Knowing the definition of holy is second in importance behind only knowing God's personal name. This blog is not about what is God's personal name or how to say God's personal name (I have a separate blog dedicated to that project), but it is still about a very important topic. It is about the definition of the biblical words for holy. The words that are critical for this study are the Hebrew word qadosh, the Aramaic word qaddiysh, and the Greek word hagios (and each of their derivatives - words that originate from them). In this post, I want to talk about the skills necessary for determining the meaning of holy and the outcomes from those skills.
I want to being though with an illustration from last evening (2/18/13). I heard a very good presentation on four skills for health and the four outcomes from those skills. The presentation was well done. I wish everyone concerned with their health could have attended, because the speaker did a much better job than I can of presenting the skills to improve one's health. Let me introduce his ideas for health, as a way to illustrate the ideas behind a healthy definition of holy.
The four key outcomes (the "why?") for health were listed as (with my re-arrangement):
1) Stable
2) Flexible
3) Energetic
4) Aware
The four skills (the "how?") for these four outcomes were listed as (with my re-arrangement as corollaries):
1) Reducing inflammation
2) Journaling a coherent narrative
3) Increasing energy
4) Increasing complicated movements
If I were a doctor and I could tell you that you can have the four improved outcomes related to your physical health, then you would likely be overjoyed. If I could introduce the same for the definition of holy, then we should be even more overjoyed. What if we had a stable, flexible, energetic, and aware definition for holy?
Some may think we already have just that after consulting a number of the major lexicons on-line, but that is a bit short-sighted. Sometimes the internet is a great resource, but also it can vary in the quality of information that is available. If you had a few dusty volumes from a traditional library, then you would discover that some lexicons and other books on the topic of holy acknowledge that there are aspects of defining the word for which we are uncertain (unaware) and that the current most popular definition of "set apart" is actually controversial (unstable).
Wouldn't it be better, if we could reduce the controversy about the meaning of holy like reducing inflammation? Wouldn't it also be better, if we have a narrative addressing all the facts on the history of defining holy like journaling a coherent narrative? Wouldn't it be better still, if more people were devoted to the project like giving increasing energy? And finally, wouldn't it be better yet, if we define the word with a more complex process like being able to do increasing complicated movements that test a brain's awareness?
One problem is that assumed stability in the definition of holy does not substitute for stability without a crutch. It is a crutch to say that their is no controversy about the meaning of holy. That is like saying that my sprained ankle is stable, while I move down the hall using crutches. There is inflammation there rigidly preventing my joint from bending until full healing occurs. The problem is also that without true stability, my ankle join is also chaotic. It can be re-injured very easily since it lacks stability still. The ankle is still unstable, until I am able to remove the crutches during the time of rigidity and until I go through therapy to restore the ankle's own stability that can stand on its own without assistance. It is a crutch to say that the meaning of holy is stable. There exists disagreements. Disagreements or injuries tend to produce fire in the body of those who disputing. Holy has competing definitions that have been offered and it has at least two or three serious competitors for its definition. I am writing this blog, because I think it can be stabilized to one biblical definition that was intended by the original authors. But this comes about by reducing the fire of disagreement and by restoring things to a stable state. Acute disagreement can be a good thing provided chronic disagreement is not acceptable. The first does good like the ankle's inflammation when it is injured. The second is harmful as a problem fester's into a chronic state. I am afraid this is where things are stuck without effort to dislodge disagreement.
Another problem is that collecting the facts of the history of the meaning of holy does not substitute for a coherent narrative of the history of the meaning of holy. Most books I have read on the definition of holy do not include a narrative, but begin from a supposed "true" etymology. The problem is that the etymology involves more speculation than it does contemporary historical record for its meaning. This does not mean etymology is irrelevant as some seem to suppose or that it is worthless as others suppose. (James Barr and D. A. Carson seem to go a bit too far in their criticisms of etymology.) What it does mean is that the narrative for the definition of holy should include not only a speculative narrative about the meaning of holy in ancient times, but also a narrative of meanings given to it over time that is coherent rather than a collection of facts. Concordances and lexicons usually only give a collection of facts of how a word has been translated rather than giving a true definition or a narrative for how each meaning connects with another. A coherent narrative would show more connections over time, rather than just a vast leap back in history or a mere pile of facts (called "glosses" by Eugene A. Nida). That means that the definition of holy as "set apart" has connections that are relevant that need to be disclosed through a coherent narrative as does "whole" or "pure" or even "holy" itself as chosen by early English translators as a perceived connection between Hebrew culture and English culture.
Still another problem is that there does not seem to be an increase in energy in studying the meaning of holy, but a reduced energy. Work and investment to define holy don't seem to have the energy it once had. Exegetical method, however, does seem to have a lot of energy going into it, which is a positive. It is not energetic work to look up the meaning of holy through on-line lexicons. The work has already been done. What is work is carrying out a skillful process of testing the three major different definitions side by side ("pure", "set apart", and "whole"). What is also missing is lively interest and the different kinds of investing. The speaker last evening has written in his notes: "No action, no good outcomes". I don't see how we will get to a better place of defining holy without interest, action, and investment as energies. People need activities that excite them, not that just give them a chance to rest. Rest is our activity for the better part of one day each week, not every day. One of the major objects of my research has been to uncover the basic process used in Nehemiah 8 that should give us new zest and energy for the possibilities that were once impossible. Maybe we just need to believe more in the possibilities of present and future energy. I find Nehemiah's 8's: 1) Translate, 2) Transfer, 3) Total, 4) Train, and 5) Teach process to be energy producing. The body's cellular ability to produce energy declines by 1% per year and is irreversible up to this point, but I don't see that has to be the case with exegetical, interpretative, or hermeneutical method. Let's be energized rather than lethargic.
Finally, another problem is that awareness can slip away easily. A kind of brain fog can overcome the church as well as individuals. It goes beyond just amnesia and Alzheimer's Disease. A person who is totally sleep deprived may fail a test due to their sleep deprivation, but they at least are aware that they failed. More dangerous are those who get a few hours each night and fail the same test, but are not self-aware when failure happens. These results came from a recent study of differing kinds of sleep deprivation. Doing exegesis properly is a complicated process, but it need not be too complicated. It does not consist of just etymology or just word usage. One or the other of those is too simple. The process consists of the total basic method as found in Nehemiah 8. And it is important to be aware that these steps in Nehemiah 8 are basic steps. It is also important to be aware that there are more complex steps like textual criticism that may or may not be necessary in exegesis or interpretation in discussing a particular word's meaning. The basics are themselves complicated in that there is more than one differentiated component to the process, but these basics are also integrated into one total process. The ways to test our brains is by the use of increasing complicated methods. While we might be clumsy at first with complicated movements, our brain can learn new tricks and be better at becoming aware and developing awareness. Let's be aware of outcomes rather than being failures and unaware of our failures. Let's also be wide awake and aware of successes. Greater awareness is available.
In summary, it is important to integrate all the differentiated outcomes of: 1) stability, 2) flexibility, 3) increased energy, and 4) awareness to get health. These combine together to produce not just physical health, but as illustrated above, a healthy definition as well. This is the kind of definition that I am working toward. I believe that the method of translation gives stability to a definition. I also believe that the method of transfer also gives flexibility (as in context) to a definition. I further believe that the basic four or five step method of Nehemiah 8 gives energy to a definition. I finally believe that using a more complicated method than just etymology (with plausibility) or just usage (with possible parallels) is greater in awareness than those methods alone. The brain should be tested for its awareness of differentiated components through a complex method that is able to grow into even more complex methods, as needed. It should never stop at just two possible components for a word study. That shows a general lack of awareness for how language works as a system with differentiated components that need to be integrated together.
Now let's return full circle to my earlier layout on the outcomes and skills for physical health, but this time I will replace the skills with those relating to studying meanings in the Bible. The four key outcomes (the "why?") for definitions were listed earlier as:
1) Stable
2) Flexible
3) Energetic
4) Aware
The four skills (the "how?") for these four outcomes were listed earlier as ("Total" [see above] refers to the four integrated into a whole):
1) Translation
2) Transfer
3) Train
4) Teach
So I was energized by last nights presenter, not just because of insights into my physical health, but also for insights into the health of defining the word holy. In particular, he offers another way to look at outcomes like those I hope to produce from writing in this blog and in my post-graduate paper. I am very committed to a definition of holy that deserves the categorization of it as healthy: one that includes all the four outcomes, not just one or two.
So, if you don't find me giving you the one definition for holy based on a scholarly study right here and right now, it is only because there is a process that I have to follow like anyone else to deserve the name of contemporary scholarship. This does not mean that I don't think that some prior studies are adequate. I think exactly the opposite. But it is important to understand that prior church history (before the last 100 years), gave the definition of "whole", that still deserves recognition, for its classic definition. "Whole" is likely the primary reason why "holy" was chosen to translate qadosh, etc. by early English translators. I prefer to fall back on the well-established (with its two best competitors as still considered) and then move forward to a contemporary study, as a way to prove or disprove the well-established (stable). I prefer not to go with a definition (like "set apart") that is not as highly stable, until I have first completed a contemporary study of holy that has scholarly merit. But make no mistake, I am not waiting without any options for the here and now.
I believe firmly in a "now and not yet" status not only for the kingdom of God, but also for what I know in this present age. The "not yet" completed nature of my study does not hold me back to the point of having no position today. It only means that improvements in stability, flexibility, increased energy, and awareness are potential opportunities in the "not yet" future. That is what I would like to contribute, Lord willing. Many thanks to you for taking time to read my blog. My hope and prayer is that you have benefitted from it.
In Christ,
Jon
Showing posts with label halig. Show all posts
Showing posts with label halig. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Textual Studies
I want to begin with an examle from what is today called textual criticism.There are four books that are critical for examining the underlying New Testament Greek text. They are:
1) The Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies
2) A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, written by Bruce M. Metzger
3) The Text of the New Testament, written by Kurt and Barbara Aland.
4) The Identity of the New Testament Text, written by William Pickering
The final one is a controversial addition, because it disagrees on the level of principles with with first three. I've added it, because I believe in fairness toward competing views. The more important issue though is a practice that is common to textual criticism that is unfortunately lacking in biblical translation. I read this recently in Bible Translation and the Spread of the Church: " ... the United Bible Society attempts to help translators by providing a graded evaluation for textual variants that are cited"(p. 42). I would like today to provide grade for he translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words behind the English translation of "holy".
First, I have to add one further point from the book that I mention in the previous paragraph about textual critics providing options with grades: "Kurt Aland writes that this feature [a graded evaluation for textual variants; was `insisted upon by Eugene A. Nida against the whole editorial committee, if I may speak out of school, and in retrospect I believe he was right'" (p. 42). I too believe he was right and that the principle can carry over to translation. When there are variants or variations in how a word is translated, why not grade them as a group rather than insist on one option alone without grade A evidence?
