for certain. That is an admirable desire on high importance topics like blessed and holy. The problem is that the same people don't know how to get there. The same people who want certainty also can get trapped in wavering rather than knowing. Knowing the meanings of blessed and holy for certain, as found in Genesis 2:1-3, requires something that most lexicons and scholars don't provide. They don't test the meanings of these words from inside the text. <br />
<br />
Instead, they test the meaning of each word from outside the text. They use etymology (in some instances when they claim they don't) or they use cognate languages (these are languages like French in relation to English). I don't think that either one of these tests is very valid or certain. If you want reasonable certainty on a very important set of topics, then a lexicon or reading another 100 scholars won't get you there. The way to know something for certain over another possibility is to test what is true and humble versus what is false and proud. But it has to be a complete test. So how do we get to a better place and time, where and when we know for certain the meaning of blessed and holy? I got an answer for that. Read on. <br />
<br />
I think the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18 shows how to get past various the many opinions on the meanings of blessed and holy. I'm going to present the story in the following format of questions:<br />
<br />
<b>1) What are the numbers? (to form judgments) (i.e. must be)</b><br />
<b>2) What is the test? (to form testimonies) (i.e. will be)</b><br />
<b>3) What are complete guidelines? (to form laws) (i.e. wants to be)</b><br />
<b>4) What is the action? (to form commandments) (i.e. can be)</b><br />
<b>5) What is the thing? (to form statutes) (i.e. let be)</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Before I continue let me present the major opinions I think are worth considering on the definition (one of three kinds of meaning) of holy:<br />
<br />
1) "set apart" (by far the most popular in the last 100 years, but not previously)<br />
2) "pure" (made popular in groups like the Puritans, but that is no surprise)<br />
3) "moral wholeness" (the most popular of the last 500 years in Protestant theology)<br />
<br />
I believe the latter wins after a thorough testing and experimentation. But for the testing to be successful there must be many testifiers, not just many experiments. Too many times we think of them as the same thing. Read on and see the difference. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>What are the numbers?</b> Let me stack up the numbers for you first. Do you remember the story of Elijah? He asks the people for a test. He asks for a time out. He says, "How long will you continue to waver between two opinions?" The people like his idea for ending their wavering. So here is how it went #s wise. <br />
<br />
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet<br />
<br />
1) 2 opinions, 1 opinion<br />
2) 400 reps/prophets of Baal, 1 rep/prophet for Yahweh (Elijah)<br />
3) 1 altar for Baal, 1 altar for Elijah<br />
4) the whole community assembled as testers/witnesses, the whole community assembled as testers/witnesses<br />
5) Only fire from heaven, only fire from heaven.<br />
6) many slashings leading to bleeding, not even one slashing<br />
7) 0 gallons of water, excess gallons of water<br />
8) Very dry wood, very wet wood<br />
<br />
I think you can tell that Elijah is not even worried about the odds being stacked against him in this test. He knows there are two options: 1) a guaranteed decline or failure, which is why he makes fun of them, and 2) an uncertain possibility, which he believes will test out just fine. <br />
<br />
I likewise am not at all bothered by the numbers. The number of lexicons means little to nothing, if they all are just Xerox copies of each other. The answers that lexicons, dictionaries, word studies, newer scholarship, older scholarship, and church leaders give wavers between opinions. <br />
<br />
<b>So what is the test?</b> Let me stack up the test for you. The test is what will be your opinion here and now. Notice that Elijah is not willing to deal with further procrastination on their part. Their desire to avoid the topic in the here and now is seen in his primary question: "How long will you waver between two opinions?" <br />
<br />
Here is my breakdown on the place and time:<br />
<br />
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet<br />
<br />
1) at present they go to worship Baal and Yahweh, Elijah wants them to go to worship only Yahweh,<br />
2) they have perhaps in even the same building worship to each, Elijah wants them to have separate worship,<br />
3) they want to continue waiting, Elijah wants the waiting to stop,<br />
4) they have put off agreeing to test each view at a place and time, Elijah asks them for a test at a place and time - a here and now test (very shortly)<br />
5) they have gotten comfortable with their uncertainty (wavering), Elijah wants them to rid themselves of their uncertainty (He wants them to say: "As for me and my house we will serve Yahweh". <br />
6) apparently they have been putting the place of decision off for a long time, Elijah wants the time out to end so they can get back to action,<br />
7) procrastination, urgency<br />
8) traveling from place to place, finding their place<br />
<br />
What Elijah asked for and what he got from the people was a test. That is all he needed from the witnesses. He needed one agreed upon place and time when they could all testify to the results. He alone as a witness was not enough. He wanted maximum testing or witnessing. They made a covenant or bond with Elijah that they would be witnesses to a test. It is no test to hear the testimony of only one witness. That is all that I am. He did not give them any guarantees except that he would be present, when Yahweh proved who he was. They agreed to the same place and time as Elijah and they did not require certainty from him in advance, but rather they sought certainty after the test where they were present to testify. Maybe their wavering was directly a result of their desire to have guarantees in advance, rather than waiting for til the time that they could testify to guarantee what was true and humble. <br />
<br />
The difficulty in the present, especially regarding holy's definition is that the tests are quasi-tests. The are not tests that give you a great deal of certainty. In fact, as scholars have assessed the definition of holy more recently, the tests are coming back more uncertain than previously. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (the grandest work on the Hebrew language) casts serious doubt on the etymological argument for "set apart". It also made the courageous step of leaving out cognate (other language) material and relying primarily on the Hebrew language internally. <br />
<br />
I am afraid that the one test of blessed and holy has not really been performed up to here and now standards. Since James Barr, no one has written a full blown test for the definition of holy after he successfully unseated the argument from etymology alone. (He did not say it has no value, but he does say its value is limited.) That is what I am trying to do otherwise in this blog and in an upcoming book. I want to set the stage for a grand test of definitions of blessed and holy. . <br />
<br />
<b>So what is complete?</b> What is complete is playing by all the laws. <br />
<br />
I think the laws for Elijah and the prophets might have been something like this:<br />
<br />
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet<br />
<br />
1) no stranger fire other than from heaven, no strange fire other than from heaven,<br />
2) Prayers are permitted, prayers are permitted<br />
3) We can play with up to 400 players against Elijah by himself, I will permit them to have 400 as long as I can play<br />
4) bleeding and slashing is permitted, heckling is permitted without any need for physical violence<br />
5) There is no requirement to use green or wet wood, wet wood will be used that goes beyond required<br />
6) Baal gets to go first based on the "coin toss", Elijah will go second based on the same "coin toss"<br />
7) The contest will continue until a side gets the result of a fire. Elijah continues until fire arrives<br />
8) If Baal wins then everyone is to go with him, if Yahweh wins then everyone is to go with him<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>What is the action?</b> What is the action is the experiment. <br />
<br />
I think the rules for Elijah the prophets of Baal and the crowd of spectators were these:<br />
<br />
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet<br />
<br />
1) no matches were allowed (that is cheating), no matches were allowed (that is cheating)<br />
2) each side was to set up their own altar, each side was to set up their own altar<br />
3) each side was to ask their god to send fire from heaven, each side was to ask their god to send fire from heaven<br />
4) the action of the people of Israel was to be witnesses, the action of the people was to be witnesses<br />
5) neither side could sell money back guarantees in advance, neither side could sell money back guarantees<br />
6) the guarantee came after the experiment, the guarantee came after the experiment<br />
7) certainty would come from knowing the results following the experiment, certainty would come from knowing the results after the experiment,<br />
8) prayers and blood-letting allowed, prayers allowed but no blood-letting except from animals<br />
<br />
<br />
To sum it up, it is to set up an experiment and perform it. To be specific about the definitions of blessed an holy, I have only given a rough sketch of the experiment mainly for the definition of holy. I still have a lot of writing to do and a lot of writing that is not on my blog yet. I have thought it all through in my own mind and I already know the outcome for me personally. But that does not mean there are many testimonies to that definition. <br />
<br />
I knew holy's definition with certainty and personally back in November 2013. Before that time, mainly the last 10 years, I knew through experimenting that there were lots of problems with the etymological argument arriving at "set apart" as the definition (one of three kinds of meaning). I also knew that in the last 500 years that the Christian church and even the Jewish synagogue are divided on its meaning. My question is a lot like Elijah's: "Why are satisfied with procrastinating between so many opinions?" So I have begun the experiment that people can give witness to on-line. I want witnesses. I am not doing this in the dark somewhere. I am doing it in the light of everywhere and at hyper-speed. These are the twin advantages of the internet. <br />
<br />
Let me illustrate the importance of experimenting and not just guessing in our brains. This is how I used experimenting just this morning (5/19/14). . <br />
<br />
So this morning, I did not know where my coffee or tea cup had disappeared to. Rather than waver too long as to where it might be, I started out by experimenting with where it might be. I had a few opinions in my mind. I experimented first with the location of the passenger's side seat in my car. I seemed to recall that the solution to this mystery had some connection with my car. Well, it wasn't there. Then I decided, let's re-check the kitchen looking in the open at the counter space and then in the cupboard. I didn't find it there either. Then I checked the other lower probability rooms.like the living room, etc. Still, no success. Then upon returning to the kitchen, I spotted where it was most likely hidden. I noticed that I had not emptied my lunch container from the day before. Than I recalled also that there was something I had placed in there the day before that was unusual for me. It was then that I opened the packet and there it was! I found in truth where my cup was located and I also have to admit humbly that I did not know were it was with certainty until that moment. No mental experiment was as good as finishing the experiment by opening the bag. <br />
<br />
The problem is that too many people rely on their minds and not on their souls. They think of knowledge as something that is mind-based rather than relationship-based. I now realize for myself more than ever that knowledge in the Bible makes a lot more sense as a term of intimacy as one of my professors once called it. I think his idea leans in the right direction. Where and when will we be? That is where and when we shall know. No elsewhere and not any time before. <br />
<br />
I also found my cup fairly fast, because I tested my theories rather than tried to just think my way into certainty in advance. This is, I think, a great mistake by many people. They don't just do it - experiment that is. Peter Drucker taught me, through one of his books many years ago, the superiority of this method of experimenting. People who are unsure need to experiment, to paraphrase his advice. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>What is the thing?</b> No longer wavering between two opinions as to which one is god. It is either Baal or it is Yahweh. Which one shows that he is God? <br />
<br />
Let me stack up the things for you at last:<br />
<br />
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet<br />
<br />
1) fire from heaven will demonstrate that Baal is god, fire from heaven will demonstrate that Yahweh is god<br />
2) we don't believe that any human being can command fire from heaven, we don't believe that any human being can command fire from heaven<br />
3) the demonstration has to be something that we cannot do ourselves, the demonstration has to be something that we cannot do ourselves<br />
4) the demonstration cannot be subject to coincidence (fire from heaven during a lightning storm), the demonstration cannot be subject to coincidence (it has not even rained for a long time and there are no clouds)<br />
5) the demonstration can happen using wood that burns very easily, the demonstration can be with dry wood but let's make it more miraculous by adding water than no human being can overcome without trouble)<br />
6) our god will answer us while the people are still there, my god will answer even after part of the day is lost and the people might be starting to want to go back home<br />
7) our god surely knows he has a stake in this and hasn't been distracted, your god I think is distracted by the latreen while my god is still interested<br />
8) we think by slashing ourselves greater attention will come from our god, my god needs no such attention getting measures<br />
<br />
Some at least have heard who the winner in this experiment was in terms of demonstrating which god was the God. It was the god named Yahweh. Elijah now had not only his own testimony, he also now had the testimony of the people of Israel. No longer was it him alone while the crowds limped along. I know that later in the story Elijah starts to feel sorry for himself all over again. But notice that God reminds him that he is not the only prophet of Yahweh who did not bend the knee and he certainly too was no longer the only one to testify as to who is God among the people. There were now many witnesses. <br />
<br />
That is where every reader of this blog can make their mark. They can become witnesses of the things they have seen. You can do it by leaving a comment to let others know you have witnessed what I have said. Others can then add their testimony to yours. I know that I am not alone. I don't have Elijah's problem today at least. <br />
<br />
So I would like the testifiers of truth and humility, people who wait until after the experiment and have stopped procrastinating, to join with me and start using my tools under my "communication tools" tab and to start reading my prior experiments in this blog. You'll be surprised what you'll find once you kick procrastination to the back seat of the bus. It is an absolute necessity to understand your importance as fellow connection, witness, and testifier, who waits truthfully and humbly for certainty. Then you shall know and not before. Ah, isn't it fun to stop procrastinating and instead begin to get things done? Take care my fellow witnesses.<br />
<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br />
JonJon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-23600539263133917112014-05-10T21:53:00.001-05:002014-05-10T21:53:23.804-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Exodus 19:1-8 (Credibility - Part 5 of 5)Credibility is a thing that is hard to find. It is also hard to establish it with others. It requires more than a high IQ. It also requires EQ. EQ is an emotional quotient like there is an intelligence quotient, IQ. You may have a very high IQ and fail at EQ. Notice the following picture:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eHMzoxOHluE/U27XSptgoRI/AAAAAAAAAPY/qSXutF47AV4/s1600/Emotional+Intelligence_395703687_640_May2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eHMzoxOHluE/U27XSptgoRI/AAAAAAAAAPY/qSXutF47AV4/s1600/Emotional+Intelligence_395703687_640_May2014.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
What I find is that too many people are emotionally afraid of considering the option that the most popular definition in lexicons in the last 100 years and among the majority of current scholars is incorrect. Too often the definition that people settle for is fear driven rather than confidence driven. It can also be fearless driven as though confidence is the total absence of fear. I am convinced that the definition of holy is "moral wholeness" and I can emotionally say it with confidence under control (it is not a fearless over-correction. <br />
