Blessed and Holy: A Quick Exciting Update

There 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 Mental Health for Everyone: In Captivating, Motivating, Inspiring, Meaningful Pictures.  (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.

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: Blessed and Holy is Yahweh and His Followers.

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.

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.

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.

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.).

With those imposed limits, the history of the definition of holy can be boiled down to this:

• 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.  

• Traditional (19th-20th ct.) definition of holy - set apart; separate; relational separation; moral separation; object separation; etc.  

These were the two competing views, when I started my best efforts to settle the issue of the definition of holy.

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.

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.

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.

So here are my preliminary definitions:

blessed . blessed as in righteous, true, loving, and good.  (ex. Abraham has many sons)

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)

The proof of all this will be mainly in my first book to be published soon, Mental Health for Everyone 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 Mental Health for Everyone, but it will have a different subtitle like - The Evidence from the Original Languages of Scripture.

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.

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.

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.

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.


In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding Better the Resistance to Changing Definitions

I love the following opening lines from Thomas Paine's Common Sense:

     Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable
     to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial
     appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.  But
     tumult soon subsides.  Time makes more converts than reason.

Perhaps the view that I have expressed that holy by definition means moral wholeness does not seem like much in relationship to the long history of people assuming it means set apart, but as Paine says custom and its outcry of defense will eventually subside.  The need for time as well as reason is not an optional need.  People do need soak time with new ideas before they will set aside old ideas. 

I also agree that reason means something less than more time.  The reason for my position on the definition of holy is solid in regard to reason, but time honored custom is very hard to break.  So let's not be influenced so much by custom and by the superficial appearance of what is right.  Let's consider other options and then give time for these options to prove themselves right in more than a superficial way. 

John A. Lee's comments, as a biblical scholar on the status of Biblical lexicons, as sometimes preservers of tradition more than a producer of higher quality definitions is worthy of consideration.  He too warns about the superficial appearance of authority by the sheer number of lexicons that say the same thing.  But quantity is not the same as quality. 

Perhaps in time, Lee's wisdom and that of Paine's common sense will be taken more seriously and what first appeared right as a definition might then also be considered wrong.  That though will take time.  I only hope not too much longer. 

In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Understanding Weaknesses

In a conversation earlier today, an attorney pointed out to me that: "Understanding your weaknesses makes you stronger".  He said this in relation to the results of tests that I had done recently.  He went on the add that: "Without knowing your weaknesses you are vulnerable in those areas".  Then he added further that "knowledge is power".   In many ways, my desire to work on the definition of holy is an acknowledgement of all of these three principles.  I want my readers to know that not knowing that "holy" defined as "set apart" has weaknesses really leaves a dangerous vulnerability. 

First, "Understanding your weaknesses makes you stronger".  I believe that acknowledging the weaknesses in the church's and Judaism's definition of holy is not a sign of weakness, but rather of strength.  For many years, the definition of biblical "holy as "set apart" has existed as though it were invulnerable and without any weaknesses.  The reverse is actually true, but acknowledging this I believe builds strength.  To say that is more a probability than a certainty is far stronger than insisting that the probability does not exist and we are sure it means "set apart". 

Second, "Without knowing your weaknesses you are vulnerable in those areas".  I believe that the definition of holy is a weakness that most Christians and Jews are unaware of, so they are missing the greatest vulnerability of all that exists in interpreting the Bible.  When we are not aware of our weakness, we are very vulnerable.  Let me illustrate.

When I coached football, I believe that one of the reasons I was very successful from the beginning was that I understood the importance of attacking an opponents weaknesses.  Early in a game, I would test a wide variety of plays on offense or I would try a lot of different looks on defense looking for an area of weakness.  If the other coach was unaware of his team's weaknesses and I became aware of them, then the other team was unable to adjust to my taking advantage of their weakness.  On the other hand, if I found their weakness and they knew about it, then they could adjust and adapt to what I discovered.  They were not vulnerable like the coaches who did not know their weaknesses on the field. 