Here is what I insist that we need to do in translating holy - we need to show the variations in how "holy" in the original is translated rather than present the evidence as though there is only one option, when we are speaking of more than one possibility. Based on my reading, here is what the committee of scholars would like assign for grades for the different possible translations of the original text whether in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.
There grades for a committee of scholars (if they know the evidence well):
"set apart" B+
"pure" B-
"whole C-
This I think would be the graded evaluation for translation variants. I want to point out that these are not my personal grades on these variants. Notice that I do not think that the best scholars on this topic assign an A grade for any of these definitions. I draw this primarily from the most prominent theologians on the topic in the 20th Century: Rudoph Otto "wholly other", Norman Snaith "set apart" and Klein "probable" for "set apart".
The difficulty for the last entry of "whole" and the reason it receives only a C- is that while the English word for "holy" has a root meaning in English of whole, this only proves what the early English translators and some of its earlier readers thought the Hebrew meant "whole" according to their English translation efforts. That is significant, but it is not the final conclusion in the discussion. The English word "holy" cannot be used to prove what the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek means. It is a translation and not the original. We have to retrace the evidence for "holy" as a valid translation. For myself, if qadosh in Hebrew or hagios in Greek does not mean whole, then I think holy might be better replaced for the sake of meaningfulness and clarity, consistently by the English words "set apart" or "pure". It makes little sense for the sake of meaningfulness to have to always explain what holy means. Holy has historical value, but does it have contemporary value in that case?
The other problem for the meaning of "whole" is that the scholarship of that earlier era going back to at least Tyndale in the history of English transaltion, it does not leave us clear footnotes to trace where the idea of "whole" comes from. We know know what they thought (their conlusions), but we are going to have a hard time knowing why and from what source (their support).
So moving forward from here, it is not only ancient copiers of the text that preseved marginal readings, so do contemporary textual scholars. The old copyists graded their options according ot in the text (higher grade) and in the margin of the text (lower grade). We need to do the same with those words that are translated in most English translations by "holy", "sanctified", or "hallowed". We need to presently grade the different meanings openly for the readers. Give people the graded options they deserve, ratther than one option that suggests a higher certainty than there is in reality.
Reality is refreshing. Anything less is draining.
In Christ,
Jon
1) The Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies
2) A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, written by Bruce M. Metzger
3) The Text of the New Testament, written by Kurt and Barbara Aland.
4) The Identity of the New Testament Text, written by William Pickering
The final one is a controversial addition, because it disagrees on the level of principles with with first three. I've added it, because I believe in fairness toward competing views. The more important issue though is a practice that is common to textual criticism that is unfortunately lacking in biblical translation. I read this recently in Bible Translation and the Spread of the Church: " ... the United Bible Society attempts to help translators by providing a graded evaluation for textual variants that are cited"(p. 42). I would like today to provide grade for he translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words behind the English translation of "holy".
First, I have to add one further point from the book that I mention in the previous paragraph about textual critics providing options with grades: "Kurt Aland writes that this feature [a graded evaluation for textual variants; was `insisted upon by Eugene A. Nida against the whole editorial committee, if I may speak out of school, and in retrospect I believe he was right'" (p. 42). I too believe he was right and that the principle can carry over to translation. When there are variants or variations in how a word is translated, why not grade them as a group rather than insist on one option alone without grade A evidence?
Here is what I insist that we need to do in translating holy - we need to show the variations in how "holy" in the original is translated rather than present the evidence as though there is only one option, when we are speaking of more than one possibility. Based on my reading, here is what the committee of scholars would like assign for grades for the different possible translations of the original text whether in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.
There grades for a committee of scholars (if they know the evidence well):
"set apart" B+
"pure" B-
"whole C-
This I think would be the graded evaluation for translation variants. I want to point out that these are not my personal grades on these variants. Notice that I do not think that the best scholars on this topic assign an A grade for any of these definitions. I draw this primarily from the most prominent theologians on the topic in the 20th Century: Rudoph Otto "wholly other", Norman Snaith "set apart" and Klein "probable" for "set apart".
The difficulty for the last entry of "whole" and the reason it receives only a C- is that while the English word for "holy" has a root meaning in English of whole, this only proves what the early English translators and some of its earlier readers thought the Hebrew meant "whole" according to their English translation efforts. That is significant, but it is not the final conclusion in the discussion. The English word "holy" cannot be used to prove what the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek means. It is a translation and not the original. We have to retrace the evidence for "holy" as a valid translation. For myself, if qadosh in Hebrew or hagios in Greek does not mean whole, then I think holy might be better replaced for the sake of meaningfulness and clarity, consistently by the English words "set apart" or "pure". It makes little sense for the sake of meaningfulness to have to always explain what holy means. Holy has historical value, but does it have contemporary value in that case?
The other problem for the meaning of "whole" is that the scholarship of that earlier era going back to at least Tyndale in the history of English transaltion, it does not leave us clear footnotes to trace where the idea of "whole" comes from. We know know what they thought (their conlusions), but we are going to have a hard time knowing why and from what source (their support).
So moving forward from here, it is not only ancient copiers of the text that preseved marginal readings, so do contemporary textual scholars. The old copyists graded their options according ot in the text (higher grade) and in the margin of the text (lower grade). We need to do the same with those words that are translated in most English translations by "holy", "sanctified", or "hallowed". We need to presently grade the different meanings openly for the readers. Give people the graded options they deserve, ratther than one option that suggests a higher certainty than there is in reality.
Reality is refreshing. Anything less is draining.
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Holy: Understanding it Better from ALL Lexicons
Your primary reason for visiting my blog is most likely that you want to know the meaning of the word holy in English as a translation of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. (The latter is important, even if person does not recognize the importance of the New Testament, because the Old Testament was translated into Greek also.) I wish I could give you the stock answer of "set apart", because one possibility is simpler than multiple possibilities. But that would make me dishonest. Based on my reading of the lexicons and dictionaries out there, I think there are three great possible answers. The first is "pure", the second is "set apart", and the third is "whole" (listed in alphabetical order to avoid bias). The reason for that is that I am basing my research on "all" the dictionaries and lexicons that are available. I will further explain what I mean by "all", so I don't appaer unrealistic.
My reason or motivation for this method of using "all" dictionaries and lexicons is simple. It is the method to follow for the person who is trying to make sure they understand a word in another language correctly. Mildred Larson, a trained linguist, has this to say about dictionaries and lexicons:
Dictionaries "unpack" the meanings of words. That is why a good translator will use all the
dictionaries and lexicons available in his study of the source language text.
Please note carefully her use of the word "all". This is of course the ideal or the goal, but sometimes it is simply not possible at the time, so a person has to settle for a little more modest goal until a later time. Quite honestly, I could not possibly examine "all" the lexicons for Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek that are out there at this time even with a focus only on the words that are translated as "holy". With a greater access using computers this might be possible someday, but not today. So in place of "all" of them, I think I have found a worthwhile way to achieve Larson's goal.
My method toward her goal is to make sure that from among "all" the dictionaries and lexicons, I at least begin from representatives for "all" the major definitions of holy. Jesus once said in paraphrase form: "Do the greatest first, but also do not neglect the least." . So "all" has to come later rather than suffer neglect with the greatest things first. That is how I understand that Larson's goal might eventually be reached. You've maybe seen the illustration of a jar and different sizes of things to put in that jar. Usually there are large rocks, smaller rocks, sand and water. The person who does the greatest first is able to fit more of the "all" possible things into the jar than those who start with the smallest objects first. So that is my strategy.
I am beginning from dictionaries and lexicons that pre-date our time and that of the late 1800s. I want to go beyond Gesenius' Hebrew and English Lexicon. This is my way of including "all" the major lexicons and possibities in my research toward Larson's high end goal. Those who leave out Moses Kimchi's/Kimhi's work, David Kimchi's/Kimhi's work or Johann Reuchlin's work on Hebrew are not even aiming at getting the biggest stones in the jar first. They instead are assuming advances at the end of the 19th century and later through the 20th century that make Gesenius' work and that of those following the greatest rather than anything previous. They assume this made the other prior lexicons obsolete. Why not instead include "all" the major optoins and test them instead in the 21st century? Why assume correctness rather than testing it? Is testing now that difficult for us? So now you should understand my motive behind my method.
I want to see "all" dictionaries and lexicons to be considered. That (eventurally) also goes for Jeff A. Benner's The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible. I'm not saying by including him in the list of "all" that the credentials of a scholar don't matter (he seems to lack them and to have been a self-study person in his final product), but I am saying that he has proposed some things that those credentialed as scholars need to consider as part of "all" lexcions, because he is handling words as "bundles" of meaning as Larson says in her title for the section that I quoted earlier. What he is bringing to the table, that sometimes is not made explicit in other research, is the issue of letters being bundled together to form meanings, and not just other morphemes made up of more than one letter. He's not the only one to ever do this, but he is the only one to take a comphrensive approach like his to the whole language of Hebrew. He at least makes explicit what others are doing implicitly in their etymologies (the study of the true roots of words). Also he is not wrong just because he uses the older method of etymology rather than lexical analysis. The fact that he could sometimes be wrong from the use of the etymological method does not say that he is always wrong.
So what you will find in my research is an attempt to deal with "all" the dictionaries and lexicons with the greatest being placed out front. That is a critical part of my method. Though I am not a Latin scholar, I do know what conclusions were drawn from Reuchlin, the Kimchis and the others. There was a meaning given that in English means "whole". That is why I consider it an important option. Now as I say elsewhere, it is only a matter of finishing my exegetical paper using what is called or named "Linguistic Analysis". Please pray that I can finish this soon! My goal is to graduet in May 2013. Thank you for your prayers.
In Christ,
Jon
My reason or motivation for this method of using "all" dictionaries and lexicons is simple. It is the method to follow for the person who is trying to make sure they understand a word in another language correctly. Mildred Larson, a trained linguist, has this to say about dictionaries and lexicons:
Dictionaries "unpack" the meanings of words. That is why a good translator will use all the
dictionaries and lexicons available in his study of the source language text.
Please note carefully her use of the word "all". This is of course the ideal or the goal, but sometimes it is simply not possible at the time, so a person has to settle for a little more modest goal until a later time. Quite honestly, I could not possibly examine "all" the lexicons for Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek that are out there at this time even with a focus only on the words that are translated as "holy". With a greater access using computers this might be possible someday, but not today. So in place of "all" of them, I think I have found a worthwhile way to achieve Larson's goal.