<br />
"What is moral wholeness?", you might ask. It is all these moral traits as a whole:<br />
<br />
1) Righteous and just<br />
2) True and humble<br />
3) Loving and perfect,<br />
4) Good and great.<br />
<br />
To lack anyone of these would mean that a person is not morally whole. It goes almost without saying, but "steadfast kindness" is the sequel to holiness when it comes to salvation. This kindness is a gift while holiness is a demand or requirement. <br />
<br />
BIBLICAL TEXT OF EXODUS 19:1-8<br />
<br />
I want to point out that I agree fully to Scripture alone as the principal by which the meaning of holy should be tested. It is not the lazy man's way of defining holy, but the brain exercising way to define holy. My purpose is not to convince people to read all the scholarly materials on holy, though some are helpful, but to better equip them to understand the meaning of holy in the biblical text for themselves. Note this quote by a guy who exercised his brain pretty well and I understand had an IQ in the 160s. <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-R9FecFmEudY/U27aAZBXigI/AAAAAAAAAPk/kitO4caqeSo/s1600/Brain_quote-any-man-who-reads-too-much-and-uses-his-own-brain-too-little-falls-into-lazy-habits-of-thinking-albert-einstein-56318_May2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-R9FecFmEudY/U27aAZBXigI/AAAAAAAAAPk/kitO4caqeSo/s1600/Brain_quote-any-man-who-reads-too-much-and-uses-his-own-brain-too-little-falls-into-lazy-habits-of-thinking-albert-einstein-56318_May2014.jpg" height="150" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
Here one also has to be cautious not to take this quote too far. Einstein is not suggesting that reading others is a waste of time entirely, but he is more concerned that people develop their own habits of thinking rather than relying primarily or only on an authoritative source outside of one's own understanding. I like to think of it this way. It is the difference between those raised by parents to be adults themselves and those who remain mainly dependent on their parents even as adults. These thinkers are not independent thinkers. <br />
<br />
The danger in going too far in one's independence is though like the person who becomes an adult and forbids themselves to ever get the advice of a parent. You can be independent even if you know your parents' view. That does not necessarily block you from independence unless you are still dependent on them can cannot chose other than their view. <br />
<br />
So let's examine the text itself as a starting point: <br />
<br />
<div class="heading passage-class-0" style="background-color: white; color: #5c1101; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 10px;">
<h3 style="font-size: 16px; margin: 0px;">
Exodus 19:1-8</h3>
<div class="txt-sm" style="font-size: 12px;">
New King James Version (NKJV)</div>
</div>
<div class="passage version-NKJV result-text-style-normal text-html " style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<h3 style="font-size: 1.05em;">
<span class="text Exod-19-1" id="en-NKJV-2028">Israel at Mount Sinai</span></h3>
<div class="chapter-2">
<span class="text Exod-19-1"><span class="chapternum" style="bottom: -0.1em; font-size: 1.25em; font-weight: bold; left: 0px; line-height: 0.8em; position: relative;">19 </span>In the third month after the children of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on the same day, they came <i>to</i> the Wilderness of Sinai. </span><span class="text Exod-19-2" id="en-NKJV-2029"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">2 </span>For they had departed from Rephidim, had come <i>to</i> the Wilderness of Sinai, and camped in the wilderness. So Israel camped there before the mountain.</span></div>
<span class="text Exod-19-3" id="en-NKJV-2030"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">3 </span>And Moses went up to God, and the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: </span><span class="text Exod-19-4" id="en-NKJV-2031"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">4 </span>‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and <i>how</i> I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself.</span><span class="text Exod-19-5" id="en-NKJV-2032"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">5 </span>Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth <i>is</i> Mine. </span><span class="text Exod-19-6" id="en-NKJV-2033"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">6 </span>And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These <i>are</i> the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”</span><br />
<span class="text Exod-19-7" id="en-NKJV-2034"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">7 </span>So Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before them all these words which the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> commanded him. </span><span class="text Exod-19-8" id="en-NKJV-2035"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">8 </span>Then all the people answered together and said, “All that the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> has spoken we will do.” So Moses brought back the words of the people to the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span>.</span></div>
<br />
<br />
Jo Bailey Wells in her fine consideration of these verses points out some significant characteristics in this text. She points out some relevant parallelism in relationship to the definition of holy. <br />
<br />
<br />
[This post with some other recent posts is under construction. Next week should afford another opportunity to revisit those that are incomplete. Sorry for the delay.]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br />
Jon<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Jon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-74566695354019057692014-05-08T16:58:00.001-05:002014-05-10T21:57:17.189-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Exodus 19:1-8 (Credibility - Part 4 of 5)I think I am going to be wrapping up my work on the definition of holy this week. I am now going to re-direct my major efforts toward the parts of Scripture that are much simpler and provided the tools for me to recognize that the popular definition of holy in our day is an error. <br />
<br />
The definition of holy as "set apart" is reading too much into one ancient writing that say that "holy means set apart". Means does not always mean definition. In this case, I am convinced that it means significance. I do believe that being blessed and being morally whole do set people apart from those who are not. This is just like a hospital separates the healthy from the unhealthy in cases of communicable diseases. But to claim that what we are chiefly to imitate in God in being blessed like he is with some kind of prosperity (which seems kind of weird) and to claim that we are chiefly to be like him in his separation from sin (again which seems kind of weird) is not the God that I want to emulate. I want to emulate a greater God who has a blessedness that indicates "I am who I am" and a God who is above all else chiefly "morally whole" as holy. My God is not morally one kind like just love. Give me a much more robust God than that and then I will emulate God for the rest of all eternity!<br />
<br />
May you learn the meaning of holy as I have and long the day when all the world knows it too!<br />
<br />
<br />
[This piece too is still in process, but it does cut the point doesn't it?]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
"Are you afraid of success?" Remember that line from "It's a Wonderful Life"? Maybe the fear of success is greater than we imagine. "The only thing to fear is fear itself". Remember that line from FDR? Could it be that our fear is greater than fear itself? Could it be that our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate, but rather our fear is that our adequacy or confidence demonstrates the inadequacy of others? How can we possibly succeed where they failed? Are we also fearful of hurting other people's feelings of adequacy or confidence? I believe I can see and feel these fears every day. So now fear rather than confidence is our primary stance.<br />
<br />
Perhaps, following failure after failure which came after proclaiming success after success, we are a bit weary and fearful of confidence. Look at the path of our own pasts and those leaders around us covered with failed successes. From religion, Jimmy Baker; from politics, Richard Nixon; from business, Kenneth Lay; from sports, Tiger Wood and the list for all these areas goes on and on. People who once had our confidence that then turned around and shattered it. It is a fearful past that we live with everyday.<br />
<br />
In a very real sense, fear is helpful. We need confidence that is not just fearless. We have to be able to discern when confidence makes sense and when fear makes sense. The problem is when fear so controls us that we now believe that we too will not possess the strength to solve the previously unsolvable. The ones older than us didn't, goes the reasoning. Why would this generation of human beings in the 21st century succeed, where many in the 20th century did not? Could we possibly be more adequate than the so-called "Greatest Generation"? Is this our fear? Does latching on to them as the "Greatest Generation" just give us a convenient excuse to not try what they found impossible? Is it an attempt to shield us from the fears of the 20th century? Is it an attempt to find one place and time where we can be confident?<br />
<br />
I believe excess fear and excess confidence are both hurting the legitimate feeling of confidence. In the story of Joshua, he is told that instead of being afraid that he is to "be strong and courageous". Notice not strong and fearless. Remember too that "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom". So woe to the fearless! So what about us? We are not to be frightened by other people' s feelings of fear and inadequacy, are we? We are not to join the fearless, are we?<br />
<br />
A biblical theology is one of those specific areas where people are afraid. People are afraid that a biblical theology is not possible. The let's boil that all the way down to a specific biblical definition of holy. It simply is not possible, we reason, based on all the ones before us that failed. I repeat and capitalize for emphasis two words: NOT POSSIBLE.<br />
<br />
Now before I say much more about a biblical passage this week over 5 steps in 5 days, I want to point out the many times that I have learned the danger of these words "not possible" and why they ought to be feared (fear itself again!). They can be very dangerous words. They can undercut confidence itself. So here is some instances outside of biblical theology but still part of life's experiences, where I have experienced the danger of NOT POSSIBLE. They are:<br />
<br />
1) it is not possible for your parents to love you as much as their natural born, because you are adopted,<br />
2) it is not possible to beat someone in wrestling, because they beat you a year ago,<br />
3) it is not possible for you to be a mile runner on the high school track team, because the first time you were ever timed in a mile run in high school, you were beaten by an offensive lineman,<br />
4) it is not possible for you to ever be smart, because your IQ score in high school was very low,<br />
5) it is not possible to get a high grade in college Greek, because you struggled even with English grammar,<br />
6) it is not possible for you to become a good communicator, because who scored very low in the English section of the ACT during high school,<br />
7) it is not possible for you to be a good basketball coach, because at one point you did not know the short list of fundamentals,<br />
8) it is not possible for you to succeed as a fisherman, because you previously failed as a fisherman,<br />
9) it is not possible for the tool you have to be better, because others used it before you and it did not prove better but instead controversial,<br />
10) It is not possible to be emotionally intelligent, because you previously were not emotionally intelligent.<br />
<br />
All of these and more (ex. player, coach, and AD) contribute to why I believe "not possible" is dangerous. Everyone has proved instead to be very possible. Besides that, it makes us (me included) all hypocrites, who sang when we were younger, "nothing is impossible with God". It is not our mindset alone that needs to change as much as our strength-set. We need to boost our confidence, when it is appropriate!<br />
<br />
An emotionally healthy person knows there is a time to be confident and there is a time to fear. The healthy person knows when to be one and not the other. Again, they are not fearless. They are confident. There is a huge difference. Lots of people get hurt being fearless. Me included, so that is not what I am looking for from us. I am instead looking for confident people, who know when to be confident.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br />
<br />
Jon<br />
<br />
<br />Jon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-52093306688648329632014-05-07T21:27:00.002-05:002014-05-10T21:54:42.469-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Exodus 19:1-8 (Credibility - Part 3 of 5)In speaking to the issue of what is the definition of holy, as one part of what holy means, we should all agree that we need to engage our minds in the process. We should also all agree that it needs to be all of our mind or brain that is engaged. So let me engage your whole brain. Who is most credible in the use of their mind? Is it: 1) a person who is very smart and feels little, 2) a person who feels much and is not very smart, or a person who feels deeply and is very smart? I am convinced the most credible mind for deciding on a definition for holy is that person who both feels deeply and is deeply smart. This kind of person has a quiet ethical credibility, <br />
<br />
Further, I do believe our emotional state does influence our decision making, so that it is best to bring it out into the open and handle it positively rather than hide it or try to subdue it. It is the person who ignores their emotions and/or the person who ignores their logic that gets in the most trouble. <br />
<br />
I continue to be convinced from my devotional reading of Scripture that this is true, since emotions are found in many stories influencing decisions. From these biblical instances and other evidence, I believe that the person whose thinking is most credible is that person who considers both feeling and logic. Peter F. Drucker, the great management guru of the 20th century, lays out an obviously logical format for making decisions in his many books on management, but he also acknowledged the need to listen to that voice he called the "daemon" for a short time to make sure we heard its voice and not just the logical voice in decision making. Ironically, it seems that emotions could most effect those most unaware of them. <br />
<br />
<br />
[This piece of writing is likely to be broken into 2 parts with one section staying in this post and the other going to my communication basics blog for a more full treatment.]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
For a number of years, I have been studying the topic of emotional intelligence alongside of rational or logical intelligence. The pages in my notebook on emotional intelligence go back to at least 2006, but some of the things on the topic I may have been studying much longer. Personally, I have been "studying" emotions since I was pulled out of my 3rd grade class to see the principal and then the school psychologist. Today, I will limit my discussion to psychologists and philosophers, who are also authors, that have especially helped me with my emotional intelligence. They are: 1) Daniel Goleman, 2) Robert Plutchik, and 3) Aristotle (yes, that Greek philosopher). To sum up what I have learned, I would say four things directly related to each of them:<br />
<br />
1) emotional intelligence is more important than logical intelligence based on biological factors (Goleman),<br />
2) there are basic emotions from which the other combinations of emotions spring (Plutchik), and<br />
3) psychology has been hindered by the notion that fight and flight are opposites and so are both anger and fear, which can easily be shown to be a false set of opposites by its inconsistency with other emotions and other approaches (Aristotle)<br />
4) the important triad of ethos (ethical/credible), pathos (emotions), and logos (logical) have been overlooked to our detriment when it comes to appeals for our decisions (Aristotle). <br />
<br />
I find that every one of these lessons is important, but especially the last one. I find that by ignoring the emotional component when it comes to people's minds being persuaded and by not recognizing that both emotional and logical appeals are necessary for a person to be considered ethical or credible are both critical to defining holy correctly. <br />
<br />