The same does hold true for our faith.  If our enemy is a prowling lion waiting to devour (and Satan is!), then we must know our weaknesses.  We must know that while the Protestant Reformers of the church from 1500s onward possessed great strengths,  we must be also aware of their weaknesses.  Unfortunately, after the Reformers died people emerged who claimed to be their disciples who wanted to claim they only possessed strengths without acknowledging their weaknesses.  This is precisely what brings the initial reforms to a deadly end. 

Related specifically to the definition of holy, there must be a recognition that the classical grammar of the past has weaknesses that fall short of the biblical example of biblical reform in Nehemiah 8.  This does not mean that classical grammar is to be tossed aside as not having value.  That is called throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Rather it is keeping the baby, but also throwing out the bathwater!.  How can you get a clean baby without also having dirty bathwater? 

My skills in the area of linguistics largely help weaknesses in grammar to be acknowledged, but also it helps to see grammar's strengths as well.  My linguistics' professors were never purely destructive in their criticisms.  Instead, they avoided vulnerability through acknowledging weaknesses.  Are we doing the same?

Third, "Knowledge is power".  I agree that it is a part of being strong.  Ignorance is a form of weakness.  I don't see how anyone can question that.  Yet I was long ignorant of much of what I say about the definition of holy on this site.   Show me another place on-line that admits the weaknesses that I have found in the popular definition of holy. 

I was weak to the degree that I was also ignorant.  If my blog does only one thing (I believe it does more than one!), then it must at least expose the weakness of ignorance tied to the popular idea that holy means "set apart".  By itself, this does not positively prove the meaning of holy as being another definition, but it does open up one's eyes to real weakness.  Then strength can replace that weakness.

 

We cannot ignore knowledge.  That is real ignorance!  We must embrace knowledge as a friend.  Too much can give us a headache, but that is a lot better than the supposed bliss of ignorance.  That bliss leads to a worse result than King Solomon's headache from much learning.   It can lead to death. 

I hear so many people bemoaning the retreat from the historic Christian faith.  I think it would be far better to try to weaken that retreat by admitting weakness rather than pretending strength.  Then there is an opportunity to adapt to weakness and replace it with strength.  That does not mean all is weakness.  It does mean that there is some weakness.  Who does not have some other than God? 

Today, in my conversations not just with an attorney, but with others I had to admit weaknesses.  The recent examinations exposed weaknesses that I previously did not know existed.  I had a fuzzy idea what my weakness was in my work performance, but now I know it specifically and instead of that making me weaker it makes me stronger.  I can now adapt to where I am weak and minimize the damage.  Before I was very vulnerable, because I never was tested before for what was strong and what was weak. 

I also am being tested on the real life level.  I am not all weakness, but the fact that I am so vulnerable at times shows I am unaware sometimes of my own weaknesses.   My real life testing is not yet over, but in the end I will be stronger if I learn my weaknesses.  I am praying that I do!

The same goes for the definition of holy.  Let me list its contemporary weaknesses, if nothing is joined to the knowledge already possessed in the 20th ct.:

1) Its traditional (20 ct.) etymology is weak.  The good news is that by acknowledging this weakness there is the recognition that there is knowledge in this area that can be added.  How else is ignorance exposed?  It does not come through other ignorance. 
2) Its relation to cognate languages (languages related to Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) is weak.  Those languages do not add strength as much as weakness, because their number of examples are not large enough except for inside the biblical texts themselves. 
3) Its classical or traditional grammar has weaknesses.  Classical rhetoric has a healthier foundation.   Quintilian in rhetoric did a better job of setting the foundations that did Varra in grammar. Why not acknowledge this and  make grammar stronger by learning from rhetoric and linguistics?.  Grammar has strengths, but the weaknesses must also be addressed.  Go classical, but then add further strength.  Add strength to strength.  Don't add weakness to strength. 
4) Its progressive stance of "holy" means "set apart" has produced no measureable revival comparable to previous renewal or reformation movements prior to the 20 ct.  Maybe it is time to work then on the above weaknesses? 