My method toward her goal is to make sure that from among "all" the dictionaries and lexicons, I at least begin from representatives for "all" the major definitions of holy. Jesus once said in paraphrase form: "Do the greatest first, but also do not neglect the least." . So "all" has to come later rather than suffer neglect with the greatest things first. That is how I understand that Larson's goal might eventually be reached. You've maybe seen the illustration of a jar and different sizes of things to put in that jar. Usually there are large rocks, smaller rocks, sand and water. The person who does the greatest first is able to fit more of the "all" possible things into the jar than those who start with the smallest objects first. So that is my strategy.
I am beginning from dictionaries and lexicons that pre-date our time and that of the late 1800s. I want to go beyond Gesenius' Hebrew and English Lexicon. This is my way of including "all" the major lexicons and possibities in my research toward Larson's high end goal. Those who leave out Moses Kimchi's/Kimhi's work, David Kimchi's/Kimhi's work or Johann Reuchlin's work on Hebrew are not even aiming at getting the biggest stones in the jar first. They instead are assuming advances at the end of the 19th century and later through the 20th century that make Gesenius' work and that of those following the greatest rather than anything previous. They assume this made the other prior lexicons obsolete. Why not instead include "all" the major optoins and test them instead in the 21st century? Why assume correctness rather than testing it? Is testing now that difficult for us? So now you should understand my motive behind my method.
I want to see "all" dictionaries and lexicons to be considered. That (eventurally) also goes for Jeff A. Benner's The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible. I'm not saying by including him in the list of "all" that the credentials of a scholar don't matter (he seems to lack them and to have been a self-study person in his final product), but I am saying that he has proposed some things that those credentialed as scholars need to consider as part of "all" lexcions, because he is handling words as "bundles" of meaning as Larson says in her title for the section that I quoted earlier. What he is bringing to the table, that sometimes is not made explicit in other research, is the issue of letters being bundled together to form meanings, and not just other morphemes made up of more than one letter. He's not the only one to ever do this, but he is the only one to take a comphrensive approach like his to the whole language of Hebrew. He at least makes explicit what others are doing implicitly in their etymologies (the study of the true roots of words). Also he is not wrong just because he uses the older method of etymology rather than lexical analysis. The fact that he could sometimes be wrong from the use of the etymological method does not say that he is always wrong.
So what you will find in my research is an attempt to deal with "all" the dictionaries and lexicons with the greatest being placed out front. That is a critical part of my method. Though I am not a Latin scholar, I do know what conclusions were drawn from Reuchlin, the Kimchis and the others. There was a meaning given that in English means "whole". That is why I consider it an important option. Now as I say elsewhere, it is only a matter of finishing my exegetical paper using what is called or named "Linguistic Analysis". Please pray that I can finish this soon! My goal is to graduet in May 2013. Thank you for your prayers.
In Christ,
Jon
Friday, September 30, 2011
Holy: Understanding its Definition better Through Using a Process
This entry in my blog steps back from directly defining holy to talk more broadly about my views on methods to define holy. In my view the weakness of some of the writing on holiness is a lack of awareness on how important their method is to determining the outcome of their definition of holy.
My point is to say that the process we use to determine the meaning of holy is very important. Our methods have implications and can cause us to draw either correct or incorrect conclusions. My other point is that biases can get in the way of accepting relevant methods for defining it.
The process is important to the effect or outcome, whether it is the process for determining a meaning for a word or whether it is a process for shooting a basketball. The "how" is relevant alongside the "why". If making a basket is my motive, my reason why, then the method, my how I shoot, is relevant. It is the same in determining the meaning of holy.
Now using the basketball analogy, there is room for differences in the method, but not differences that are dramatic. It is one thing for the best shooters to have subtle stylistic differences, but it is far different to violate the four basic fundamental parts of shooting. Whether you take Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan or LeBron James; they all share the same fundamental strengths in the art of shooting. However, all of them do not shoot exactly the same.
Next, it is important to understand some of the attitudes we carry to the table, when it comes to method. I remember this from my days as a coach and I see the same thing in the arena of being a pastor. There are certain biases against method that are even greater in the church than they are on the basketball court.
The first bias, I will call the Holy Spirit objection. It is very simple, we don't need a method, because we have the Holy Spirit. To me, this response lacks balance. I like what St. Augustine said once about prayer and about balance: "Pray as though everything depended on God, work as though everything depended on you." I think the same applies here. I believe wholeheartedly that everything depends on God's Holy Spirit when it comes to interpretation, yet I don't believe this excludes method. The reason I don't think it excludes method is because in the book that records things that people like David said by the Spirit, there methods are described. We are told actions to take.
I cannot live by the Spirit and not do what the Spirit has spoken. I believe in Nehemiah 8, the Spirit has given us a process: teach, translate, total, train and transfer. I believe balance is needed which means having regard for this process that was outlined by the Holy Spirit. By the way, the five words that begin with "T" are my simple way of remembering the HolySpirit's process. The Spirit uses other specific words for these ideas. See my earlier blog that deals with this process for greater detail.
The second bias, I will call the historical objection. It is very simple, we don't need a method, because we have freedom. To me, this method also lacks balance. Many people are trapped in the formerly relevant rules or freedom of a previous period of history. Sometimes the emphasis of some of our ancestors was right on for their time, but not right on for our time. I think our time needs balance in its process as compared to an overemphasis to correct an imbalance to only one side.
This means I find the biases toward a process for defining a word irrelevant at times. I have found a lack of balance between rule and freedom. St. Augustine once wrote three books to define his process for understanding the biblical text. He saw the need for rules. I think we need to think through our process as well and yet allow freedom for improvements in our process. In other words, we need to keep things in balance. I don't think using Nehemiah 8 as a basis for a process is either too restrictive or too free. It can keep a balance.
One of my teachers once said he was overemphasizing his point to correct something. While that may have been a good teaching method at one time, I don't think it is helpful at our present time. Now I think we have to keep a balance to make our point, because otherwise things veer off to one extreme or the other, because of our present times and context. We now have twin dangers to avoid that maybe were not present earlier like they are now.
So I really think we must keep a balance in our process to define words based on the need for relevance. I think the rules of 1) teach, 2) translate, 3) total, 4) train and 5) transfer are very helpful. These rules have a relevance to move things in a helpful direction from the prior processes, like those of Augustine, to determine meaning that are often too limited by rules or too free to be useful.
I wish I had time to develop the full argument here, but I thought I should at least let people know that my method in defining holy is intended to be a balance Spirit & method and rule & freedom. It takes relevance very seriously. It recognizes the dangers on both both sides of its method, because of what is happening in our contemporary times rather than what has happened in the past.
In my next entry, I want to again step back a little bit and talk about my expertise. This will also be relevant to explaining the different kinds of entries you will find on this blog. It will help you understand both what you can hope to find here and what you will not find here. The point is that I want to contribute what expertise I have to defining holy, but also I do not want to mislead people either as to what my expertise is. Thank you for taking a few minutes to read this entry.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
My point is to say that the process we use to determine the meaning of holy is very important. Our methods have implications and can cause us to draw either correct or incorrect conclusions. My other point is that biases can get in the way of accepting relevant methods for defining it.
The process is important to the effect or outcome, whether it is the process for determining a meaning for a word or whether it is a process for shooting a basketball. The "how" is relevant alongside the "why". If making a basket is my motive, my reason why, then the method, my how I shoot, is relevant. It is the same in determining the meaning of holy.
Now using the basketball analogy, there is room for differences in the method, but not differences that are dramatic. It is one thing for the best shooters to have subtle stylistic differences, but it is far different to violate the four basic fundamental parts of shooting. Whether you take Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan or LeBron James; they all share the same fundamental strengths in the art of shooting. However, all of them do not shoot exactly the same.
Next, it is important to understand some of the attitudes we carry to the table, when it comes to method. I remember this from my days as a coach and I see the same thing in the arena of being a pastor. There are certain biases against method that are even greater in the church than they are on the basketball court.
The first bias, I will call the Holy Spirit objection. It is very simple, we don't need a method, because we have the Holy Spirit. To me, this response lacks balance. I like what St. Augustine said once about prayer and about balance: "Pray as though everything depended on God, work as though everything depended on you." I think the same applies here. I believe wholeheartedly that everything depends on God's Holy Spirit when it comes to interpretation, yet I don't believe this excludes method. The reason I don't think it excludes method is because in the book that records things that people like David said by the Spirit, there methods are described. We are told actions to take.
I cannot live by the Spirit and not do what the Spirit has spoken. I believe in Nehemiah 8, the Spirit has given us a process: teach, translate, total, train and transfer. I believe balance is needed which means having regard for this process that was outlined by the Holy Spirit. By the way, the five words that begin with "T" are my simple way of remembering the HolySpirit's process. The Spirit uses other specific words for these ideas. See my earlier blog that deals with this process for greater detail.
The second bias, I will call the historical objection. It is very simple, we don't need a method, because we have freedom. To me, this method also lacks balance. Many people are trapped in the formerly relevant rules or freedom of a previous period of history. Sometimes the emphasis of some of our ancestors was right on for their time, but not right on for our time. I think our time needs balance in its process as compared to an overemphasis to correct an imbalance to only one side.
This means I find the biases toward a process for defining a word irrelevant at times. I have found a lack of balance between rule and freedom. St. Augustine once wrote three books to define his process for understanding the biblical text. He saw the need for rules. I think we need to think through our process as well and yet allow freedom for improvements in our process. In other words, we need to keep things in balance. I don't think using Nehemiah 8 as a basis for a process is either too restrictive or too free. It can keep a balance.
One of my teachers once said he was overemphasizing his point to correct something. While that may have been a good teaching method at one time, I don't think it is helpful at our present time. Now I think we have to keep a balance to make our point, because otherwise things veer off to one extreme or the other, because of our present times and context. We now have twin dangers to avoid that maybe were not present earlier like they are now.
So I really think we must keep a balance in our process to define words based on the need for relevance. I think the rules of 1) teach, 2) translate, 3) total, 4) train and 5) transfer are very helpful. These rules have a relevance to move things in a helpful direction from the prior processes, like those of Augustine, to determine meaning that are often too limited by rules or too free to be useful.
I wish I had time to develop the full argument here, but I thought I should at least let people know that my method in defining holy is intended to be a balance Spirit & method and rule & freedom. It takes relevance very seriously. It recognizes the dangers on both both sides of its method, because of what is happening in our contemporary times rather than what has happened in the past.