Perhaps the biggest hurdle people need to get over is the negative view of their emotions. I think Daniel Goleman's work on emotional intelligence and his rooting his ideas in the biology of the brain are a big help in cutting edge science of the brain. But there is also an ancient tradition in rhetoric that shows that ancients like Aristotle also recognized its great role a long time before the latest science. Not all have taken a negative or dim view of emotions. In going through the educational system of the United States, whether private or public, we are tested on our IQ, but there is not an equivalent EQ test. Goleman's own test is nowhere near a type of compliment. But the picture below does show importance of the emotional part of our brain that interacts with the logical portion. <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vOe-t32QHtg/U2pkXb1WsJI/AAAAAAAAAO4/zCTKFzkHRbk/s1600/Emotional+Intelligence_developing-your-emotional-intelligence_May2014.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vOe-t32QHtg/U2pkXb1WsJI/AAAAAAAAAO4/zCTKFzkHRbk/s1600/Emotional+Intelligence_developing-your-emotional-intelligence_May2014.png" height="256" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
There are some helpful things written on emotions, but also some that are confusing or misleading. <br />
<br />
On a personal level three people have helped me the most: 1) my mother, 2) my Great Aunt Lilly, and 3) Pastor B. Wayne Johnson. <br />
<br />
Three professional people have helped me with my emotional intelligence perhaps the most: 1) Dottie Lideen (the schoool pychologist mentioned earlier), 2) Pastor Jim Learned, and Roger Buck, a Director of Christian Education and Stephens Ministry Coordinator.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In studying under Dr. John S. Piper, Tom Stellar, and Dr. Daniel P. Fuller, I learned to use my own brain more and other people's brains less to keep my own brain from becoming lazy. This does not mean other views are not important (they are!) for seeing options for biblical interpretation, but what it does mean is what Einstein discovered:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_6Y_34NvfGk/U2ptveUdOsI/AAAAAAAAAPI/eOWo6CIE5KI/s1600/Brain_Slide081_May2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_6Y_34NvfGk/U2ptveUdOsI/AAAAAAAAAPI/eOWo6CIE5KI/s1600/Brain_Slide081_May2014.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
So let's look at the text now that we have a better sense of how our minds work overall. <br />
<br />
<br />
[while this is still under construction, next week (5/11/14) is when I hope to add to it.]<br />
<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
JonJon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-59594586958427308732014-05-06T22:30:00.000-05:002014-05-10T21:55:03.157-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Exodus 19:1-8 (Credibility - Part 2 of 5) In defining any words including both blessed and holy, it is important to find a credible source. Wouldn't you agree? How do you decide who is credible and who is not? The second question is a little harder to answer than the first. There is a clear consensus on the need to discover a credible source otherwise why turn to some sources for your information over others. Why not settle for the <i>National Enquirer?</i> Why is it that a Hebrew lexicon or an English dictionary is any better? What are the conscious criteria? My sources for credibility are the following: 1) credible appeal, 2) emotional appeal, 3) logical appeal. <br />
<br />
Recently, I experienced a situation where my "logical appeal" was spotless and yet it did not appeal to those I was speaking with effectively. They basically decided not to act. I was a little frustrated with my failure, so I decided to step back and instead of blaming them for not listening to me, I decided to find out if I had failed in my appeal in any way. (Keep in mind that you have the advantage of my 20/20 hindsight in realizing that I had made only a very strong logical appeal.) In any case, I thought maybe I did not effectively address them in terms of their emotions. So I returned to some ideas I had explored previously on "emotional intelligence", EQ. I found this material helpful in the past and so I returned to it for more insight once again. This time though I had a little higher "logical intelligence", IQ, than the previous time, so I noticed some things I had previously had not noticed. <br />
<br />
Aristotle's rhetoric he spoke of three key means of persuasion. To transfer his words into English, he spoke of: 1) credibility, 2) emotions, and 3) logic as key parts of persuasion. It recently dawned on me that this triad could be like another triad that I learned a long time ago in the translation of righteousness, justice, and judgment. English translators for many years have known that justice is in some contexts the level line of amount and in other contexts it is the vertical and level lines of amount combined and so is translated as judgment. In their wisdom, they have practiced this for years, but perhaps not as consciously as we could wish. Perhaps Aristotle was not as conscious as we could wish either when he speaks of his triad. Could it be that 1) emotions, 2) logic, and 3) credibility are another example of a greater, lesser, greatest triad? I believe it is. <br />
<br />
Think of it this way. When you desire to find a reliable source for the meaning of holy, would it not be the ideal to find someone is both feels deeply and is very smart. In other words, they ooze what gives a person credibility. Just today I read in the book of 2 Samuel about those who are blameless and those who are those who ought to feel shame. The story is that of Amnon, Tamar, and Absalom. There is hardly another story filled so much with these emotional appeals. But these emotional appeals to do not stand alone. They are accompanied by logic as well. The story gets its credibility from both helping a person feel deeply as they read it but also see the story very smartly as they see it. It is a story of relationships with persuasive power. <br />
<br />
[My new writing schedule is this - to begin a piece every day for 5 days and then the following week to try to follow up and finish them. Thank you for your patience. Keep in mind that I am writing much behind the scenes to bring out some of it here, but I think it is still valuable.]<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br />
JonJon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-32576841816518189712014-05-05T21:22:00.000-05:002014-05-10T21:55:26.503-05:00Blessed and Holy: The Possibility of Understanding Them Better Through Exodus 19:1-8 (Credibility: Part 1 of 5)What is the significance of our emotions, when it comes to defining either blessed or holy? Let's be more specific. Are you feeling that the definitions you have been given deserve acceptance? Or are you rather feeling that they are shameful attempts to define a key word in the Bible? Emotional intelligence, while it has received some really excellent attention in recent years, is also shackled to outmoded ideas from the 1800's and it lacks a real clear test like that used for logical intelligence. While testing for the Intelligence Quotient, IQ, is elaborately developed, there is no equivalent test for a person's Emotional Quotient, EQ. Worse yet is that the combination of both together, a person's Credibility Quotient,CQ, is even less developed. The reason that I began my discussion with questions of acceptance and shame is that these are the basic questions of emotion that relate to the logical question of amount like a test score of say, 90 out of 100.. In school, if I take a test and receive an acceptable score like 90 out of 100, then I feel the pleasure of acceptance. If I take a test and receive an unacceptable score of 50 out of 100, then I will feel the pain of shame. So what should be our emotional state? <br />
<br />
So what ought we to feel about test scores relating to understanding blessed and holy? In speaking to Christians in particular, what do the test scores say about the definition of each of these words. It make shock you to learn that recent scores are lower rather than higher. The emotional diagnosis is one moving toward shame rather than acceptance. If John A. Lee is correct, most of what scholars labeled as a definition in a lexicon is simply a good copy of an earlier tradition of definition. Most of it has not been re-tested. But in the case of holy, there have been some important (acceptable) advances in scholarship. <br />
<br />
First, Jo Bailey Wells, author of <i>God's Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology</i>, points out in her excellent summary of recent scholarship on the definition of holy, that the "old consensus that the original etymology was `separation' ... has now been abandoned" (p. 17-18, see footnote 10). <br />
<br />
When I speak of outmoded ideas in the 1800s, I am referring to the continuing development of fight versus flight, or the idea that anger and fear are opposites. Worse yet is the idea that anger is simply another form of fear. I guess you could call that an update of an odd idea whose time to die has come. <br />
<br />
When I speak of a test, I am referring to the need to test emotional intelligence (EQ) in schools just like logical intelligence (IQ)<br />
<br />
<br />
[I actually wrote a great deal today, but I found the material fits better with part 4 of 5)<br />
<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br />
Jon<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Jon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-24254350703469260532014-04-26T21:55:00.001-05:002014-04-26T21:55:49.942-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better through Luke 10:25-28 (Things - Part 5 of 5)When it comes to the definition of holy it is important to understand the meaning of each option on a common sense level or slightly higher level at most. This has been largely overlooked in some of the quirky distinctions of definition on the part of some writers on the topic. The most comical in my mind is the distinction between whether one is separated from something or separated to something. I doubt very much that qadosh in Hebrew communicates such a subtle point. It shows the great lengths some will go to in trying to fix obvious problems with a definition. I find it much better to try to simplify definitions rather than complicate them. <br />
<br />
For me, there are five fairly basic classes that words fall into. They are: <br />
<br />
1) Amounts,<br />
2) Relationships, <br />
3) Wholes<br />
4) Actions<br />
5) Things<br />
<br />
In following the idea of set apart, the distinction is usually that of relationships. Sometimes it is also seen as a separate thing from sin. <br />
<br />
[Sorry the day has gotten late and it is time for me to conclude. I hope to be able to revisit this post next week based on a change in my writing schedule. My new goal is to now write on week for each of 5 days and then return the next week to tidy up any writing that was left incomplete.]<br />
<br />
<br />
In Christ, <br />
<br />
Jon<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Jon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-89282265059182518172014-04-25T22:28:00.001-05:002014-04-25T22:28:16.169-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Luke 10:25-28 (Action - Part 4 of 5)<b>OPENING OF ACTION</b><br />
<br />
I love this quote that I heard from a friend of mine yesterday: "Where there is a why, there is a how". It sounds a lot like "Where there is a will, there is a way", doesn't it? The first quote fits extremely well with the training that I hope to accomplish today from Luke 10:25-28. Today the goal is to be immensely practical. From the Greatest Commandment, which includes the 1st and the 2nd, everyone can learn a great deal about the why and the how of action. <br />
<br />
<b>Amount of action</b><br />
<br />
At the core of training are two aspects, both the level of focus and the level of effort required, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:<br />
<br />
1) How many? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment<br />
2) How much? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment<br />
<br />
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:<br />
<br />
1) a) one by four, b) two by self<br />
<br />
What does one by four mean in this answer? It means that there is "one" God and that there are four parts of ourselves, "heart", "soul", "strength" and "mind", that are supposed to love Yahweh God. There is one God for all four parts of ourselves, rather than one god for each one of the four parts or some other combinations of one and four. <br />
<br />
What does "two by self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both are selves. There is yourself and myself, making two. <br />
<br />
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
2) a) with whole, b) as much as<br />
<br />
What does "with whole" mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the whole of each of four parts. Notice the same level or quality for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal in quality though somewhat distinct in order.<br />
<br />
So how does this all translate to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be focused on one God, even if we ourselves have four parts. Likewise the quality from each part needs to be equal. This is the clarity and the meaningfulness that we need today. <br />
<br />
In our day, that appears that a lack of favoritism is a big problem as denominations tend to favor their one part over the others. From both my personal experience (which is worth more) and my reading (which is worth less), I have noted that seldom do denominations notice their favoritism for one part over another part due to their historically different questions. To mention just one example, Luther asked as his primary question, "How much?" is enough to satisfy an angry God. He responded with justification being primary. Calvin, while not against Luther on his question, asked a different primary question, "When" as in who precedes the other. He responded with humility being primary, since humanity follows after divinity. It would seem that the danger for each is favoring the heart in the first case and the soul in the second. The rule of action here is that they are to be equal without favoritism. With the loss of their understanding of holiness, it appears that favoritism has gotten worse not better. <br />
<br />
<b>Relationship of action</b><br />
<br />
At the core of training are two other aspects, both the location and the timing required, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:<br />
<br />
1) Where? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment<br />
2) When? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment<br />
<br />
So what things in our text indicate the answer to question of location? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:<br />
<br />
1) a) Israel, b) neighbor (lit. "near wiling")<br />
<br />
What does Israel mean in this answer? What does it say about location. It means that those in the location of a nation are being addressed and not just the location of one household. This would also explain the expanded location to all nations being discussed in passages where there is mention of the "Jew first and also the Gentiles (Nations). This rule is not limited to inside some narrow place. There is one God for all Israel and by implication then all other nations rather than one god for each narrow household. This God who ought to reign over one nation and goes beyond just narrow locations should also be the God of all locations. <br />
What does neighbor mean in my answer? It means that there are people near us by their willing to be there. They as free people chose to live in the house next door. They have chosen to pass down the path we are passing also. There are many ways that people come near to us versus pass far from us. But by rule, when the come near to us, they are now our neighbors. There are ourselves and them in the same close proximity. <br />
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question of time? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
2) a) Moses' century BC, b) 1st century AD<br />
<br />
What does Moses' century B.C." mean in this answer? It means that this rule that is greatest also has an historic past. It isn't just here and now, though it is that. It is also from the past, into the present, and so into the future a rule. Notice that the timing for this rule does not change with time. It perseveres with time. If it still applied in first century long after Moses, it would still apply now. There is no preference for either the the past, the present, or the future. All three times mean it is an acceptable time to live by the neighbor rule. These times are treated as equal in quality though very distinct in order.<br />
<br />
So how does this all transfer to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be aimed at the there and before, the here and now, and the elsewhere and after. We cannot place everything into one place and time. Likewise the quality from place and time needs to be equal no matter where and when the rule is applied. This is the transfer of time and place we need today in our rules where time and place doesn't make the rule obsolete.<br />
<br />
In our day, it appears that the elsewhere and future is all that matters over the there and past or here and present for others. For others it is all about the there and past to the neglect of the other two. For others it is all about living for the here and now. Rarely do you hear of the value of all three places and times as equal in their own place and time. Rather we here that here and now we are better or then and there they were better or here and now is better. Rarely is each seen as an acceptable place and time for its place and time. We try to put everything into our time limits of choice rather than each thing its rightful place and time. People forget that placement and timing are of the essence and that preference for one over the others is likely its own prejudice. Don't try to tell anyone that placement and timing isn't a problem. They will think you are nuts. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<b>Whole of action</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