Examine the SWOT chart shown above.  Acknowledging weakness is at first blush hard, but I think in the longer term it will produce the strength that is needed.  It is a threat if only the opposition is aware of it.  Then we are vulnerable.  But when we become aware of weakness, then that weakness can become an opportunity.  To be in a position of unknown weakness is to be vulnerable in the bad sense.  I hope admitting weaknesses today has been vulnerable in the good sense.  It builds opportunity.  Remember those words of the attorney: "Knowing your weaknesses makes you stronger".   It creates opportunity!   It lets you go from strength to strength!

Our problem is that we too often feel it makes us vulnerable, when the reverse is true.  If we can change our attitude from fear to confidence in facing weakness, then we can move forward adding knowledge to knowledge and adding strength to strength.  That is how it is supposed to be.  May God give us courage to cross the river of weakness to reach the shore of strength! 


In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding It Better Through the Sinking of the Titanic

     Can you believe it?  He thinks there is a comparison between the definition of holy and
     the sinking of the Titanic!   Where does he get that idea?

I can hear some of my readers saying that in their heads, as they read this post's title.  But I do.  I really do.  There is no denying it.  There is a possibility that the comparision could prove helpful.  The comparison is this.  It comes from the infamous line that the "Titanic is unsinkable".   Today, we know that it was not unsinkable.  Before hand, however, it did not seem so obviously ludicous as it does today.  I can tell that when I suggest that "set apart" might not be the meaning of holy, some scholars think that the definition is "unsinkable".  It is impossible that this definition for the biblical term for holy will not continue to float!  This is where caution I think is the better virtue. 

The boast that "set apart" is the definition of holy in the biblical text is unsinkable is too great.  It is premature.  It is lacking in objectivity.  I have read, read, read, read and read again scholarly articles on the topic of holy.  In my reading, I have run across "etymological studies" or "word studies" for its meaning, but not a full linguistic analysis.  Sometimes quite close, but still a little short of a full analysis.   But because of this lack, I think a full linguistic analysis is required of all those who want to have reasonable certainty that their definition can stay afloat and not sink. 

Both scholars Rudolph Otto and Norman Snaith hint that there is a level of uncertainty with regard to the etymology of the biblical Hebrew word for holy that must be acknowledged.  Later, you see other scholars, like Klein in his lexical work, acknowledging that the etymological method is not certain.  Yet it still remains quite forceful in that it usually means one option for the definition of holy is the only one taken seriously after the method is applied.  In other words, more than one view is considered prior to an etymological study, but not two or more afterward.  That means that despite any cautions about this method expressed by scholars, they simply haven't considered both equally both before and after the use of the etymological method.  This goes for some people that I admire. 

So what are we to do?  Well, how about floating the ship of "set apart" with due caution?  Let's not be like the boastful captain of the ship, before the voyage was over.  Let's take the voyage and see instead whether it is true that a definition is unsinkable.  Let's watch out for icebergs along the way toward using linguistic analysis which includes etymology, but goes beyond as well.  (By the way, that is my view.  Some are so critical of etymology that their view is that it is nearly totally unreliable.)

I want to float the definition of holy (qaodosh in Hebrew, hagios in Greek) as "set apart" careully with two other ships along side that one.  The other two ships are: "pure" and "whole".  I want to have two other options in case the first one fails.  I don't want to venture out so far on the etymological method, that does sometimes fail, that I have no other options in the case of it sinking in the North Atlantic.  I am not afraid of risk, but I think there is a difference though between it and recklessness. 

Why not do as the ancient Jewish scribes did in preserving the Hebrew text before Xerox?  Why not  keep the other still possible options in the margin alongside the primary option that is placed in the body of the textual copy?  Sometimes, textual margin readings end up being the right ones when more evidence comes to light.  With other boats nearby, chances are reasonable that the passengers on-board the Titanic could have survived in at least greater numbers than they did otherwise in the frigid waters, as they watched the unsinkable sink. 