In my next entry, I want to again step back a little bit and talk about my expertise. This will also be relevant to explaining the different kinds of entries you will find on this blog. It will help you understand both what you can hope to find here and what you will not find here. The point is that I want to contribute what expertise I have to defining holy, but also I do not want to mislead people either as to what my expertise is. Thank you for taking a few minutes to read this entry.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Overcoming Barriers to Understanding
For my post-graduate studies I am writing on the definition of holy, but as part of that I have to present my method for discovering the meaning of holy in the Bible. This turns out to be more critical than might be imagined. Like a car's suspension that effects the outcome in terms of a car's ride, so the method for defining a word can effect the outcome in terms of the definition arrived at by myself or anyone else. So what is my method?
In discussing methods to use for my thesis, I found that the discussion got very complicated. It was too complicated for anyone who does not have my educational background. But it also got too complicated for those who have my level of education. There simply was not a lot of common ground between different methods and I felt that any choice would limit who would read what I had to say, because of the divisions over the method to use. So I needed something better.
I think I have found a better method. I want to first state it, then where I found it and then I will demonstrate some of its usefulness with regard to defining holy in a beginning way. The method consists of five steps (not necessarily locked into this order): 1) total, 2) translate, 3) teach, 4) train and 5) transfer.
I found this method in Nehemiah 8. In Nehemiah 8:1-7, I find the idea of 1) total - "all" the people and "the book" of the law of Moses." The total of the people who could understand and the total of the book of the Law. Neither part of the process was less than the total of it. In Nehemiah 8:8, I find the keys to 2) translating - clarity and meaning. Something is clear when it is one rather than many. Many causes confusion. Imagine many voices saying a differen word in the same room. Now imagine everyone in unison saying one word. A one to one correspondence in translating is clearest, if it is possible. Moving from a dead language, like Hebrew was in Nehemiah, to a livinglanguage like Aramaic gave meaning in translation. In Nehemiah 8:7, 8:9-12, I find 3) teaching in the idea of "instruct" which I have understood as teaching to keep a pattern of T's going for memory's sake. I also think it is important to understand teachers as skilled in recognizing a time of joy and a time of sorrow. They are wise to time and place. In Nehemiah 8:13-17, I see 4) training because the people's inability to understand is replaced by their ability to understand. Understanding is an action, so it requires training. We see many actions performed by the people in this section that reflect their ability to undrestand. Finally, in Nehemiah 8:18, I see 5) transfer because they did things in accordance with regulation. It is important with regulations to transfer the same things rather than different things. Witness as an example the difficult case of circumcision in the New Testament in relationship to Gentiles.
So to communicate across barriers effectively, like in this example in Nehemiah, a method needs to involve not just a few or parts of a book, but the total of both. A method also needs to give clarity through keeping things simple or singular and through using a live language that has meaning. A method needs through instruction to make a bad situation better like a move from weeping to joy as appropriate for the time. A method also needs to replace inability to understand with ability through training. Finally, it must transfer the things in accordance with regulations, not extraneous things nor with things left out.
Let's look at this method's usefulness when dealing with defining holy. The implications for defining holy are many, but here I would like to scratch the surface.
First, I think it is unfortunate that many of the people involved in defining holy are left out of the discussion. Most writers on the topic do not think it is important to address what the total of God's people think on this word. They especially don't address the thoughts of many in church history, even though they are people who had the ability to understand. They do not take seriously those who would disagree with them. They also limit the contexts from which they define the word. Actually parallel passages where the word is used and close synonyms are found in separate parts of the Law are significant. So to limit oneself to just Deuteronomy or just the immediate context can be misleading.
Second, I think it is unfortunate that in the argument among translators and translations over form and meaning, few stopped to take seriously the balanced counsel of Nehemiah 8:8. We need to consider not just meaningfulness, but also clarity. Often meaning is greatly enhanced through a meaning to meaning translation, but at the expense of clarity. I think it is possible to keep a balance. In the case of holy, clarity has been compromised in the past by the use of many words for what is one word in Hebrew and one word to translate it from Hebrew into Greek. It is expressed not just through holy or holiness, but also through sancification, sanctify, saint, holy one, hallow, wholly, consecrate and set apart. It is hardly clear to the average reader that these all express the same basic word in both Hebrew or Greek. Also holy, if it does mean set apart should be replaced, since it does not carry meaningfulness like set apart. If on the other hand it means whole, it coud be retained because the close relationship is visible through their respective similar spellings.
Third, I think it is important to understand that teaching is important in terms of a change of place and time. Holy was not hard to understand in its own day. It is a change in time and place that partly explains the possibility of misunderstanding it in our day. These issues need to be addressed like Nehemiah and the others did, so that the opposite understanding does not occur on this word. Should we maybe be more joyful than sorrowful when we hear this word?
Fourth, I think it is important to train people in the method of understanding. We must replace the inability to understand with the ability. The test of our training is the ease with which someone can perform a task before or after training. Training does not mean that everything is equally easy. It does mean that after training, a task should be easier rather than harder. Nehemiah 8 should be heavily mined for its insights on understanding. This is only a beginning in what I am writing now.
Fifth, I think we need to be sure we are transferring the right things. Each word refers to a referent and while our translation of words is significant, so is the issue of whether the things transferred are the same as the things in the Word of God. Holy may be the translation, but does it refer to the transfer of wholeness into our lives or does it refer to the separateness of our lives from those who are sinners? Which fits in accord with God's regulations? Have we transferred the right things. One of my professors referred to this as transculturation, something different from just translation.
These are the tips of the iceberg in terms of implications. Over time, I will develop each of these separately more in-depth along with showing other angles on the vital topic of what holy means. I am convinced it must mean one of two things. Either holy means whole or it means separate. This method from Nehemiah 8 will help me and you sort this out. We face barriers to understanding holy, but so did they face barriers to understanding in their time. These barriers can be overcome through 1) total, 2) translate, 3) teach, 4) train and 5) transfer.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
In discussing methods to use for my thesis, I found that the discussion got very complicated. It was too complicated for anyone who does not have my educational background. But it also got too complicated for those who have my level of education. There simply was not a lot of common ground between different methods and I felt that any choice would limit who would read what I had to say, because of the divisions over the method to use. So I needed something better.
I think I have found a better method. I want to first state it, then where I found it and then I will demonstrate some of its usefulness with regard to defining holy in a beginning way. The method consists of five steps (not necessarily locked into this order): 1) total, 2) translate, 3) teach, 4) train and 5) transfer.
I found this method in Nehemiah 8. In Nehemiah 8:1-7, I find the idea of 1) total - "all" the people and "the book" of the law of Moses." The total of the people who could understand and the total of the book of the Law. Neither part of the process was less than the total of it. In Nehemiah 8:8, I find the keys to 2) translating - clarity and meaning. Something is clear when it is one rather than many. Many causes confusion. Imagine many voices saying a differen word in the same room. Now imagine everyone in unison saying one word. A one to one correspondence in translating is clearest, if it is possible. Moving from a dead language, like Hebrew was in Nehemiah, to a livinglanguage like Aramaic gave meaning in translation. In Nehemiah 8:7, 8:9-12, I find 3) teaching in the idea of "instruct" which I have understood as teaching to keep a pattern of T's going for memory's sake. I also think it is important to understand teachers as skilled in recognizing a time of joy and a time of sorrow. They are wise to time and place. In Nehemiah 8:13-17, I see 4) training because the people's inability to understand is replaced by their ability to understand. Understanding is an action, so it requires training. We see many actions performed by the people in this section that reflect their ability to undrestand. Finally, in Nehemiah 8:18, I see 5) transfer because they did things in accordance with regulation. It is important with regulations to transfer the same things rather than different things. Witness as an example the difficult case of circumcision in the New Testament in relationship to Gentiles.
So to communicate across barriers effectively, like in this example in Nehemiah, a method needs to involve not just a few or parts of a book, but the total of both. A method also needs to give clarity through keeping things simple or singular and through using a live language that has meaning. A method needs through instruction to make a bad situation better like a move from weeping to joy as appropriate for the time. A method also needs to replace inability to understand with ability through training. Finally, it must transfer the things in accordance with regulations, not extraneous things nor with things left out.
Let's look at this method's usefulness when dealing with defining holy. The implications for defining holy are many, but here I would like to scratch the surface.
First, I think it is unfortunate that many of the people involved in defining holy are left out of the discussion. Most writers on the topic do not think it is important to address what the total of God's people think on this word. They especially don't address the thoughts of many in church history, even though they are people who had the ability to understand. They do not take seriously those who would disagree with them. They also limit the contexts from which they define the word. Actually parallel passages where the word is used and close synonyms are found in separate parts of the Law are significant. So to limit oneself to just Deuteronomy or just the immediate context can be misleading.
Second, I think it is unfortunate that in the argument among translators and translations over form and meaning, few stopped to take seriously the balanced counsel of Nehemiah 8:8. We need to consider not just meaningfulness, but also clarity. Often meaning is greatly enhanced through a meaning to meaning translation, but at the expense of clarity. I think it is possible to keep a balance. In the case of holy, clarity has been compromised in the past by the use of many words for what is one word in Hebrew and one word to translate it from Hebrew into Greek. It is expressed not just through holy or holiness, but also through sancification, sanctify, saint, holy one, hallow, wholly, consecrate and set apart. It is hardly clear to the average reader that these all express the same basic word in both Hebrew or Greek. Also holy, if it does mean set apart should be replaced, since it does not carry meaningfulness like set apart. If on the other hand it means whole, it coud be retained because the close relationship is visible through their respective similar spellings.
Third, I think it is important to understand that teaching is important in terms of a change of place and time. Holy was not hard to understand in its own day. It is a change in time and place that partly explains the possibility of misunderstanding it in our day. These issues need to be addressed like Nehemiah and the others did, so that the opposite understanding does not occur on this word. Should we maybe be more joyful than sorrowful when we hear this word?
Fourth, I think it is important to train people in the method of understanding. We must replace the inability to understand with the ability. The test of our training is the ease with which someone can perform a task before or after training. Training does not mean that everything is equally easy. It does mean that after training, a task should be easier rather than harder. Nehemiah 8 should be heavily mined for its insights on understanding. This is only a beginning in what I am writing now.
Fifth, I think we need to be sure we are transferring the right things. Each word refers to a referent and while our translation of words is significant, so is the issue of whether the things transferred are the same as the things in the Word of God. Holy may be the translation, but does it refer to the transfer of wholeness into our lives or does it refer to the separateness of our lives from those who are sinners? Which fits in accord with God's regulations? Have we transferred the right things. One of my professors referred to this as transculturation, something different from just translation.