At the core of training are two aspects, both the issue of identity and the core issue of the wholeness required, when a person is taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:<br />
<br />
1) Who? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment<br />
2) Whole? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment<br />
<br />
At the core of training are two aspects, both the level of focus and the level of effort required, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:<br />
<br />
1) How many? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment<br />
2) How much? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment<br />
<br />
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:<br />
<br />
1) a) one by four, b) two by self<br />
<br />
What does one by four mean in this answer? It means that there is "one" God and that there are four parts of ourselves, "heart", "soul", "strength" and "mind", that are supposed to love Yahweh God. There is one God for all four parts of ourselves, rather than one god for each one of the four parts or some other combinations of one and four. <br />
<br />
What does "two by self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both are selves. There is yourself and myself, making two. <br />
<br />
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
2) a) with whole, b) as much as<br />
<br />
What does "with whole" mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the whole of each of four parts. Notice the same level or quality for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal in quality though somewhat distinct in order.<br />
<br />
So how does this all translate to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be focused on one God, even if we ourselves have four parts. Likewise the quality from each part needs to be equal. This is the clarity and the meaningfulness that we need today. <br />
<br />
In our day, that appears that a lack of favoritism is a big problem as denominations tend to favor their one part over the others. From both my personal experience (which is worth more) and my reading (which is worth less), I have noted that seldom do denominations notice their favoritism for one part over another part due to their historically different questions. To mention just one example, Luther asked as his primary question, "How much?" is enough to satisfy an angry God. He responded with justification being primary. Calvin, while not against Luther on his question, asked a different primary question, "When" as in who precedes the other. He responded with humility being primary, since humanity follows after divinity. It would seem that the danger for each is favoring the heart in the first case and the soul in the second. The rule of action here is that they are to be equal without favoritism. With the loss of their understanding of holiness, it appears that favoritism has gotten worse not better. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:<br />
<br />
1) a) Yahweh & Israel, and 2) another & self<br />
<br />
What does "Yahweh and Israel" mean in this answer? Yahweh means that here is God with a personal rather than impersonal name. It also means that Israel (the name given to Jacob by God) that later became the name for a nation is being addressed by Yahweh. That is the "you" being referred to in this case. So the entire address is personal. <br />
<br />
What does "another and self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both can be referred to as a self or selves. There is another self and myself that are critical in this case for answering who is being referred to. This commandment leaves no person out in the sense that all of us are not an island all by ourselves. There is nowhere for a person to hide from responsibility for others as well as themselves. <br />
<br />
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
2) a) of heart, of soul, of strength, of mind (of yourself), b) of you (your)<br />
<br />
What does "of heart, etc." mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the the four parts of ourselves. Each is undeniably part of who we are. Notice the same level for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) It isn't a heart of a soul , soul of strength, etc. where one is the part of the other. No each one is an equal part of who we are as a person. There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal parts though in a somewhat distinct order.<br />
<br />
So how does this all total up for us in determining the how and the why? Actions like love need to be personal and regard the entire person rather than just one part of who people are. No training and all teaching means our strength gets weak while the mind prospers. All training and no teaching means the mind goes mindless. Likewise the treatment of each part needs to be equal. This personal and healthy touch we need in our actions. Impersonal and only a part of the job will not do.<br />
<br />
Also in our day, it appears that a lack of being personal is growing with more and more focus on technology and its strength as a tool over the other parts that make up who we are. There also seems to be a kind of smugness coming over those who like the increased intelligence of the computer, but are ill-equipped to better train the brain. We could use some brain training equal to technological training. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Action of action </b><br />
<br />
At the core of training are two aspects, both how to do something and why to do something. Without the how confidence wanes, without a why motivation wanes. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:<br />
<br />
1) How? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment<br />
2) Why? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment<br />
<br />
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:<br />
<br />
1) a) love, b) love<br />
<br />
What does "love" mean in this answer? It means that love matters, because it is something that we do. If it is something that we do, then we need training in loving. We know to potty train a child, but do we know how to love train them and adults? Sure, we ought to love Yahweh God, but how do we love? How do we practice love? It is ironic that I have trained many athletes to do a wide assortment of skills, but I have never explicitly taught people how to love. Since the Bible points out a lot of hatred in this world (the failure to do for others), I would think love training is not optional. <br />
<br />
What does the next "love" mean in my answer? Again, I think there are skilled lovers and then there are unskilled lovers (who are very close to haters). I think I need to start offering love workshops the more I reflect on love as the answer for the how. It like faith and hope is an action, but a different kind and the greatest action we can perform. So let's learn how to love to drive out any hatred that shows in us, when we ought to do the loving thing. . <br />
<br />
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
2) a) with the whole of , b) as much as<br />
<br />
What does "with the whole of" mean in this answer? It means what the measure of our love toward God ought to be from the whole of each of four parts. Notice again the same level or quality for each one. How might love look different if it were done "with the whole" of each part of ourselves? So why love with such passion? Perhaps it is because He first loved us! Remember also that "He so loved ... that He gave his only begotten son. Again, why? Because so great a love deserves so great a response in return. He is your God, so love Him in a way somewhat equal to His love. <br />
<br />
So how does this all train us in determining the how and the why? Actions of love need to be both skilled and motivated to a high degree. We need passion for our trade and passion toward a high degree. Likewise the quality of love on our part needs to be equal to love for ourselves. This is the loving measure that we need to communicate more effectively.<br />
<br />
What does "as much as" mean in this answer? The typical translation reads "love your neighbor as yourself". I put in "as much as" in place of "as" to make the degree or measure more explicit and meaningful without changing the meaning. It makes me think more about the "why" behind my love when I realize that my neighbor is in that sense my equal and so deserves that kind of love. <br />
<br />
So how is training in love going? In our day, it seems that love has become almost hatred, since it is one area that is seldom practiced to make the activity perfect, but rather is left in the arms of spontaneity or blind luck. I would argue we need to work on it like we work on a jump shot, like we work on a recipe, like we work in accounting, etc. Let's get to work, practice, and then love rather that hate. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Thing of action</b><br />
<br />
At the core of training are two aspects, both the definition of what is love and which kind is it<br />
, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:<br />
<br />
1) What? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment<br />
2) Which? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment<br />
<br />
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:<br />
<br />
1) a) You , God, b) you and neighbor<br />
<br />
What does "you and God" mean in this answer? It means you as in lawyer, disciples, and the people. It means the God for all as identified by the Jews for generations. <br />
<br />
What does "two by self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both are selves. There is yourself and myself, making two.<br />
<br />
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
2) a) , b) as much as<br />
<br />
What does "with whole" mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the whole of each of four parts. Notice the same level or quality for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal in quality though somewhat distinct in order.<br />
<br />
So how does this all translate to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be focused on one God, even if we ourselves have four parts. Likewise the quality from each part needs to be equal. This is the clarity and the meaningfulness that we need today.<br />
<br />
In our day, ....<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
what? lawyer, teacher, God, disciples, the people<br />
<br />
which? 1st greater commandment, 2nd lesser commandment, greatest summary altogether<br />
<br />
teach<br />
<br />
<b>CLOSING OF ACTION</b><br />
<br />
<br />
[just a bit more to go]<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br />
JonJon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-58445646902548176202014-04-24T23:56:00.000-05:002014-04-24T23:56:19.855-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Luke 10:25-28 (Whole - Part 3 of 5) OPENING: WHOLE<br />
<br />
The difficulty with trying to understand the meaning of the Greatest Commandment relates mainly to the idea of a commandment or command. Here is what I mean. If you were to look up commandment in your concordance, then you would discover 4 other close cousins as part of what looks remarkably like a set. They are:<br />
<br />
1) laws<br />
2) judgments<br />
3) testimonies<br />
4) commandments (* already noted above)<br />
5) statutes<br />
<br />
You might even see two other words commonly in close proximity. They are:<br />
<br />
1) charge (or burden)<br />
2) covenant<br />
<br />
The question I want to answer this time, which has implications especially for the meaning of holy, is how these fit together as a whole set (if they are a set).<br />
<br />
Israel ... Yahweh<br />
<br />
<br />
AMOUNT<br />
<br />
<br />
Yahweh your God is <b>one</b> (AM1) (how many?)<br />
love your neighbor <b>as</b> yourself (AM2) (how much?)<br />
<br />
<br />
RELATIONSHIP<br />
<br />
God - far (where?) neigh - near<br />
neighbor (when?) bor - liberated<br />
<br />
<br />
ACTION<br />
<br />
hear (how?)<br />
love (how?)<br />
love (how?) <br />
<br />
above yourself (why?)<br />
equal to yourself (why?)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
THING<br />
<br />
"is" "is not" excuse<br />
who is my neighbor<br />
trying to excuse himself<br />
avoiding accountability<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
"like" "not like" excuse<br />
different kind<br />
<br />
<br />
CLOSING: WHOLE<br />
<br />
with whole of your heart,<br />
with whole of your soul<br />
with whole of your strength<br />
with whole of your mind<br />
<br />
<br />
[will continue later]<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br />
JonJon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-68229241890220525062014-04-22T16:03:00.004-05:002014-04-22T16:06:09.102-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Luke 10:25-28 (Relationship - Part 2 of 5)RELATIONSHIP<br />
<br />
There is no more important time to define holy correctly than RIGHT NOW. And the best people to have on your team to reach the correct definition are those who possess both common sense and a specialized sense. It is also good to have on your side commonly known passages like Luke 10:25-28 to make sure your point of view is well-supported. (More on this part later this week.) When it comes to understanding the definition of holy in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, surprisingly the biggest problem is not that people do not know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I still wish more did! The bigger problem is that the specialists who know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek lack too often common sense in their own language. <br />
<br />
When people lack common sense, they are undependable. That can leave us running scared. That is a very big problem. It can result in what are called "random catastrophic failures" by yourself and those who are around you. You need brains that don't have this problem. You need a brain that has common sense. It is like a computer with a dependable microprocessor. We have got computer integrated circuits that have overcome this issue, but do we have the brains too? These kinds of errors need to be taken care of and fast as learned in the computer industry years ago. Again, brains with those kinds of mistakes can leave people running scared. <br />
<br />
Let me give you a concrete example. I once was coaching on a sideline, when the head coach sent into the quarterback a signal from the sidelines for the next play. The quarterback took the signal to mean that we wanted to do a quick kick. That wasn't nearly so bad until the rest of the team lined up with him and did just that. It made absolutely no sense whatsoever. We had time outs to use. It ended up costing us the game. We were driving at the time for a potential score. The quarterback had a great sense of his mechanics as a quarterback, which is a specialized knowledge that other players don't possess, but he also lacked common sense. That made him at a critical point in the game undependable. It was really costly. But that was only a game. In the case of holy, its wrong definition is much more costly. It can cost us our lives. <br />
<br />
So how can "random catastrophic failures" be avoided? I think I know how. First, there has to be no opposition to continuing to grow in our specialized knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. That has to be a GIVEN right now. What is not a GIVEN is that those with this specialized knowledge are dependable. <br />
<br />
The problem of their lack of dependability seems to keep growing. They keep pointing out what is not dependable (ex. James Barr), but they do a weak job of replacing what is not dependable with something that is dependable. I'm afraid that a major part of this problem goes back to the place where our schools that were designed to give us sense failed to do so. <br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong, I am strongly in favor of schools. I believe in "sense and schools" as much as I believe in "rules and freedom". They are inseparable. But the point of schools is to provide sense and eliminate nonsense. Nonsense is what I believe is resulting in "random catastrophic failure". Something is wrong. Elimination of what is wrong is not happening frequently enough. We have got a problem right NOW. <br />
<br />
What I would like to do is have everyone take a deep breath (in football we call this a "time out") and take some time to find out to text if they possess common sense. That goes for everyone who wants to know the meaning of holy or blessed or any biblical words for that matter. The problem is that there has not been a good test for common sense. (While there are a lot of tests for whether you know Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek). <br />
<br />
Reading Thomas Paine's <i>Common Sense</i> won't do it. That is somewhat of a dead end. Common sense is something that you can't study for once you are asked, because then you are admitting you don't HAVE it. Relationally, you either HAVE or you DON'T' HAVE it, when you are asked the question. So here is the big test. By the way, I would have struggled to come up with the answer not that long ago myself. So don't feel bad, rather get yourself tested. That is the first step to getting it, if we don't have it already. <br />