So I say "beware".  Watch out for pride!  It can deceive us way too easily.  Even among otherwise humble scholars, this is possible.   That kind of over-confidence can become your scholarly and spiritual undoing.   It can lead to a lot of regret.  That is why the Titanic is still remembered.   It is remembered in infamy, because of the boast of one man and the great lost it caused.  There was a lot lost!  Please avoid with me a repeat mistake that involves a lot more passengers.  Take care everyone!

Sincerely,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Its History

My primary purpose in this blog is to provide direct evidence for meaning of holy.  But also, to deal with emotional hang ups that some people have, there are a number of my entries in this blog that indicate the history of the interpretation of the word that is translated as "holy".  That is the driving force behind this entry.  It is to deal with people's fear. 

The history of the interpretation of holy does not prove the meaning of the word, but it does help us overcome fear.  There is danger in assuming that the present prevalent view on the meaning of holy as "set apart" has been the only meaning of holy that interpreters have assigned to the word.  With that assumption, the problem becomes that people are fearful of any another option.  So I hope this entry might help some people to alleviate any fear of other options for the meaning of holy. 

But also in some very recent entries, I describe how to handle practically the element of uncertainty for the meaning of holy that might also lead to fear.  In this one, I want to quote dirrectly from an important author from the 1800s, who elsewhere I mention as among those, who see holy as moral wholeness or the sum of all God's atributes (character traits).  In Baptist circles in the 1800s, he was a significant theologian in the United States. 

Quoting directly, J. L. Dagg, he says:



GOD IS IMMACULATELY HOLY.

Goodness, truth and justice, are moral attributes of God.  Holiness is not an attribute distinct from these; but a name which includes them all, in view of the opposition to contrary qualities.  It implies the perfection of the assemblage; - the absence of every thing that is conrary to the properties included.

Men are unholy.  Even the purest of men have their spots.  It is useful to contrast the character of God, in this respect, with that of men.  It increases our admiration and love, adds fervor to our devotion, incites to worship him in the beauty of holiness, and to imitate him in our character and lives.  "Be ye holy, for I am holy." 

His footnote of verses dealing with the topic of holy are: Ex. 15:11; Lev. 11:44; 1 Sam. 2:2; Job 4:18; Ps. 5:4,5; 22:3; Isa. 6:3; Hab. 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Rev. 4:8.



This quote comes from the following book:

Dagg, J. L. Manual of theology: A Treatise on Christian Doctrine and A Treatise on Church Order.  (New York: Arno Press, 1980), p. 86.   [It was originally published in 1857]


The most important words to pay attention to from the quote are these about the meaning of "holy": "a name which includes them all" with the "all" referring to "goodness, truth and justice".  (He also could have included love.)  The idea that holy inclues them all is an allusion to the idea that holy is the sum of all God''s attributes.  For an American and as a Baptist, he may have been familar with the works of Jonathan Edwards, who held this view, and he also may have been familiar with very popular Baptist and contemporary in England, Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892). 

The difficulty is that neither of these two people were strictly speaking biblical scholars.  One was more of a theologian, the other more of a pastor.  What is more interesting is what scholars they were using to get this meaning and what was the argument supporting the meaning?  Those questions are a lot harder to answer. 

I am in the early stages of trying to uncover that history, but more importantly the basis for the meaning of holy that they proposed.  I am particularly interested in the work of Johann Reuchlin at this juncture, because of his influence on Christians in the area of studying Hebrew at the time of the Reformation. 

So J.L. Dagg's view is another example that might alleviate a few people's fears about considering another option beyond the one that they are popularly taught.  But beyond all this is the desire to then consider the evidence from the biblical text directly.  So hopefullly some of you can go from fear to confidence to evidence to boldness regarding the actual meaning of holy in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. 


In Christ,

Pastor Jon