These are the tips of the iceberg in terms of implications. Over time, I will develop each of these separately more in-depth along with showing other angles on the vital topic of what holy means. I am convinced it must mean one of two things. Either holy means whole or it means separate. This method from Nehemiah 8 will help me and you sort this out. We face barriers to understanding holy, but so did they face barriers to understanding in their time. These barriers can be overcome through 1) total, 2) translate, 3) teach, 4) train and 5) transfer.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Holy: Understanding it Better Through 2 Chronicles 5:11
In 2 Chronicles 5:11, it reads in very literal translation: "And it happened as the priests were going from the sanctuary - for all the priests who were present had sanctified themselves without observing divisions." This translation demonstrates the possibility of a contrast between "sanctified" and "observing divisions." In that case, holy's or sanctified's basic meaning would be that of whole.
You could understand it this way " ... for all the priest who were present were themselves the whole without observing any divisions [among themselves]." This is at least plausible and the contrast with "without observing divisions" would make its meaning also contrast with being set apart or separate.
So this verse at least demonstrates what is at stake in terms of understanding a great number of passages throughout the Bible. By itself, the evidence is not earthshattering, but a number of passages with this same plausibility would be. Please think about it.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
You could understand it this way " ... for all the priest who were present were themselves the whole without observing any divisions [among themselves]." This is at least plausible and the contrast with "without observing divisions" would make its meaning also contrast with being set apart or separate.
So this verse at least demonstrates what is at stake in terms of understanding a great number of passages throughout the Bible. By itself, the evidence is not earthshattering, but a number of passages with this same plausibility would be. Please think about it.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Holy: Understanding it Better Through the Minority and Majority Views
Since biblical times, the meaning of holy has been understood in different ways. An argument over its meaning may even be hinted at during the time of Jesus and in the biblical record itself. At any time there are usually minority and majority views on a topic. At the present time, the majority view is that holy means separate or to be set apart. Also at the present time, the minority view is that holy means whole. There are also other meanings out there as well, yet I consider these two meanings to be the most hopeful correct meanings. The problem is that people treat the majority view as a consensus view. The solution is to understand the actual status of a majority view and to understand the requirements for a minority view.
One of the purposes of this blog is to ensure that the minority view is not overlooked because of the majority view. My reason for this is that the might of supporters is not always right. If that were true, then historically holy means whole might be right. Before the 20th century, holy means whole was the primary definition for holy in Protestant circles at least. Set apart was another meaning for holy, but oversimplifying some, it was the secondary definition.
Yet a minority view must always understand its status and realize that it must earn the right to be the majority view. It has to be humble. It has to be meek. It has to work harder in order to change its status. It also must accept its status, if it fails to provide evidence for its position. Being the underdog doesn't make a position right.
So the majority cannot impose a tyranny with its status and exclude the minority view from consideration as though it enjoys a consensus status. Likewise the minority cannot impose anarchy with its status and by force rather than ballots impose its view on others. Each must remain diligent in proving its case to legitimately hold a majority status.
I hope you will consider both points of view in your quest for the meaning of holy. As I present more and more evidence, I hope you will be swayed by the evidence more than by the number of supporters. Yet in the end, the number of supporters does matter. Let's just hope the current majority is based on evidence and not on peer pressure. That is my serious quest.
In Christ,
Jon
One of the purposes of this blog is to ensure that the minority view is not overlooked because of the majority view. My reason for this is that the might of supporters is not always right. If that were true, then historically holy means whole might be right. Before the 20th century, holy means whole was the primary definition for holy in Protestant circles at least. Set apart was another meaning for holy, but oversimplifying some, it was the secondary definition.
Yet a minority view must always understand its status and realize that it must earn the right to be the majority view. It has to be humble. It has to be meek. It has to work harder in order to change its status. It also must accept its status, if it fails to provide evidence for its position. Being the underdog doesn't make a position right.
So the majority cannot impose a tyranny with its status and exclude the minority view from consideration as though it enjoys a consensus status. Likewise the minority cannot impose anarchy with its status and by force rather than ballots impose its view on others. Each must remain diligent in proving its case to legitimately hold a majority status.
I hope you will consider both points of view in your quest for the meaning of holy. As I present more and more evidence, I hope you will be swayed by the evidence more than by the number of supporters. Yet in the end, the number of supporters does matter. Let's just hope the current majority is based on evidence and not on peer pressure. That is my serious quest.
In Christ,
Jon
Friday, May 06, 2011
Holy: Understanding it Better Through the Options
If you want the simple answer for the meaning of holy, then it would consist in a one word answer. One is the essence of simple. In that case, I might say it means whole. But that may not be a satisfactory answer for you, when you consult other sources that say it means set apart. You are likely to want an explanation in that case. Why isn't the meaning of holy simple like some other words?
Have you ever made adequate plans that allowed you to avoid the loss of an item? In contrast, have you ever lost an item and tried to recover it? I mean, for example, that you didn't leave your cell phone charger at a motel room, because you double-checked your room and took it with you before you left. Contrast that with the time you did leave it behind, because you had to rush to catch your shuttle service and so you left the charger behind. Double-checking for the charger and taking it with is a lot less complex than trying to recover a cell phone charger you left behind. It also can take a lot of time to recover it when you call the motel, they search for it. they get back to you, you pay postage, they send it to you, you wait for it to arrive or you decide to go purchase a new one and it is not in stock, etc. You get the idea.
Unfortunately for holy, we are dealing with a recovery process. Let me illustrate the complexity of its recovery through the example of a multiple choice test.
If I was to give a multiple choice test on the meaning of holy, there would be a lot of options. Over the long period of trying to find its meaning, many have claimed to find it and found different meanings or different clues to its meaning. If I list the possible multiple choices in historical order, then there would also be a further lesson to learn. The choices are not only more than one or two. They have also grown to many options over time.
My ultimate desire is to arrive at the one meaning intended in Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Aramaic and then later in Greek. My purpose right now is to show that the recovery of the lost meaning of holy means that the problem is complex and that fixing the problem also takes more time because the simple meaning of holy was lost. You could say that the many possible multiple choices proves it was once lost. This could not have been case in the ancient text. There is no indication of such an expansive list of meaning nor of the need for so many clues outside the text.
Have you ever made adequate plans that allowed you to avoid the loss of an item? In contrast, have you ever lost an item and tried to recover it? I mean, for example, that you didn't leave your cell phone charger at a motel room, because you double-checked your room and took it with you before you left. Contrast that with the time you did leave it behind, because you had to rush to catch your shuttle service and so you left the charger behind. Double-checking for the charger and taking it with is a lot less complex than trying to recover a cell phone charger you left behind. It also can take a lot of time to recover it when you call the motel, they search for it. they get back to you, you pay postage, they send it to you, you wait for it to arrive or you decide to go purchase a new one and it is not in stock, etc. You get the idea.
Unfortunately for holy, we are dealing with a recovery process. Let me illustrate the complexity of its recovery through the example of a multiple choice test.
If I was to give a multiple choice test on the meaning of holy, there would be a lot of options. Over the long period of trying to find its meaning, many have claimed to find it and found different meanings or different clues to its meaning. If I list the possible multiple choices in historical order, then there would also be a further lesson to learn. The choices are not only more than one or two. They have also grown to many options over time.
My ultimate desire is to arrive at the one meaning intended in Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Aramaic and then later in Greek. My purpose right now is to show that the recovery of the lost meaning of holy means that the problem is complex and that fixing the problem also takes more time because the simple meaning of holy was lost. You could say that the many possible multiple choices proves it was once lost. This could not have been case in the ancient text. There is no indication of such an expansive list of meaning nor of the need for so many clues outside the text.
The multiple choice question and its options might look like the following:
What is the ancient meaning of holy in other English words? (Please choose only the best possilble answer for the present time.)
a. whole/sum of all his attributes/complete/fully prepared
b. set apart/separate/set apart from/set apart to
c. pure/clean
d. both a and b (a is primary, b is secondary)
e. together a, b and c
f. either a or b, based on possible roots (but not both)
g. either a, b or c based on possible roots and biblical context (but not more than one of them)
h. b modified by a (ex. wholly other, wholly set apart)
i. treasured/unique/not common (sometimes tied to b)
j. fully prepared (sometimes tied to a)
k. deity (a synonym for god)
l. b and f together (possibly b only, yet boldly eliminate the other possibility)
m. a and f together (possibly a only, yet boldly eliminate the other possiblity)
n. a and f, yet possibly b (based on favored probability, yet without eliminating the other possibility)
o. b and f, yet possibly a (based on favored probability, yet without eliminating the other possibility)
p. any one of the other possible meanings not listed, but none of the above (etc.)
q. righteousness, truth, love and goodness combined as four quadrants of the whole of character
Among these options, I have chosen different answers at different times. But perhaps the best answer at this moment (not for all time) for me is: n. whole, but still possibly b. set apart. The ultimate goal would then be to arrive at a. whole.
It is the best to me, because I think the combined evidence leans the evidence in the direction of a. whole, but it also recognizes two advances in trying to recover the meaning of holy. First, it recognizes that there was strength in the past in the answer whole and set apart, but also sees an advance in knowledge from the late 19th ct. that says it must be one of these two meanings and not both. So "yet" must take the place of "and" until there is a further advance in our recovery process.
The recovery of possible meanings before the 19th century and then joining them together in similar fashion is no longer possible. Also q. might be true, yet it remains largely unproven until texts like Psalm 33 are more thoroughly examined. I plan on doing this in the future.
So when you are next searching for the definition of holy, please remember that the recovery of its possible meaning makes the multiple choice options much longer than what you will find in a standard dictionary or lexicon (a technical foreign language dictionary). Holy's simple meaning got lost and now we have to recover it.
I guess it all boils down to two general points: (1) recovery is complex and prevention is simple and (2) recovery is longer and prevention is shorter. We should not be shocked by the amount of complexity that has been created nor by the large expenditure of time on the meaning of holy by scholars and translators.
Yet also recall that not all the answers are equal ("best") and sooner or later, one answer will emerge that will convince a great number of people that it is the one and only best answer. I believe eventually we will arrive back at a simple answer like that of a. whole or b. set apart. I look forward to that day and I keep looking for the lost item and clues to the simple (one) meaning until that day arrives.
In Christ,
Jon
Holy: Understanding it Better Through a Healthy Process
Health is taked about a lot lately. My observation as an athletic director (a part time occupation) is that most of the time the process given to attain health is not complete. So by default the promoted process cannot attain the health it claims. For example, a diet may be promoted, but there is no mention of exercise or dealing with past illnesses, etc. Likewise the discussion in this blog must be complete or it will not examine the meaning of holy in a healthy or complete way.
The major prongs of the fork aimed at looking for the meaning of holy in this blog are:
Priority -- this is concerned with the theological perspective that holy is chief among the moral virtues. Unfortunately, other moral virtues like love, etc. were allowed to supplant it in the 20th century. I have a separate blog for this subject. It is among my links on the side bar of this blog.