<br />
I want you to answer a simple essay question without any studying. I want to find out whether you have it right NOW (not later). I want everyone who is going to read my definition of holy or give me their definition of holy to at least possess common sense BEFORE they or I speak on the topic. (I have already given my definition in earlier posts, if you trust my common sense.) <br />
<br />
To do this testing of common sense, I am offering a series of tests. It will have three parts over the remaining days of this week (the week starting Sunday, April 20, 2014). Remember to really prove you have common sense right now you have to avoid cheating. This is all based on a honesty system. I can't check all the cheaters at the door, but you can check yourself. By the way, God is checking you at the door (according to my mother). <br />
<br />
I want you to post your answers in the comment sections below. You can write out the answer in as little as 5 to 10 words in a list or you can expand on it. The question is whether you are among the HAVES or the HAVE NOTS in the place and time you are RIGHT NOW. There is no better timing. <br />
<br />
I will not be posting answers, until there is enough interacting with the question (100 + people), but I will let you know if you get 100 % as soon as I can without giving the answer away to everyone else. (I will be open to common sense suggestions on how to do this process better. I also have never done this process quiet like this before. You know what that means. )<br />
<br />
<b>So here is the question: "Tell me in as short of a manner as you can, the common sense words in your language?" Please time yourself and give yourself a full 15 minute time period, if needed. I hope you do well! Thank you for taking part. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Don't worry, I'll giving the definition of holy to all who possess common sense without "random catastrophic failures! Again, thank you for taking an active part. <br />
<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
Jon<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Jon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-37725108460985164352014-04-22T00:04:00.000-05:002014-04-22T00:04:28.293-05:00Blessed and holy: Understanding Them Better Through Luke 10:25-28. (Amount - Part 1 of 5)AMOUNTS<br />
<br />
One of the great problems in education is rote learning. It is learning the answer to a question without knowing how to get the answer without having been first given the answer. Too much of education including some of what I do myself makes this mistake. A great example is that I used to interview coaches and I would tell them what I was looking for. Right there I gave them the answers and they quickly nodded their consent. I had their consent, but not their understanding or their knowledge. I needed to have put the bar higher. So that is what I am going to do here. I need to find out if people understand and not just consent, because then I can trust people to be accountable without my help.<br />
<br />
So with the bar higher, I am not just going to give a definition for holy or blessed. I need people who understand these words, not mouth the definition from a dictionary. Do you know how to find their meaning in the Bible? That is a far better question. This may shock a few people, but many scholars only repeat the definition they learned in school but they don't know how to find the definition for themselves. They cheat and use a lexicon and call that scholarship. <br />
<br />
I want to prove that today. Defining holy and defining blessed are only two examples, but there is one example that I find really glaring. Most students (including scholars) can tell me the words of the greatest commandment by quoting from one of the gospels. What they cannot do is explain to me is how the lawyer or Jesus knew this before their answer was recorded. They also cannot answer equally a number of related questions. <br />
<br />
So here is my set of questions for you and them:<br />
<br />
1) What is the greatest judgment in the Bible? How do you know this?<br />
2) What is the greatest testimony in the Bible? How do you know this?<br />
3) What is the greatest law in the Bible? How do you know this? <br />
4) What is the greatest commandment in the Bible? How do you know this (beside quoting from a gospel writer)?<br />
5) What is the greatest statute in the Bible? How do you know this?<br />
<br />
Notice that if you can answer, "How to you know this?", then you can answer the rest of the questions and not just one of the questions. It is 5xs times more valuable to know how than what in this case. It could be though that is too conservative of a value. It might have exponential value instead which is much higher!<br />
<br />
Here is another thing I would like to ask. I would like to ask "If, 'Do you for others what you would have them do for you', is the golden rule for the greatest commandment; then what is the corresponding golden values for the other greatest things listed above?"<br />
<br />
1) What is the golden continuity in the Bible? (to go with the greatest law)<br />
2) What is the golden bond in the Bible? (to go with the greatest testimony)<br />
3) What is the greatest model in the Bible? (to go with the greatest law)<br />
4) What is the greatest rule in the Bible? (obvious, to go with the greatest commandment)<br />
5) What is the greatest sense in the Bible? (to go with the greatest statute)<br />
<br />
This means being at least 5 times more understanding, if you can answer all of these. Please keep in mind, these would not be know just to lawyers and rabbis like Jesus. Golden things are the easy to understand dummy-level materials of the Bible. See the spirit that I say this in through the picture below. It is not a matter of insult. It is a matter of do we know or do we really understand. Understanding here is greater than rote learning. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HXPl_1G8h-M/U1X0UsW-llI/AAAAAAAAAN4/ucIaa8eQ-QU/s1600/Dummies_the+Bible_Apr2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HXPl_1G8h-M/U1X0UsW-llI/AAAAAAAAAN4/ucIaa8eQ-QU/s1600/Dummies_the+Bible_Apr2014.jpg" height="320" width="248" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I like as a teacher to create understanding students, who can move on to be teachers themselves. But if you want cheap answers, then I warn you that I won't be giving those out. I can tell you what holy means, but you need to see how easy it is found in the Bible. If you can answer my questions, then you will have little trouble defining it. Actually, you will have a lot less then scholars. Otherwise, you are going to be subject to deception. Do we want a Christianity (or a Judaism) that is buying things, because we are dumb enough to buy it? <br />
<br />
You can try to answer these questions above through using the comments section below. I will grade you, but I will not give you the easy answers. You have to think on at least the easiest level. I want to make sure you understand and that you understand that you don't understand even the greatest commandment, if you don't know how a person knows this is the greatest. <br />
<br />
Best of all, I can hope that you will learn more without the answers provided in advance. Let's test what we really know and understand before we ask for a teacher's help. I hope you do well and I look forward to your answers. Remember, every attempt to understand is moving toward understanding. An attempt is never wasted. It is the lack of an attempt that is wasted. May God bless your efforts and my teaching.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br />
<br />
JonJon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-41348950107537115942014-04-19T16:03:00.000-05:002014-04-19T16:03:21.009-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Isaiah 6 and Revelation 4 (Teach - Part 5 of 5) INTRODUCTION<br />
<br />
I just got off an exciting conversation with two guys, who I consider to be among the best friends that I have. They meet together with a group of guys once per month to discuss some of the more difficult and more valuable pieces of Christian writing, so I had a chance to have a phone conversation with both of them after their meeting this morning (4/19/14). They are both pretty smart. They gave me some sound advice.<br />
Moses was pretty smart as well, but his father-in-law gave him some valuable smart advice: divide up this work load that you are carrying and handle only the intellectually more difficult cases yourself. He was advising Moses to limit his personal scope. This is certainly good advice. But it is easy to overlook what had to come first. Before you limit your scope, as I was advised this morning, you have to make sure the whole scope is seen and covered! It is through seeing the whole scope and seeing our own limitations that we can best follow Jethro's advice. <br />
<br />
Christian education as well as public education are at a dismal place right now. Despite greater and greater dollars going into the system and some individual highlights, there is no program in education right now that is lighting up the score board except on a more local basis. It appears too that these sometimes great efforts are also reaching a fatigue state. Changing the curriculum every 5 years is not cutting it. What can we do about this? <br />
<br />
I think we need to follow Jethro's advice in a 21st century way. So let's first figure out the B.C. advice he gave to Moses before converting it to A.D. advice to us. First, to bridge from one to the other, you need to buttress each end of the bridge. Let's start then with Exodus 18:<br />
<br />
<h4>
<sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">13 </span></sup><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">And so it was, on the next day, that
Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning
until evening. <sup>14 </sup>So when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he
did for the people, he said, “What <i>is</i> this thing that you are doing for
the people? Why do you alone sit, and all the people stand before you from
morning until evening?”</span><sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">15 </span></sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">And Moses said to his father-in-law,
“Because the people come to me to inquire of God. <sup>16 </sup>When they
have a difficulty, they come to me, and I judge between one and another; and I
make known the statutes of God and His laws.”<br /><o:p></o:p></span></h4>
<h3>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></h3>
<h4>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span><sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">17 </span></sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">So Moses’ father-in-law said to him,
“The thing that you do <i>is</i> not good. <sup>18 </sup>Both you and
these people who <i>are</i> with you will surely wear yourselves out. For this
thing <i>is</i> too much for you; you are not able to perform it by yourself. <sup>19 </sup>Listen
now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God will be with you: Stand
before God for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God. <sup>20 </sup>And
you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which
they must walk and the work they must do. <sup>21 </sup>Moreover you shall
select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating
covetousness; and place <i>such</i> over them <i>to be</i> rulers of thousands,
rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. <sup>22 </sup>And
let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be <i>that</i> every great
matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall
judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear <i>the burden</i> with
you. <sup>23 </sup>If you do this thing, and God <i>so</i> commands you,
then you will be able to endure, and all this people will also go to their
place in peace.”<br /><o:p></o:p></span><sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">24 </span></sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">So Moses heeded the voice of his
father-in-law and did all that he had said. <sup>25 </sup>And Moses chose
able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people: rulers of
thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. <sup>26 </sup>So
they judged the people at all times; the hard cases they brought to Moses, but
they judged every small case themselves.<br /><o:p></o:p></span><sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">27 </span></sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Then Moses let his father-in-law
depart, and he went his way to his own land.<o:p></o:p></span></h4>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are some critical statements in these instructions:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
[I solved a major problem today through this post. The work I did only has to wait today due to my other job and due to my needing to do some technological stuff to get my materials displayed in a more professional manner. But this will end up being one of my best posts in terms of the common sense level.]</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In Christ, </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Jon</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Jon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-61413409270055042602014-04-18T11:37:00.004-05:002014-04-18T11:37:29.655-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Isaiah 6 and Revelation 4 (Train - Part 4 of 5)INTRODUCTION<br />
<br />
At the basic level, a person needs to ask themselves: "How do I intend to accomplish this goal or by what means will I accomplish this purpose? Today, I am addressing the training in our text. Training consists of answering two questions: 1) "How?" and 2) "Why?" So what are the actions that need to be performed? We want to learn how holiness is done or how to make something holy. That is my primary training task for today. <br />
<br />
But there is another part of training that goes beyond just this text. It cuts all the way down to how we going to read or interpret this text and any other. So what is my method? (If you want to look at his more in-depth, simply click my communication blog link on the right side of this page.)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
METHOD<br />
<br />
So let me say a little (not a lot!) about my method of reading (a part of communication). Let me begin by saying that my method is both cutting edge and the most common sense. There needs to be a sense of both the edges of our world's global demands and of the core demands of small town and country life. We need a tool that is usable by both ends of that spectrum. I believe that the tool I use meets those demands on both ends of our world. <br />
<br />
We today live in a world of not just European or American demands, but a world of worldwide or global demands. We also though need to make sure we do not lose sight of our local demands either. That must be a constant tension. I remember this quote from real estate magazine and a discussion with a world traveler that I met in California: "He who is most at home somewhere, is most at home everywhere". This quote captures part of the essence of my method.<br />
<br />
In 1983, I was introduced to a method for everywhere, called the TEAR method. Its everywhere, from the latest #s (from 2009) that I am aware of, is to 6909 languages in the world (source: SIL). The TEAR method was designed as a universal tool to measure up to the demands of facing a multitude of languages. In biblical studies, the demands of language are between 5 and maybe 10 languages (ex. English, Latin, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew ... Arabic, Akkadian, Ugaritic, etc.) So you can see that the method that I was introduced to in 1983 had a demand load of much higher proportions - 1000xs higher at least. The challenge and demands of more languages, I am convinced, were the mother of invention for the TEAR method. It was designed so that a missionary (a cutting edge global messenger) could be "most at home everywhere".<br />
<br />
In 1983, I was also introduced to a method for somewhere, called the ARCing method. It's somewhere was going from Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew to English. It was heavily immersed in the language of English. The demands were essentially making sure that our English translation was a good one from these original languages. The isolated somewhere was even more narrow than English, it was specifically American English. I think that sometimes the most elusive location is finding where in language we are "most at home somewhere". This is tremendously demanding too, because it says that we have to narrow that somewhere down to one place and not a multitude of places. It was designed for the demand that a preacher (a home schooled local messenger) could be "most at home somewhere". <br />
<br />
My method for reading the text of Scripture with the goal of it speaking to me, came full circle in late 2013 and in early 2014, so that laying out the common sense level became a real passion for me. It also is one half of why a publisher is interested in publishing a book I hope to see published yet this year. I think that I have found that somewhere where you and I are most at home, when it comes to language and communication. The best thing about it is that it agrees with the idea of being most at home everywhere. In fact, I would say that both the TEAR method and the ARCing method essentially have not seen that "most at home" place as the most essential demand there is in our world right now that overnight became global. Too often the church is trying to keep up with the world without keeping up their home. So today you will get to see me use the most at home part of language to get at the definition and meaning of holy through Isaiah 6. <br />