Recovery – this is concerned with the historical perspective that holy’s meaning must be recovered once lost. Prevention of the loss of meaning is not an option right now, but only in the future. This was my focus in the early going, though not as intentionally as I wish I could claim. It is the focus on this piece of writing.
Certainty – this is concerned with the rhetorical perspective that saying holy means something is stronger than saying that holy seems to mean something. This perspective avoids skepticism where there is ample evidence. It also tries to avoid presumption where there is controversy rather than certainty. It recognizes the current controversy and hopes to overcome it.
Discovery – this is concerned with the biblical perspective that is very high among my concerns. This summer, I am taking a graduate course that I hope will greatly improve my efforts on this prong. Research following a process I have layed out previously for decipherment is critical to this part of the complete process.
This particular entry in this blog is mainly concerned to highlight that it is no small thing to say that we are in a place of recovery rather than of prevention, when it comes to the meaning of holy. If prevention were always the rule, then continuity with tradition would make the enterprise of this blog obsolete. But as is so often the case, people rather than doing their due diligence in preparation and prevention are guilty of having to rely instead on cure and recovery. That means sometimes change (transformation) and the renewing of the mind of Romans 12 are essential.
Such is the case with holy. Even during the last 500+ years, the meaning of holy has not been without controversy. The common practice was to preserve at least 2 meanings together. You could say one meaning, wholeness, was central or primary and the other meaning, separate, was marginal or secondary. But in the last 100+ years, the controversy has now a higher risk attached to it.
The risks now are much higher than they used to be, because one meaning is used exclusively without the other, even though based only on a marginal (slightly higher than 50%) probability. The reason is because of a great level of boldness or recklessness on the part of late 19th century scholars, depending on your perspective.
The way that the meaning of holy as whole came to be no longer taught in the last 100+ years in most circles is due to a recognition that it could not be both meanings. In other words, a choice had to be made based on the root words for each meaning, because neither of the two possible roots supported both meanings. This was an advance in scholarly knowledge.
What may not have been an advance was eliminating the appearance of probability and substituting a sense of dogmatism, where it does not exist. This is referred to as presumption. We read the following in the preface to the 1611 KJV:
For as it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no lesse than presumption. Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded.
http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm (I did make one minor obvious correction to quote)
So I think a big part of what I am doing in this blog is recoverying a meaning that goes against what a judicious translator should do. I believe strongly in the no longer understood virtue of prudence that shows caution, when uncertainty exists. Not the kind that is excessive, but the kind that avoids simplicity and naivete. I wish I could say that the loss of the meaning of holy and the need to recover it does not exist, but the history of the definition of holy says otherwise. That is why many of my older posts dealt with historical biblical scholars and leaders and their understanding of holy. I hope I have in some ways helped recover what might prove valuable at the end of a healthy understanding of holy's meaning.
Please watch especially this coming summer for a great development of the biblical data and for concrete evidence of what holy means. I am excited what the Lord may do through a class I hope to take this summer with a highly regarded Hebrew scholar.
In Christ,
Jon
The major prongs of the fork aimed at looking for the meaning of holy in this blog are:
Priority -- this is concerned with the theological perspective that holy is chief among the moral virtues. Unfortunately, other moral virtues like love, etc. were allowed to supplant it in the 20th century. I have a separate blog for this subject. It is among my links on the side bar of this blog.
Recovery – this is concerned with the historical perspective that holy’s meaning must be recovered once lost. Prevention of the loss of meaning is not an option right now, but only in the future. This was my focus in the early going, though not as intentionally as I wish I could claim. It is the focus on this piece of writing.
Certainty – this is concerned with the rhetorical perspective that saying holy means something is stronger than saying that holy seems to mean something. This perspective avoids skepticism where there is ample evidence. It also tries to avoid presumption where there is controversy rather than certainty. It recognizes the current controversy and hopes to overcome it.
Discovery – this is concerned with the biblical perspective that is very high among my concerns. This summer, I am taking a graduate course that I hope will greatly improve my efforts on this prong. Research following a process I have layed out previously for decipherment is critical to this part of the complete process.
This particular entry in this blog is mainly concerned to highlight that it is no small thing to say that we are in a place of recovery rather than of prevention, when it comes to the meaning of holy. If prevention were always the rule, then continuity with tradition would make the enterprise of this blog obsolete. But as is so often the case, people rather than doing their due diligence in preparation and prevention are guilty of having to rely instead on cure and recovery. That means sometimes change (transformation) and the renewing of the mind of Romans 12 are essential.
Such is the case with holy. Even during the last 500+ years, the meaning of holy has not been without controversy. The common practice was to preserve at least 2 meanings together. You could say one meaning, wholeness, was central or primary and the other meaning, separate, was marginal or secondary. But in the last 100+ years, the controversy has now a higher risk attached to it.
The risks now are much higher than they used to be, because one meaning is used exclusively without the other, even though based only on a marginal (slightly higher than 50%) probability. The reason is because of a great level of boldness or recklessness on the part of late 19th century scholars, depending on your perspective.
The way that the meaning of holy as whole came to be no longer taught in the last 100+ years in most circles is due to a recognition that it could not be both meanings. In other words, a choice had to be made based on the root words for each meaning, because neither of the two possible roots supported both meanings. This was an advance in scholarly knowledge.
What may not have been an advance was eliminating the appearance of probability and substituting a sense of dogmatism, where it does not exist. This is referred to as presumption. We read the following in the preface to the 1611 KJV:
For as it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no lesse than presumption. Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded.
http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm (I did make one minor obvious correction to quote)
So I think a big part of what I am doing in this blog is recoverying a meaning that goes against what a judicious translator should do. I believe strongly in the no longer understood virtue of prudence that shows caution, when uncertainty exists. Not the kind that is excessive, but the kind that avoids simplicity and naivete. I wish I could say that the loss of the meaning of holy and the need to recover it does not exist, but the history of the definition of holy says otherwise. That is why many of my older posts dealt with historical biblical scholars and leaders and their understanding of holy. I hope I have in some ways helped recover what might prove valuable at the end of a healthy understanding of holy's meaning.
Please watch especially this coming summer for a great development of the biblical data and for concrete evidence of what holy means. I am excited what the Lord may do through a class I hope to take this summer with a highly regarded Hebrew scholar.
In Christ,
Jon
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Understanding Holy Better: Concrete Things and Abstract Words
I firmly stand on the principle of Scripture alone in the sense of what is in Scripture has a unique quality of truth compared to the writings outside of it. I think this is terrifically relevant to the discussion on the meaning of holy. The danger though is that we limit not just truth to being found only there, but also we limit ourselves to only one biblical principle.
A valuable principle in addition to Scripture alone and the broader principle of truth is the principle of concrete things and the broader principle of good. Recently, in watching a DVD about the Aztecs and one of their monuments, the narrator said that at one time the majority of their evidence for the chief monument buried under Mexico City was documentary evidence, but now that had changed through archaeological evidence in finding the ancient monument itself.
I don't think that the shift from documentary evidence to the actual thing itself as evidence is harmful. In fact, it is a concrete good. When I defend the principle of truth in Scripture, I hope I do not turn a blind eye to the principle of good in the evidence of real things.
This is why finding a picture of holiness in some text next to the word for holiness would go a long way toward solving our problems with its definition. Likewise, better yet would be to find the concrete objects themselves as described in both a text and the picture. This would nail the definition of holy to the wall for good.
On the flipside, in the last few days I was searching commentaries on Romans for the authors' definitions for holy. It was a sad state of affairs. They all took a slightly different angle on the word. Their meanings were not the same, though in some cases they did overlap or agree.
We can find the concrete evidence we need and still uphold the principle of Scripture alone. Abstract documentary evidence is not passe. It is not a thing of the past. It still contributes truth. What is also a present concern is the matter of a targeted quest toward concrete evidence that should be available somewhere. I pray God will help us all find it. He's already helped me find a concrete biblical picture in a verbal description of righteousness and justice. The same can happen again for all of us on the meaning of holy.
In Christ,
Jon
A valuable principle in addition to Scripture alone and the broader principle of truth is the principle of concrete things and the broader principle of good. Recently, in watching a DVD about the Aztecs and one of their monuments, the narrator said that at one time the majority of their evidence for the chief monument buried under Mexico City was documentary evidence, but now that had changed through archaeological evidence in finding the ancient monument itself.
I don't think that the shift from documentary evidence to the actual thing itself as evidence is harmful. In fact, it is a concrete good. When I defend the principle of truth in Scripture, I hope I do not turn a blind eye to the principle of good in the evidence of real things.
This is why finding a picture of holiness in some text next to the word for holiness would go a long way toward solving our problems with its definition. Likewise, better yet would be to find the concrete objects themselves as described in both a text and the picture. This would nail the definition of holy to the wall for good.
On the flipside, in the last few days I was searching commentaries on Romans for the authors' definitions for holy. It was a sad state of affairs. They all took a slightly different angle on the word. Their meanings were not the same, though in some cases they did overlap or agree.
We can find the concrete evidence we need and still uphold the principle of Scripture alone. Abstract documentary evidence is not passe. It is not a thing of the past. It still contributes truth. What is also a present concern is the matter of a targeted quest toward concrete evidence that should be available somewhere. I pray God will help us all find it. He's already helped me find a concrete biblical picture in a verbal description of righteousness and justice. The same can happen again for all of us on the meaning of holy.
In Christ,
Jon
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Concrete Objects
You may not be aware previously that the meaning of holy is uncertain. There are many words in the Bible whose meanings are not difficult to determine. Holy does not fall into that category. So in light of this uncertainty, I have decided to work on the issue from a position that is certain.
Holy in the bible means either whole or separate. I would rank the meaning of whole at 70% and the meaning of separate at 30%. Many would reverse those two percentages, yet I have the advantage of a great deal of unpublished material these other people have never seen. I am doing my best to get all of this unpublished material on the internet, but my time is limited at this point in the course of my ministry.
Only in the face of uncertainty, do I think it is wise to hold onto two definitions of holy. I believe we live in one of those times. So it is wise, to "not throw the baby out with the bathwater", but to be sure you've separated the two of them first. This same sage advice is foolish, when no reasonable uncertainty exists.
I am also aware that these promising definitions for holy are polar opposites. So my goal is to remove any reasonable uncertainty about the meaning of holy and to then introduce a definition with a reasonable amount of certainty to support it.
There are four keys to solving any issue of decipherment for an unknown language or for an uncertain word in a language according to the experts in deciphering unknown languages:
· There should be a large enough database and texts of the language (Amount)
· There should be a connected cultural context of the language (Relationship)
· There should be understood parallel or bilingual inscriptions of the language (Action)
· There should be pictorial or concrete references with the text of the language (Thing)
Holy in the bible means either whole or separate. I would rank the meaning of whole at 70% and the meaning of separate at 30%. Many would reverse those two percentages, yet I have the advantage of a great deal of unpublished material these other people have never seen. I am doing my best to get all of this unpublished material on the internet, but my time is limited at this point in the course of my ministry.