<br />
Isaiah 6<br />
<br />
Remember he who is most at home somewhere is most at home everywhere.<br />
<br />
Here is where I am most at home and I think you will find it is also where you are most at home. It is the place in language you frequent the most. That place must be our starting point before we can become most at home everywhere. So I will be doing my best to begin from there.<br />
<br />
Revelation 4<br />
<br />
<br />
[this piece will have to be revisited due to Good Friday and me having a shorter day to work on things as a result. That is my tradition and I'm sticking to it.]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br />
JonJon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-46435211283805575982014-04-17T17:02:00.001-05:002014-04-17T17:02:42.832-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Both Better Through Isaiah 6 & Revelation 4 (Total - Part 3 of 5)When it comes to language, it is important to realize that some words get used extremely frequently. Sometimes due to that frequency, we take them for granted. In reading the scholarly articles or books written about the Bible, you frequently find writers trying to find the next seldom used word that needs to be better defined. In the business world, they would call this looking for the unique rather than the common. I've come to the conclusion that sometimes we spend way too much time on the infrequently used words in the Bible text and way too little time on the frequently used ones. "Blessed" and "holy" are not themselves the most commonly found words in the biblical text, but does that have to mean we cannot ground their meanings in those that are the most common? I think that the correct answer is that we CAN ground the meaning of blessed and holy in common sense language. We just have to do it. <br />
<br />
What this means is that I and many of us have to break some old habits in reading a text of Scripture. My tendency is to look for the key unique words in a text, but to ignore those that are more widely known or common. We see this too in an exhaustive concordance, where words like "and", "the", "but", "a" and many others like them are relegated to an appendix. We also see this in older lexicons (and maybe even some newer ones), where at one time in the history of their creation, only the less well-known words were included and the most commonly words were left out. The thinking was: "Why have a dictionary for those?". Even in a children's picture dictionary that I own, the word "strong" gets a picture dedicated to its definition, but the word "the" does not have a picture assigned to it. The authors seem to assume that a child will grasp the meaning of "the" from a couple of example sentences. <br />
<br />
This situation reminds me of the Biblical principle that "the greatest shall be the least and the least shall be the greatest". It also reminds me of another principle where Jesus warned people that "what you have done to the least of these, you have done to me". These principles seem to apply only to people, but what if they also extend to our words? Are we paying a big price for not paying attention to the common words as much as the special words? Do those who read the Bible as scholars need a reprimand like the chiding Lincoln gave to the elite politicians that he understood the democratic principle to mean to pay attention to the common people, because there were so many of them? Do we need to do the same with the least of the words in the text that are so incredibly frequent? It is my view that we do.<br />
<br />
Some very scholarly writing from a cutting edge linguistic model called "cognitive linguistics", in paraphrasing their point, says that the words we see or hear more frequently than others become more entrenched in our minds and tend to shape more our way of thinking more and even effect things more at the expense of the less frequent and therefore the less entrenched in our thinking. In other words, these least words are the words that are greater than the greatest words. The great words, the last heard at the spelling bee or the words hardest to define on the ACT or SAT are in fact the least when it comes to grounding or entrenching our views. <br />
<br />
So what I am going to begin doing overall is looking at a text through this set of words in English:<br />
<br />
the, a(n)<br />
on, as (so)<br />
<br />
and, but (not)<br />
with, at<br />
<br />
I (be), to (not)<br />
of (have), had<br />
<br />
by (do), use<br />
for, said<br />
<br />
this, that<br />
or, each<br />
<br />
So what I am going to begin doing overall is looking at a text through this set of words in Greek:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So what I am going to begin doing overall is looking at a text through this set of words in Aramaic:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So what I am going to begin doing overall is looking at a text through this set of words in Hebrew:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This is how I will be able to approach a biblical text in a way that is not only healthy, but also incredibly grounded or entrenched (in a good sense!). the good news in all of this is that this will make the common person and all of those above them in expertise to have a common ground from which to begin. Right now what happens is the expert is given the advantage and also the loopholes to escape accountability for their ways of thinking. <br />
<br />
<br />
[this deserves a lot more work and it will get it and so will Isaiah 6 ]<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br />
Jon<br />
<br />
<br />Jon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-90863389723368231462014-04-16T22:24:00.000-05:002014-04-16T22:24:59.664-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Isaiah 6 plus Revelation 4 (Part 2 of 5) There is only one set of words that get this kind of attention in the Bible: "Holy, Holy, Holy" is Yahweh God Almighty". It somehow is stronger and more dramatic than "Love, Love, Love" as sung by the Beatles. In fact, the contrast between the two statements of core "greats" may signal what is core problem: "Do Christians and Jews know their biblical core?" <br />
<br />
"Love, Love, Love" is continuously brought up as that which can be used as foundational for everything. But this raises an interesting question in light of Isaiah 6. Why then does love not receive the attention of being repeated 3 times like holy? <br />
<br />
The positive argument biblically for love being the Bible's core is usually promoted on the basis of the "Greatest Commandment" passages in the Gospels and Paul's reference to the summary of the law in Romans. It is implicit too that in Jewish tradition, it also held to the centrality of love in relation to the question of what is the greatest commandment. So let's look more closely at these in terms of their relationships to each other. Who is more central as a character trait? Is it love or is it holiness? Which one shows the most signs of being at the core?<br />
<br />
One unique aspect of both "Holy, Holy, Holy" and "Love, Love, Love" is the close proximity of the same words to each other. The question has been what is that close proximity and repetition intended to signal. Here is a longer portion of Isaiah 6, to give us some wider perspective:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="heading passage-class-0" style="background-color: white; color: #5c1101; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 10px;">
<h3 style="font-size: 16px; margin: 0px;">
Isaiah 6</h3>
<div class="txt-sm" style="font-size: 12px;">
New King James Version (NKJV)</div>
</div>
<div class="passage version-NKJV result-text-style-normal text-html " style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<h3 style="font-size: 1.05em;">
<span class="text Isa-6-1" id="en-NKJV-17771">Isaiah Called to Be a Prophet</span></h3>
<div class="chapter-1">
<span class="text Isa-6-1"><span class="chapternum" style="bottom: -0.1em; font-size: 1.25em; font-weight: bold; left: 0px; line-height: 0.8em; position: relative;">6 </span>In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His <i>robe</i> filled the temple. </span><span class="text Isa-6-2" id="en-NKJV-17772"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">2 </span>Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.</span><span class="text Isa-6-3" id="en-NKJV-17773"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">3 </span>And one cried to another and said:</span></div>
<div class="poetry top-1" style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding-left: 2.6em; position: relative;">
<div class="line">
<span class="text Isa-6-3" style="position: relative;">“Holy, holy, holy <i>is</i> the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> of hosts;</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-3" style="position: relative;">The whole earth <i>is</i> full of His glory!”</span></div>
</div>
<div class="first-line-none top-1" style="margin-top: 1em;">
<span class="text Isa-6-4" id="en-NKJV-17774"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">4 </span>And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.</span></div>
<span class="text Isa-6-5" id="en-NKJV-17775"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">5 </span>So I said:</span><br />
<div class="poetry top-1" style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding-left: 2.6em; position: relative;">
<div class="line">
<span class="text Isa-6-5" style="position: relative;">“Woe <i>is</i> me, for I am undone!</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-5" style="position: relative;">Because I <i>am</i> a man of unclean lips,</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-5" style="position: relative;">And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-5" style="position: relative;">For my eyes have seen the King,</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-5" style="position: relative;">The <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> of hosts.”</span></div>
</div>
<div class="top-1" style="margin-top: 1em;">
<span class="text Isa-6-6" id="en-NKJV-17776"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">6 </span>Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a live coal <i>which</i> he had taken with the tongs from the altar. </span><span class="text Isa-6-7" id="en-NKJV-17777"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">7 </span>And he touched my mouth <i>with it,</i> and said:</span></div>
<div class="poetry top-1" style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding-left: 2.6em; position: relative;">
<div class="line">
<span class="text Isa-6-7" style="position: relative;">“Behold, this has touched your lips;</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-7" style="position: relative;">Your iniquity is taken away,</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-7" style="position: relative;">And your sin purged.”</span></div>
</div>
<div class="top-1" style="margin-top: 1em;">
<span class="text Isa-6-8" id="en-NKJV-17778"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">8 </span>Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying:</span></div>
<div class="poetry top-1" style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding-left: 2.6em; position: relative;">
<div class="line">
<span class="text Isa-6-8" style="position: relative;">“Whom shall I send,</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-8" style="position: relative;">And who will go for Us?”</span></div>
</div>
<div class="top-1" style="margin-top: 1em;">
<span class="text Isa-6-8">Then I said, “Here <i>am</i> I! Send me.”</span></div>
<span class="text Isa-6-9" id="en-NKJV-17779"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">9 </span>And He said, “Go, and tell this people:</span><br />
<div class="poetry top-1" style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding-left: 2.6em; position: relative;">
<div class="line">
<span class="text Isa-6-9" style="position: relative;">‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-9" style="position: relative;">Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’</span></div>
</div>
<div class="poetry top-1" style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding-left: 2.6em; position: relative;">
<div class="line">
<span class="text Isa-6-10" id="en-NKJV-17780" style="position: relative;"><span class="versenum" style="display: block; font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; left: -4.8em; position: absolute; vertical-align: top;">10 </span>“Make the heart of this people dull,</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-10" style="position: relative;">And their ears heavy,</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-10" style="position: relative;">And shut their eyes;</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-10" style="position: relative;">Lest they see with their eyes,</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-10" style="position: relative;">And hear with their ears,</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-10" style="position: relative;">And understand with their heart,</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-10" style="position: relative;">And return and be healed.”</span></div>
</div>
<div class="top-1" style="margin-top: 1em;">
<span class="text Isa-6-11" id="en-NKJV-17781"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">11 </span>Then I said, “Lord, how long?”</span></div>
<span class="text Isa-6-11">And He answered:</span><br />
<div class="poetry top-1" style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding-left: 2.6em; position: relative;">
<div class="line">
<span class="text Isa-6-11" style="position: relative;">“Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant,</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-11" style="position: relative;">The houses are without a man,</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-11" style="position: relative;">The land is utterly desolate,</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-12" id="en-NKJV-17782" style="position: relative;"><span class="versenum" style="display: block; font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; left: -4.8em; position: absolute; vertical-align: top;">12 </span>The <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> has removed men far away,</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-12" style="position: relative;">And the forsaken places <i>are</i> many in the midst of the land.</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-13" id="en-NKJV-17783" style="position: relative;"><span class="versenum" style="display: block; font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; left: -4.8em; position: absolute; vertical-align: top;">13 </span>But yet a tenth <i>will be</i> in it,</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-13" style="position: relative;">And will return and be for consuming,</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-13" style="position: relative;">As a terebinth tree or as an oak,</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-13" style="position: relative;">Whose stump <i>remains</i> when it is cut down.</span><br /><span class="text Isa-6-13" style="position: relative;">So the holy seed <i>shall be</i> its stump.”</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<br />
This repetition of holy, holy, holy in tight succession is not just found in Isaiah. It is also found in Revelation:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="heading passage-class-0" style="background-color: white; color: #5c1101; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 10px;">
<h3 style="font-size: 16px; margin: 0px;">
Revelation 4</h3>
<div class="txt-sm" style="font-size: 12px;">
New King James Version (NKJV)</div>
</div>
<div class="passage version-NKJV result-text-style-normal text-html " style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<h3 style="font-size: 1.05em;">
<span class="text Rev-4-1" id="en-NKJV-30770">The Throne Room of Heaven</span></h3>
<div class="chapter-1">
<span class="text Rev-4-1"><span class="chapternum" style="bottom: -0.1em; font-size: 1.25em; font-weight: bold; left: 0px; line-height: 0.8em; position: relative;">4 </span>After these things I looked, and behold, a door <i>standing</i> open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard <i>was</i> like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, “Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this.”</span></div>
<span class="text Rev-4-2" id="en-NKJV-30771"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">2 </span>Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and <i>One</i> sat on the throne. </span><span class="text Rev-4-3" id="en-NKJV-30772"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">3 </span>And He who sat there was<span class="footnote" style="font-size: 0.65em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;" value="[<a href="#fen-NKJV-30772a" title="See footnote a">a</a>]">[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+4&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-30772a" style="color: #b37162; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: top;" title="See footnote a">a</a>]</span> like a jasper and a sardius stone in appearance; and<i>there was</i> a rainbow around the throne, in appearance like an emerald. </span><span class="text Rev-4-4" id="en-NKJV-30773"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">4 </span>Around the throne <i>were</i> twenty-four thrones, and on the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white robes; and they had crowns<span class="footnote" style="font-size: 0.65em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;" value="[<a href="#fen-NKJV-30773b" title="See footnote b">b</a>]">[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+4&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-30773b" style="color: #b37162; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: top;" title="See footnote b">b</a>]</span> of gold on their heads. </span><span class="text Rev-4-5" id="en-NKJV-30774"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">5 </span>And from the throne proceeded lightnings, thunderings, and voices.<span class="footnote" style="font-size: 0.65em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;" value="[<a href="#fen-NKJV-30774c" title="See footnote c">c</a>]">[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+4&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-30774c" style="color: #b37162; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: top;" title="See footnote c">c</a>]</span> Seven lamps of fire <i>were</i> burning before the throne, which are the<span class="footnote" style="font-size: 0.65em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;" value="[<a href="#fen-NKJV-30774d" title="See footnote d">d</a>]">[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+4&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-30774d" style="color: #b37162; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: top;" title="See footnote d">d</a>]</span> seven Spirits of God.</span><br />
<span class="text Rev-4-6" id="en-NKJV-30775"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">6 </span>Before the throne <i>there was</i><span class="footnote" style="font-size: 0.65em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;" value="[<a href="#fen-NKJV-30775e" title="See footnote e">e</a>]">[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+4&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-30775e" style="color: #b37162; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: top;" title="See footnote e">e</a>]</span> a sea of glass, like crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, <i>were</i> four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back.</span><span class="text Rev-4-7" id="en-NKJV-30776"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">7 </span>The first living creature <i>was</i> like a lion, the second living creature like a calf, the third living creature had a face like a man, and the fourth living creature <i>was</i> like a flying eagle.</span><span class="text Rev-4-8" id="en-NKJV-30777"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">8 </span><i>The</i> four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within. And they do not rest day or night, saying:</span><br />
<div class="poetry top-1" style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding-left: 2.6em; position: relative;">
<div class="line">
<span class="text Rev-4-8" style="position: relative;">“Holy, holy, holy,<span class="footnote" style="font-size: 0.65em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;" value="[<a href="#fen-NKJV-30777f" title="See footnote f">f</a>]">[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+4&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-30777f" style="color: #b37162; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: top;" title="See footnote f">f</a>]</span></span><br /><span class="text Rev-4-8" style="position: relative;">Lord God Almighty,</span><br /><span class="text Rev-4-8" style="position: relative;">Who was and is and is to come!”</span></div>
</div>
<div class="top-1" style="margin-top: 1em;">
<span class="text Rev-4-9" id="en-NKJV-30778"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">9 </span>Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, </span><span class="text Rev-4-10" id="en-NKJV-30779"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">10 </span>the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying:</span></div>
<div class="poetry top-1" style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding-left: 2.6em; position: relative;">
<div class="line">
<span class="text Rev-4-11" id="en-NKJV-30780" style="position: relative;"><span class="versenum" style="display: block; font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; left: -4.8em; position: absolute; vertical-align: top;">11 </span>“You are worthy, O Lord,<span class="footnote" style="font-size: 0.65em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;" value="[<a href="#fen-NKJV-30780g" title="See footnote g">g</a>]">[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+4&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-30780g" style="color: #b37162; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: top;" title="See footnote g">g</a>]</span></span><br /><span class="text Rev-4-11" style="position: relative;">To receive glory and honor and power;</span><br /><span class="text Rev-4-11" style="position: relative;">For You created all things,</span><br /><span class="text Rev-4-11" style="position: relative;">And by Your will they exist<span class="footnote" style="font-size: 0.65em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;" value="[<a href="#fen-NKJV-30780h" title="See footnote h">h</a>]">[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+4&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-30780h" style="color: #b37162; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: top;" title="See footnote h">h</a>]</span> and were created.”</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
So the step we are going to take on the topic of which is more central - holy or love - is to look at the context of each. What is critical for "Holy, Holy, Holy" is the critical words included in the nearest context to its use. <br />
<br />
Likewise when it comes to love, the important thing is to understand the context of commandment. Or in the case of another text like 1 Corinthians 13, what is the meaning that among faith, hope, and love that love is the greatest. People can forget that the context is very important. Jesus was not asked what is the greatest in the entire word, but what is greatest among the commandments. He also was not asked what is the greatest among the law, etc. So we must pay attention to those distinctions. <br />
<br />
[What I need to do now is put in front of your eyes the outline of the passages in the text and then an outline that transfers the message of that time into our time. Then I will need to examine the set of words that surround holy and those that surround love and those that surround commandment. <br />
<br />
He is an example of why all that work is required. If I were to ask who is the greatest player in baseball history or what is the greatest game in baseball history, then we all can see the importance of knowing how player and game relate to each other. The two comparisons are not the same though they both concern the broader set of words concerning baseball. ]<br />
<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br />
Jon<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Jon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-11695794869309463472014-04-14T21:52:00.004-05:002014-04-14T21:53:16.851-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through (Translation - Part 1 of 5)PREFACE<br />
<br />
I know that people largely come to this site to find a definition of holy (blessed and holy are inseparable, if you want a good definition for either). So I do not want to let you or them down. First, my usual pattern will be dealing with a text of Scripture through a 5 step process or 5 day process from Monday through Saturday (skipping one day). I want the argument for the meaning of holy to be biblical above all else. I will occasionally also drop into this sequence shorter pieces. Second, in each blog post, I am going to start indicating levels of difficulty for understanding. I am going to answer in advance the question, "Is this written on a level that I can understand (and appreciate!)?" This way a reader can either decide to read the sections all the way up to their highest level or skip over levels to get to their own higher levels. <br />
<br />
Indicating the steps of 1) translation, 2) transfer, 3) total, 4) train, and 5) teach over 5 days is one thing. That is not that difficult and I have explained these previously. But in order to label difficulty level, it is important to understand how those levels will be indicated and what is my basis for those levels. I am going to use two sources for this. One is the biblical basis of Exodus 18. This will provide the labels for each level and the biblical foundation for my viewpoint. The other source is mainly for application to today. It is the traditional bell curve for intelligence (IQ) rankings that will help me make Jethro's advice to Moses in Exodus 18 more specific to our understanding today. (I will mention that I will not go into the different kinds of intelligence, because that is another bunny trail.)<br />
<br />
DEFINITION OF HOLY<br />
<br />
Some readers simply want a quick definition, so before going into the difficulty levels, let me provide a short definition of holy as I have found in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. It's meaning (3 kinds) is:<br />
<br />
1) by definition, moral wholeness (the parts are - just, humble, perfect, and great)<br />
2) by implication, pure (because it is what it is and nothing else beyond what it is)<br />
3) by significance, set apart (because there are many moral codes that are not morally whole, but only rise to the level of part of the Jewish and Christian moral code - justice only as one example).<br />
<br />
In most cases that you look up the definition of holy, you will be given only one of these three as a definition of holy. I present instead the idea that meaning can actually bring all three of the greatest supposed definitions offered for biblical holiness into complete harmony. They do not have to be fully exclusive. Once the definition of holy as moral wholeness falls into place, the other two fall into their place without combating the first. That is all I can say quickly. I say this at much greater length in other posts. <br />
<br />
DIFFICULTY LEVELS<br />
<br />
My goal is to break things out as to difficulty level, so I think it is important to talk about intelligence levels and leadership levels. This is because many people both under-sell or over-sell themselves on the learning levels or on their leadership levels. <br />
<br />
First, I point out something that used to caused me to stumble when it came to learning and leading. I used to think they were rather exclusive of one another. Now I realize that learning enhances leading and that it is one of four key components that results in: 1) bigger, 2) faster, 3) stronger, and 4) smarter leaders and organizations. <br />
<br />
[insert leader learner photo here]<br />
<br />
Exodus 18<br />
<br />
rulers of 1s (priesthood of all believers easy cases only)<br />
rulers of 10s<br />
rulers of 50s<br />
rulers of 100s<br />
rulers of 1000s<br />
rulers of 10,000s (Moses's role of difficult cases only)<br />
<br />
<br />
leaders based on difficulty of law and statute levels - their intelligence level (among others traits they should possess as leaders<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
5 levels of leadership - Moses plus 4 levels of leaders (plus Luther's self-leadership)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
general intelligence<br />
<br />
general language studies<br />
<br />
specialized intelligence<br />
<br />
Hebrew language studies<br />
<br />
I imagine at this point something like this:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Level 1) The Common Sense Level (like the Golden Rule)<br />
"The Filter for Everything"<br />
<br />
Level 2) The Greater Majority Level (like the Greatest Commandment)<br />
"The Filter for Most Things"<br />
<br />
Level 3) The Smaller Majority Level (like the Ten Commandments)<br />
"The Filter for Some Things"<br />
<br />
Level 4) The Specialized Level (all the other specific commandments)<br />
"The Filter for Very Few Things"<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[ save the following material for another post]<br />
<br />
We live in a time when the loopholes that people find to make excuses seems to be expanding. There is a great way to minimize those objections: a return to the basics. Vince Lombardi, on one such occasion, had this to say the following week to his championship team; who had just lost to the college all-stars team: "Gentlemen, this is a football". To which Max McGee (always the joker) replied: "Slow down coach, you're going too fast". The problem right now is that schooling or education is going too fast. It is pursuing the far fringes of what we know and is by-passing the obvious. Common sense gets the short end of the stick. Specialized sense gets the long end of the stick. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[You can obviously see this post is still under construction. So are some of my others. Things are happening behind the scenes that will eventually make it possible for me to complete posts more regularly. Momentum is building, so please be patient. Thank you.]<br />
<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br />
Jon<br />
<br />Jon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-39825838807807178322014-04-12T22:28:00.001-05:002014-04-12T22:28:38.491-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better (Teach Things- Part 5 of 5)PREFACE<br />
<br />
One of the major requirements for this blog for dealing with the definition of holy is to make sure it sheds light rather than blocks light. When something blocks light, then it quite obviously stands in the way of light. That is a great way to discern the value of anything a person reads on the definition of holy. We always need to ask, "Did this source shed light on what I am trying to find or did they shed darkness on what I am trying to find?" In the end: "Did I find what I was looking for?" or are we like U2 saying: "Still haven't found what I'm looking for". <br />
<br />
A major drive in people is to find what is lost, until it is found. You likely arrived as this sight as a result of a search engine looking for the definition or meaning of holy. <br />
<br />
A coin has value while it is in our pocket, but when it is lost, its value grows just like an item's value increases from scarcity. A lot of times over the years, to find something, I just needed to turn on the lights or grab a flashlight. The light functioned like a search engine. It showed me what I was looking for. Make sure that what you read on the definition of holy sheds light!<br />
<br />
The purpose of my blog is to shed light on the meaning of holy. I bring things out into the light that have been blocked from people's view. It is not that the definition of holy was not previously well-known. It is that its meaning got lost somewhere along the way, resulting in many differing definitions. <br />
<br />
For me, one of the primary things that was blocked from my view, when I read my Bible before the last 10 years, was the definition of the biblical word that we translate as "holy" as "moral wholeness". When I first saw "wholly" listed as a definition for the Hebrew word qadosh alongside "holy" as a translation in a Bible dictionary, then I knew that I had not seen or heard of that definition ever before. None of my teachers, who had often helped me perceive things anew, had brought this to light for me before this time (that I could recall). I was at the time searching to find a word in the Bible that united a set of different kinds of major moral values like love and truth together. <br />
<br />
An important<strong> tool for teaching</strong> is what I call the 5 C's Cascade. It is a great tool for classroom enlightenment or persuasion. The fundamental rule of it is that you must complete the full cascade for persuasion to really happen. <br />
<br />
The cascade looks like a series of water falls. You could also use the analogy of a set of 5 dominos that if one falls the others must fall with it. The analogies are manifold. Let's stick to the water falls in this case, since cascade language fits best with that analogy. <br />
<br />
Here are the 5 steps of teaching for persuasion or shedding light at the barest bone level:<br />
<br />
1) challenge <br />
2) connection <br />
3) celebration <br />
4) chance <br />
5) choice <br />
<br />
You could also word them this way with a bit more explanation:<br />
<br />
1) challenge (to see)<br />
2) connection (to see)<br />
3) celebration (to see)<br />
4) chance (to see)<br />
5) choice (to see)<br />
<br />
or you could amplify it even more this way: <br />
<br />
1) challenge (to see an amount)<br />
2) connection (to see a relationship)<br />
3) celebrate (to see whole)<br />
4) chance (to see action)<br />
5) choice (to see a thing)<br />
<br />