Only in the face of uncertainty, do I think it is wise to hold onto two definitions of holy. I believe we live in one of those times. So it is wise, to "not throw the baby out with the bathwater", but to be sure you've separated the two of them first. This same sage advice is foolish, when no reasonable uncertainty exists.
I am also aware that these promising definitions for holy are polar opposites. So my goal is to remove any reasonable uncertainty about the meaning of holy and to then introduce a definition with a reasonable amount of certainty to support it.
There are four keys to solving any issue of decipherment for an unknown language or for an uncertain word in a language according to the experts in deciphering unknown languages:
· There should be a large enough database and texts of the language (Amount)
· There should be a connected cultural context of the language (Relationship)
· There should be understood parallel or bilingual inscriptions of the language (Action)
· There should be pictorial or concrete references with the text of the language (Thing)
This is where the proof must be gathered to prove the meaning of holy. Fortunately, we are able to find evidence for all four of these keys. For our limited purposes in this blog, I would like to look at the last key of finding a pictorial or concrete reference for the word of holy.
In a concrete sense, for something to be "cut" (the root idea behind separate) or "uncut" (an analogy for whole) is very pictorial. It is easy to separate the two of them visually. Just take out your steak knife and cut a carrot. You have a very good visual of cut. Now magine another carrot that remains uncut. They are picture perfect polar opposites.
When we look at the concrete objects closely associated with holy, we find these as a beginning list: days, stones, ground, moutain, sacrifice and body. I will later talk about the more abstract concepts of self, name and morality as extensions of these concrete or literal meanings of cut or uncut.
If holy means "to set apart" or "to separate", then its literal or concrete idea is as follows for each concrete object:
- a day cut off from six other days (Geneis 2:1-3)
- altar stones cut off from other stones (Deuteronomy 27:6)
- ground/area cut off from other ground/area (Exodus 3:5)
- a mountain cut off from other mountains or land (Exodus 19:3, Deuteronomy 4:11)
- a sacrifice cut off from other sacrifices (Leviticus 1:3, Romans 12:1-2)
- a body cut off from other bodies (Leviticus 21:15-20, 1 Corinthians 6:19)
If holy means "to make or to keep whole", then its literal or concrete idea is as follows for each concrete object:
- an uncut day of evening to evening (Genesis 2:1-3)
- an uncut/whole altar stone (Deuteronomy 27:6 )
- an uncut ground/area (Exodus 3:5)
- an uncut mountain of the entire thing (Exodus 19:3; Deuteronomy 4:11 )
- an uncut/unblemished sacrifice (Leviticus 1:3; Romans 12:1-2 )
- an uncut/unmaimed body (Leviticus 21:15-20; 1 Corinthians 6:19)
If we extend the literal or concrete meanings of "cut" into more figurative or abstract meaning, then the idea by implication in various contexts (even where it is not used directly):
- a self cut off from other selves (Luke 10:26-28)
- a name cut off from other names (Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2)
- a morality cut off from immorality (Romans 7:12 and all contexts dealing with holy, righteous, true, loving and good)
Every single one of these concepts is biblical, the question is whether they are biblical through the use of the word holy. If they are not, then by adding the instances of holy to the list of even a correct biblical idea, increases the magnitude of importance beyond the importance the bible assigns to them. In other words, we distort the message of the Bible. On the flip-side, we also diminish the importance of being whole in relationship to each of these things. That may be the great crime.
If we extend the literal or concrete meanings of "uncut" into more figurative or abstract meaning, then the idea is by implication in various contexts (even where it is not used directly):
- an uncut self - heart, soul, strength and mind are all essentials (Luke 10:26-28)
- an uncut/corporate/comprehensive name - no word is more comprehensive of personality (Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2)
- an uncut morality - righteous, true, loving and good are all included (Romans 7:12 and all contexts dealing with holy, righteous, true, loving and good)
Every single one of these concepts is also biblical. The problem is the same as we see with the other meaning of separate, if it is not biblically accurate in its understanding of holy. We distort and diminish the other concept in a way that is not biblical.
In either case, the implications are large because holy is such a large concept in the bible. That is why we cannot afford to get it wrong. If it were a minor concept, then there would be no serious implication from error.
I hope these concrete objects in the context of holy help you make sense of the two ideas of "set apart" and "whole." They are diametrically opposed to each other in concrete meaning and the weighty importance of the meaning of the word holy potentially distorts things in a large way. This is not a small thing because decipherment is only the beginning. The implications are far greater because they effect our view of the world.
In future pieces of writing, I will further develop the other important pillars for deciphering the definite meaning of holy. It is the combination of them that I believe will give us reasonable certainty about what the word means. But for now I hope you are able to make sense of things in terms of meaning, because that is an important first step.
It is paramount that every real Christian take this very seriously. It has grave or momentous consequences, because biblical words have big implications far beyond any other words on this planet.
In Christ,
Jon
Friday, December 31, 2010
Holy Means Whole (or Set Apart): According to Solomon's Wisdom
There is an under-appreciated piece of Solomon's wisdom that I recently recovered in Ecclesiastes 9:4. It says that there is hope for the living "because a live dog is better than a dead lion." Its application to the debate over the meaning of holy in the Biblical text is important.
It suggests a wiser approach than I have taken previously to defining this word. It seems appropriate at the very end of 2010 to do a little reflection. As I reflect back to creating my two blogs on the meaning of holy, I realize that I lacked some of Solmon's wisdom. I think I could have made a wiser decision by seeing that "a combined certainty of both possible definitions is better than a singular uncertainty of one definition."
Here is what I mean. Recently, I have run across a lot of admissions by great scholars and great minds that the idea that holy means "set apart" is "probably" or "possibly" the correct understanding. The problem for them, quoting some famous translators, is that: "they are wise [that] rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated by one, when it may be the other."
That would make these scholars potential fools for choosing just one definition "when it may be the other." I too have been a fool at times, thinking I must be decisive and choose one even in the face of real uncertainty.
Martin Luther explained Solomon's advice this way: "Better a sparrow in hand than a crane in doubt." What is not doubtful is that holy means either "whole" or "set apart." Both together with differing probabilities may not look like a majestic crane, yet it is a sparrow without doubt.
My problem is that I cannot say today that I can remove some important doubt about holy means whole. Internally, I have more certainty, but the important thing is the evidence I have been able to present to others. I can say that I am at 70% sure that holy means whole, but that leaves a significant 30% chance I might be wrong on a very important word to define correctly. Better to be aware it might be another meaning than to kid myself.
I am choosing to go with Solomon's dog and Luther's sparrow. I want to be wise. I want to avoid a situation of uncertainty that risks "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Past scholarship has thrown out some bathwater. Let's proceed with caution and make sure the next toss is bathwater too.
From this position of wisdom, learning and studying can then create a stronger and stronger argument for one or the other definition. Then and only then may one definition take a singular place without the other. The nice thing is that I can relax and commit myself to understanding rather than to making sure I don't look like a fool.
So when you see that my title says "Holy Means Whole (or Set Apart), know that I am wiser than I was before. I am wiser and I am hopeful, because "a [sure] dog is better than a [doubtful] lion." Be wise and have a Happy New Year!
In Christ,
Jon
It suggests a wiser approach than I have taken previously to defining this word. It seems appropriate at the very end of 2010 to do a little reflection. As I reflect back to creating my two blogs on the meaning of holy, I realize that I lacked some of Solmon's wisdom. I think I could have made a wiser decision by seeing that "a combined certainty of both possible definitions is better than a singular uncertainty of one definition."
Here is what I mean. Recently, I have run across a lot of admissions by great scholars and great minds that the idea that holy means "set apart" is "probably" or "possibly" the correct understanding. The problem for them, quoting some famous translators, is that: "they are wise [that] rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated by one, when it may be the other."
That would make these scholars potential fools for choosing just one definition "when it may be the other." I too have been a fool at times, thinking I must be decisive and choose one even in the face of real uncertainty.
Martin Luther explained Solomon's advice this way: "Better a sparrow in hand than a crane in doubt." What is not doubtful is that holy means either "whole" or "set apart." Both together with differing probabilities may not look like a majestic crane, yet it is a sparrow without doubt.
My problem is that I cannot say today that I can remove some important doubt about holy means whole. Internally, I have more certainty, but the important thing is the evidence I have been able to present to others. I can say that I am at 70% sure that holy means whole, but that leaves a significant 30% chance I might be wrong on a very important word to define correctly. Better to be aware it might be another meaning than to kid myself.
I am choosing to go with Solomon's dog and Luther's sparrow. I want to be wise. I want to avoid a situation of uncertainty that risks "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Past scholarship has thrown out some bathwater. Let's proceed with caution and make sure the next toss is bathwater too.
From this position of wisdom, learning and studying can then create a stronger and stronger argument for one or the other definition. Then and only then may one definition take a singular place without the other. The nice thing is that I can relax and commit myself to understanding rather than to making sure I don't look like a fool.
So when you see that my title says "Holy Means Whole (or Set Apart), know that I am wiser than I was before. I am wiser and I am hopeful, because "a [sure] dog is better than a [doubtful] lion." Be wise and have a Happy New Year!
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Holy Means Whole: According to the Possibility that Holy Means Set Apart
I have never noticed before, like I have recently, how many times writers qualify their definition of holy with words like: “probably,” “possibly,” “ plausible,” “seems,” “ assume” and “controversial.” Keep in mind that this kind of language is not material you will find in any lexicon or a dictionary entry for holy. In those places, you find a summary of already drawn conclusions. But in those books that look at the evidence and then draw a conclusion, there is the ability to say that whether you define holy as whole or as set apart, it is controversial or plausible.
It is difficult to say with full confidence what the meaning of holy is in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek according to the greatest experts of the 20th century. Whether you read Rudolph Otto, Norman Snaith, Rabbi Dr. Klein or lesser lights in the 21st century on the internet, you find hesitancy among them to say that the definition proposed is definite. That is because trying to determine its root meaning is difficult for them. There are two different directions they can go, because of two possible roots for its meaning.
This problem would not matter, except that holy is the primary word for expressing God’s character whether you read Isaiah’s “holy, holy, holy” or Revelation’s (John’s) “holy, holy, holy.” Its importance is what causes some people to simply slam their Bible shut and say its meaning cannot be controversial. It is too important. But things are what they are regardless of our response. You can’t avoid difficulty by closing the book. There is a way though to conquer it.