I have become convinced from my time as a teacher and as a coach or my other time as a teacher and a pastor that the problem with most teaching is that it does not challenge. It just floats along with the tide of darkness rather than reaching for the lights. Good teaching is supposed to enlighten or bring to light things otherwise previously not seen. School is supposed to function as a corrective to nonsense and darkness. But does it do so, when it settles for darkness? How is it that we don't challenge the darkness instead?<br />
<br />
If there is no light in the classroom, then how can we say that there is a teacher in the room? One of the great things about Jesus was that he was a teacher (otherwise known as a rabbi). He challenged the status quo, if you haven't noticed. He also shed light while other teachers loved the darkness instead. His teaching skills might have been one of his biggest reasons for his opposition to oppose him. <br />
<br />
<strong>Challenge</strong><br />
<br />
My greatest teachers all challenged me to see things that I previously wasn't seeing. I can remember many examples, but let me mention one that I remember extremely well when it comes to challenging me. <br />
<br />
James Johnson, a professor of mine at Bethel College (now University) in St. Paul, MN called me in to explain what I needed to do with a paper that I had written. I had written a paper for his history class on the First Great Awakening that I thought was going to get a good grade. I didn't get even a good grade, but also instead of stopping there he challenged me to re-write the paper to see the history of not just Jonathan Edwards and his camp, but also see that of others in opposition to him. I realized then that I was to bring both sides to light, not just one side to light and to accurately represent history through a vivid comparison of both sides in full view. Only then was my paper shedding light on history rather than a mixture of darkness and light according to my own choosing. I needed to shed light and give people a legitimate choice of options. I learned a great deal that opened my eyes to see things that I had not previously seen. <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Bti7VQK9kMs/U0bJ5PtGpAI/AAAAAAAAALw/cGKnAdmMZtY/s1600/bethel-history-faculty-1980s_James+Johnson_Apr2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Bti7VQK9kMs/U0bJ5PtGpAI/AAAAAAAAALw/cGKnAdmMZtY/s1600/bethel-history-faculty-1980s_James+Johnson_Apr2014.jpg" height="221" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Photo of Bethel History Faculty in '80s <br />
James Johnson (far left)<br />
<br />
<strong>Connection</strong><br />
<br />
But it was not just Dr. James Johnson's challenge to see a greater amount than just one side, it was also Dr. John S. Piper's and Tom Stellar's (Dr. Piper's right hand man, if any) teaching me to see connections. Dr. Piper introduced me to a method of arcing that his teacher, Dr. Daniel P. Fuller, had taught him at Fuller Theological Seminary. This method opened my eyes so many times to see things that I had not seen before that I decided later to study myself under Fuller. I still like to call Dr. Fuller every so often and thank him, when I see a new relationship in the text that I never saw before through my revised arcing method. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GCoWpPsRwqQ/U0n1Q3QbQLI/AAAAAAAAANA/3AsRKhtv_ks/s1600/Piper_John-Piper-January-19791-300x435_Apr2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GCoWpPsRwqQ/U0n1Q3QbQLI/AAAAAAAAANA/3AsRKhtv_ks/s1600/Piper_John-Piper-January-19791-300x435_Apr2014.jpg" height="320" width="220" /></a></div>
<br />
Dr. John S. Piper in 1979<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-G2QpGlzKPhY/U0n1qY0sR6I/AAAAAAAAANI/BhC44p71UUE/s1600/fullerdaniel_Apr2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-G2QpGlzKPhY/U0n1qY0sR6I/AAAAAAAAANI/BhC44p71UUE/s1600/fullerdaniel_Apr2014.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Dr. Daniel Payton Fuller<br />
<br />
<strong>Celebration</strong><br />
<br />
But it was not just Piper and Fuller, who were teachers who opened my eyes. While I had gone to Fuller to learn about church planting in the School of World Mission (now the School of Intercultural Studies) and exegesis (the scholarly name for reading the Bible itself) under Dr. Fuller, I also discovered two unexpected sightings while I was there. I saw a leadership program that tied into my training under Tentmaker's, Inc. and my own self-study of Dr. Peter F. Drucker (then at Claremont Graduate School) that would challenge me as a leader more than I would be challenged as a student of church planting. So I changed my concentration from church planting to leadership. I also found an opportunity to learn more about translation and language studies as a whole and to take my learning to a higher level than I had achieved at Bethel College (now University) under Dr. William A. Smalley, Dr. Don N. Larson, and Lois Malcolm (now a professor at Luther Northwestern in St. Paul, MN). I found Dr. Betty Sue Brewster,. Dr. P. Daniel Shaw and Catherine Rountree, who all helped me see the bigger picture of language and communication at its broadest level. It was then that I began to see and know that it was only a matter of time before a reason for celebration could happen. I just had to remind myself not to count all my chicks till all my chicks were hatched. That is the time to celebrate, but in the middle of progressing, it is good to be reminded to wait. This sense of celebration mainly came from learning the TEAR method of language study that helped me see best the larger picture of language and communication. To the best of my ability, it appears that the TEAR view of language came primarily from Eugene A. Nida.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Xyg72Pt2y04/U0n07XmqzPI/AAAAAAAAAM4/57i1ZznJzvE/s1600/Nida_eugenio-nida_Apr2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Xyg72Pt2y04/U0n07XmqzPI/AAAAAAAAAM4/57i1ZznJzvE/s1600/Nida_eugenio-nida_Apr2014.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Eugene Albert Nida<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Chance</strong><br />
<br />
But there is something more about the TEAR view of language than meets the eye. It is also that it shows that there is a chance to make a difference in the area of method or technology. Dr. P. Daniel Shaw was my first teacher that taught me how to use the TEAR approach to language. I was finally made able to use it effectively when I read a Bible text or anything else for that matter. So what Dr. Shaw gave me that the others previously had not was to see the chance of getting things accomplished that previously had seemed impossible. I remember very well that once I grasped the action words in a passage that suddenly I also saw better the relationships in a passage and it solved a problem in Piper's and Fuller's method that they had not solved for me. I will always have to acknowledge Dr. Shaw for first letting me see in ready the Bible new chances and new possibilities. <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Choices</strong><br />
<br />
So what teachers taught me to see other choices? Who opened my eyes to be smarter? Often the difference between a smart person and a person who is not as smart is knowing that the choices are more diversified than the less intelligent person realizes. Who most opened my eyes to this? <br />
<br />
Ironically, John S. Piper needs a lot of credit here though he would not be on the same page as my philosophy professors and anthropology professors on a number of topics. His list of choices would be shorter than theirs. He is the one who told me to study philosophy. Another theologian here who deserves some credit before I talk more about philosophers and anthropologists is Dr. Robert H. Stein. He taught me how to find new choices among the German scholars that others ranked as of no value. In the end, one of his ideas in <em>A Basic Guide to Reading the Bible</em>, may end up to have given me a choice in understanding the words of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew that no one else even suggests. So he cannot be underrated, that is for sure. <br />
<br />
There is a long list of those who taught me to see choices that others never have gotten the option to even see, let alone have the option to make those choices. I've got to acknowledge my philosophy professors from college, who helped me see when theologians made a choice based on a philosophical school rather than a biblical text. That opened up things to see other choices. Their names include Dr. Don Postema, Dr. Melville Stewart, Dr. Stanley Anderson, Dr. Paul Reasoner, and Dr. Niel Nielson. In anthropology, both Dr. Thomas Correll and Dr. Sperry (sp?). Alongside of them I was also introduced to Dr. Michael Rynewich (from Macalester) and Dr. David Rausch from the history department. All of them opened my eyes to seeing the many choices that others did not see.<br />
<br />
This largely culminated in three major papers I wrote while at Fuller Theological Seminary. One was a paper where I summarized all the possible views on baptism looking at all the choices from a broad cultural view. Then I did later another paper that involved a ton of research where I suggested other choices for interpreting Paul's comments on singleness. I tried to turn over every rock of choices and then tried to discern which were good choices and which were not. But my advantage was that I had a lot of choices before deciding. This also led me to the Center for the Study of Biblical Research in Pasadena, CA where I learned more about Jewish culture or philosophy. <br />
<br />
The big benefit from all of these choices is having more choices from which to choose, because I can see them while before I could not. <br />
<br />
In all of this discussion, I have left out other names that also could be mentioned. I hope I have another time to give them their due. Already, my mind is beginning to catalog those who I have missed. The trade off in not mentioning them here is that my writing does not grow even longer. That is a good choice. Thank you. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[I will re-visit this and other writing as possible. thank you for your patience.] <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
<br />
Jon<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Jon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758743.post-84652854161826367262014-04-11T16:38:00.002-05:002014-04-11T16:38:40.397-05:00Blessed and Holy: Understanding it Better Through Exodus 34 (Train Actions - Part 4 of 5)PREFACE<br />
<br />
We hear people sing "take time to be holy" and "bless you". Does anyone know what those 2 actions mean? Christians say, "hallowed be your name" in the Lord's Prayer over and over. Does anyone really know how to hallow or how to make holy a name? Does anyone know why to hallow or make holy should happen? I think those, who can answer one or both of these questions, are rare people. If you can get me their addresses and phone #s, then please do so. I'd like to sign them up for my ministry team! Can anyone train me in how to be holy? What does sanctified as an action look like? So based on what I think are the answers out there, it looks like we do need some training. <br />
<br />
As a former coach of 5 different sports (and later an athletic director, as well), I cannot possibly overlook the need for the skill of training alongside other skills like teaching. While great coaches can also be great teachers, the one thing that they absolutely must be is an effective trainer. They must teach their players skills or know-how as well as offer motivations for those actions. I cannot imagine being a successful coach without being able to do both. In Scripture, we find both methods and purposes for actions. One simple example, "We love [how] him, because [why] he first loved [how] us". We even learned our training in love from his love of us. But when have we offered love classes? I don't remember that training? When both methods and purposes are taught well, then you find people eager to be trained and to act. <br />
<br />
That is what I discovered as a coach. But I also learned a set of criteria for eagerness that was expressed in a real estate training magazine that I found, while I was a part-time real estate agent. It was my way of earning money to pay for studying at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4VnYBjBUk0Q/U0boJMpgcmI/AAAAAAAAAMA/G-3rfMePWVw/s1600/fuller-theological-seminary_2_Apr2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4VnYBjBUk0Q/U0boJMpgcmI/AAAAAAAAAMA/G-3rfMePWVw/s1600/fuller-theological-seminary_2_Apr2014.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
The Entrance to One of the Buildings at Fuller<br />
<br />
In the business world, like in the sports world, you get paid for results. The score is kept differently with the currency of money rather than the play money of points, but the goal was still to win. When I ran across the article, I knew the article was a difference maker. It was different from any other training that I had been trained in as either an athlete or as a coach. I'd never even heard this set of words grouped together before like they were in this convenient set. I'd obviously heard them separately many times. Since first hearing the set then, I have repeatedly improved what I learned from the article and I have organized it to be a more effective training tool. If anything, I wish I used it more often.<br />
<br />
As a coach, you want players who are eager to play or better yet to work with you and not work against you. As a real estate agent, you want clients who are eager to buy or better yet to work with you and not work against you. In real estate, the criteria for a strong prospect is as follows:<br />
<br />
1) ready, <br />
2) willing, and<br />
3) able.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4PAxlZ9x2Tg/U0btbf6LnLI/AAAAAAAAAMY/ZnZ6XkU4ud4/s1600/Ready_Willing_Able_Image_Sept2013.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4PAxlZ9x2Tg/U0btbf6LnLI/AAAAAAAAAMY/ZnZ6XkU4ud4/s1600/Ready_Willing_Able_Image_Sept2013.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
What all Sales People Ought to Know<br />
<br />
<br />
Back in the early 90s, they were likely in that neat order. I have the article still among my things somewhere. But also the list lacked a critical fourth element. I'd learned to look for that fourth element following my training with Tentmakers, Inc. in Hopkins, MN. There I learned a number of practical tools, but also how to identify complete ones. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mklYiCKhPUk/U0b1iOAz9bI/AAAAAAAAAMs/j3fLbthsI4k/s1600/Tentmakers+Logo_6251159_orig_Apr2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mklYiCKhPUk/U0b1iOAz9bI/AAAAAAAAAMs/j3fLbthsI4k/s1600/Tentmakers+Logo_6251159_orig_Apr2014.jpg" height="34" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The Logo for the Tentmakers organization I am referring to<br />
<br />
<br />
It took me a long time, but eventually in the last few years, I have added that a strong prospect is someone who is also aware or seeing. They can't be blind to what they are looking for in the process. A real estate prospect, who cannot envision or point to the kind of house they are looking for, could turn out to be a weaker prospect, even if they are ready, willing, and able. In selling, agents are not given much time to train prospects, except by the very best prospects, so they usually get impatient with customers who are not strong ones or who are not able to become strong ones. So I now say that a strong prospect consists of someone who is:<br />
<br />
1) ready, <br />
2) willing, <br />
3) able, and <br />
4) seeing.<br />
<br />
That kind of prospect is a prime one, just as that kind of player is a prime player for a coach. Both are eager to take action. They are not there to study something more, but to act using the strength that they already possess. That is why they are eager. Strong people by nature are eager people. Weak people by nature are not eager people. <br />
<br />
The next closest to these kinds would be those who possess 3 out of 4 of the criteria and are eager to seek the last criteria, the next would possess 2 out of 4 with eagerness too seek the other 2, etc. You get the idea.<br />
<br />
I think Scripture also takes those who are eager and frees them for action or it trains those who cannot yet act on their own to act and to also act with a sense of motivation. This is where a second tool (that again, I wish I used more frequently) becomes very useful. It is a chart of pre-effect and post-effect with their respective non-action and action steps. <br />
<br />
In Exodus, which is a great action book, by the way, there are a number of actions that can be described in terms of pre-action, pre-effect, during action, developing effect, post-action, and post-effect. I actually got this tool from a computer geek, who noticed how helpful this scheme was for breaking down computer processes. I wish I knew it years ago as a coach. (Since that wish is not possible, maybe I should just go back to coaching and do it better since that is possible.)<br />
<br />
<br />
EXODUS: DIRECT APPLICATION<br />
<br />
<br />
[This is being worked out and I will eventually be able to cut and paste to this entry a chart that lists each pre-effect, pre-action, etc. I hope it is not too long before I get it up. Much of what I am writing now is in a draft state, as is this piece, but still needs a little tweaking to even be a first draft.] <br />
<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
Jon<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Jon Westlundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01786141359347816357noreply@blogger.com0