I suggest that we open the book and see the reasons for hope that the controversy can be resolved. Ezekiel 45, for example, is a passage which could yield great results with skills of effective interpretation. In a longer space, I think I can prove that “holy” and “all” parallel each other significantly. Yet this is not the place or space for that extensive argument. Like a lexicon or dictionary with limited space, only so much ground can be covered here.
What argument does fit this space is the significance of great scholars using words like “probably”, “possibly,” “plausible,” “seems,” “assume” and “controversial” rather than words like “is” or “is not.” Their significance is that they all point toward a position of hedging one’s position between saying what something is and what something is not.
The lexicons and dictionaries pretty much create the impression rather than the reality that the definition of holy is a strongly held position. Yet the top scholars like Otto and Snaith say something a little less strong than that, as does the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, a highly regarded tool in evangelical circles. They also don’t say their definition is a weak one, only pointing out what holy does not mean. They clearly are confident beyond that point.
On a scale from strong to weak, people typically make themselves clear as to how strong they hold a position by either saying something is so, saying something seems to be so, or saying something is not so. The first position is the strongest and the most positive. It takes the greatest amount of strength to say. The second is the one that says something between strong and weak. The last is the weakest one, saying only what something is not. Saying I am incompetent in one thing is not as strong as saying I am competent to do another thing.
The key in action for producing strength is skill in wisdom. Daniel and his three fellow Jews possessed skill in all wisdom, as one reason that they rose to a place of prominence in their day according to Daniel 1:3-4. What great scholars are telling us is that their skills did not take them to a point of making a strong statement of what holy means. They felt they could only make a semi-strong statement.
That is being confident to the level of actual strength. I value their actual strength, rather than the strength that seems to be there when you read just lexicons and dictionaries. Again, that is part of the limit of tools like lexicons and dictionaries. That is not the same as an intentional exaggeration of strength. We must realize too that these tools also cover a whole language, not one word like holy in-depth. Their strength does lie in that ability, to survey an entire language in a handy volume.
The reason I am hopeful for the future is that I think the skill of these past scholars can be eclipsed by the skills already developed by those who have both learned and studied language, as my two professors in college had done. I wish I had the time to use the skills that they gave me to their full strength in this small space right now. It is only a matter of me having enough time in my schedule to do more than I am currently able to do. I have the skills, yet not the time.
I am convinced that their skills and the skills of other scholars I have been fortunate to study under mean that someday I and others with me can say confidently that either holy means whole or holy means set apart. We won’t have to hedge. I look forward to the day that our greatest scholars and our greatest ordinary learners can say confidently what it means.
In the meantime, I can say “probably” means strength is needed and in turn skill in wisdom is needed. The key is skill. Skill gives strength. It gives leverage. It gives us the advantage others didn’t have. I learned this in the classroom, the sports field and in the office. It lets you say realistically something strong rather than something semi-strong or weak. So I can end this day with a great amount of hope in my heart that the strength that skills give will one day get fully used. God willing, it is only a matter of time.
In Christ,
Jon
It is difficult to say with full confidence what the meaning of holy is in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek according to the greatest experts of the 20th century. Whether you read Rudolph Otto, Norman Snaith, Rabbi Dr. Klein or lesser lights in the 21st century on the internet, you find hesitancy among them to say that the definition proposed is definite. That is because trying to determine its root meaning is difficult for them. There are two different directions they can go, because of two possible roots for its meaning.
This problem would not matter, except that holy is the primary word for expressing God’s character whether you read Isaiah’s “holy, holy, holy” or Revelation’s (John’s) “holy, holy, holy.” Its importance is what causes some people to simply slam their Bible shut and say its meaning cannot be controversial. It is too important. But things are what they are regardless of our response. You can’t avoid difficulty by closing the book. There is a way though to conquer it.
I suggest that we open the book and see the reasons for hope that the controversy can be resolved. Ezekiel 45, for example, is a passage which could yield great results with skills of effective interpretation. In a longer space, I think I can prove that “holy” and “all” parallel each other significantly. Yet this is not the place or space for that extensive argument. Like a lexicon or dictionary with limited space, only so much ground can be covered here.
What argument does fit this space is the significance of great scholars using words like “probably”, “possibly,” “plausible,” “seems,” “assume” and “controversial” rather than words like “is” or “is not.” Their significance is that they all point toward a position of hedging one’s position between saying what something is and what something is not.
The lexicons and dictionaries pretty much create the impression rather than the reality that the definition of holy is a strongly held position. Yet the top scholars like Otto and Snaith say something a little less strong than that, as does the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, a highly regarded tool in evangelical circles. They also don’t say their definition is a weak one, only pointing out what holy does not mean. They clearly are confident beyond that point.
On a scale from strong to weak, people typically make themselves clear as to how strong they hold a position by either saying something is so, saying something seems to be so, or saying something is not so. The first position is the strongest and the most positive. It takes the greatest amount of strength to say. The second is the one that says something between strong and weak. The last is the weakest one, saying only what something is not. Saying I am incompetent in one thing is not as strong as saying I am competent to do another thing.
The key in action for producing strength is skill in wisdom. Daniel and his three fellow Jews possessed skill in all wisdom, as one reason that they rose to a place of prominence in their day according to Daniel 1:3-4. What great scholars are telling us is that their skills did not take them to a point of making a strong statement of what holy means. They felt they could only make a semi-strong statement.
That is being confident to the level of actual strength. I value their actual strength, rather than the strength that seems to be there when you read just lexicons and dictionaries. Again, that is part of the limit of tools like lexicons and dictionaries. That is not the same as an intentional exaggeration of strength. We must realize too that these tools also cover a whole language, not one word like holy in-depth. Their strength does lie in that ability, to survey an entire language in a handy volume.
The reason I am hopeful for the future is that I think the skill of these past scholars can be eclipsed by the skills already developed by those who have both learned and studied language, as my two professors in college had done. I wish I had the time to use the skills that they gave me to their full strength in this small space right now. It is only a matter of me having enough time in my schedule to do more than I am currently able to do. I have the skills, yet not the time.
I am convinced that their skills and the skills of other scholars I have been fortunate to study under mean that someday I and others with me can say confidently that either holy means whole or holy means set apart. We won’t have to hedge. I look forward to the day that our greatest scholars and our greatest ordinary learners can say confidently what it means.
In the meantime, I can say “probably” means strength is needed and in turn skill in wisdom is needed. The key is skill. Skill gives strength. It gives leverage. It gives us the advantage others didn’t have. I learned this in the classroom, the sports field and in the office. It lets you say realistically something strong rather than something semi-strong or weak. So I can end this day with a great amount of hope in my heart that the strength that skills give will one day get fully used. God willing, it is only a matter of time.
In Christ,
Jon
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Holy Means Whole: According to Its Hebrew Etymology (Sort of)
I have read that Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) believed that holy means whole from a secondary source. Recently, I found another secondary source that takes me closer to what his view was on the meaning of holy and in another later blog, I will add to these comments from Hirsch's own primary sources, when I have more time for research. His definition in this secondary source is interpreted to be "to prepare." This is seen as in contrast to "sanctified" or "separate."
His principles tell me that his material is worthy of more research. I'll deal with two of his principles in this blog. In the Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, the compiler, Rabbi Matityahu Clark, mentions in his introduction that "by using his etymological system, Hirsch provides unusual insights on common Biblical words and phrases" (p. xi). To quote him further, using holy as one example of unusual insights, he says:
The word [qadosh] is usually translated as `sanctified' or `separated.' But Hirsch explains (in his commentary to Num. 11:18) that the root [qadosh] means `to prepare'
or `to be at the very height of being absolutely ready for all that is good' (p. xii).
This is very close to my understanding of holy as whole, because this is a major implication from it. To further this argument, it fits well with the ideas of the 1800s scholar, Richard Trench, when he develops a group of Greek words that are related both to preparedness and to being whole. I can't develop this fully now, but after reading Hirsch's commentary and going back over Trench's insights, I hope to develop this further in a later blog.
At this point, what I find most fanscinating is the description of Hirsch's principles for understanding the meaning of Hebrew words. Clark says that Hirsch repeatedly said that one should not look to foreign languages to find the meanings of words in Torah (the Law in Hebrew). It is also said that he does not deny borrowing from other languages, but he insists that Hebrew is a "self-contained entity" (p. xii). He also believed Torah (the Law in Hebrew) contained clear and not obscure language.
When I studied LAMP (Language Acquistion Made Practical), one of the most important aspects of the course was the emphasis on connecting with others. Some succeeded at this while others failed, as primarily illustrated on the mission field and as outlined by Dr. Donald Larson, one of the key thinkers behind the LAMP method developed by the Brewsters.
Larson recognized five core principles toward success or failure in connecting: 1) connection and disconnection, 2) someone else and you, 3) insiders and outsiders, 4) ease and difficulty and 5) learning and studying. Each of the these five areas has two options and principles that were reflected by both those who succeeded and by those who failed.
Those who emphasized the former principle in each case, as in connection rather than disconnection, succeeded in connecting with others. Those who emphasized the latter principle in each case, as in disconnection rather than connection, failed in connecting with others. Now relevant to our purpose are two of these success principles. The principles of insiders and outsiders and the principles of ease and difficulty.
Rabbi Hirsch recognizes an insider or internal integrity in Hebrew. He recognizes the need to connect with the language from an insider's perspective on their language rather than relying too much on an outsider's perspective on their language. I think the advantages are perhaps best illustrated by the dangers of an outsider's interpretation.
For example, Moses Ibn Ezra is a significant interpreter of the Hebrew language especially preceding the Middle Ages and the state of Hebrew scholarship in his day. He clearly asserts at that time that the greatest breakthroughs in scholarship of Biblical Hebrew are attributable to Arabic influence. His method relies heavily on Arabic and Aramaic cognates. Some of this was likely due to Arabic being a living language at that time, while Hebrew was not a living language. That means Arabic had the advantage of being a language you can learn and not just study. This advantage according to Larson's principles may have resulted though in a distortion in violation of other principles of connecting. That may be why some say Moses Ibn Ezra overstated a shared Hebrew-Arabic cultural heritage. Hirsch is able to avoid this overstatement by taking more seriously an insider's perspective.
Rabbi Hirsch also reflects a commitment to the idea of ease in his idea that Scripture is clear rather than obscure in its language. This means that one understands that for the native speaker things are not as obscure as they seem to the foreigner. But the foreigner must maintain a firm belief that another person's language is an easy as their own, given the same circumstances. Otherwise motivation drops and a connection with another culture is compromised. That person who is failing in connecting then relies more and more on the ease of their own language while stressing also the difficulty of another's language. Hirsch is able to avoid this problem as well.
Through these twin commitments, Hirsch's work reflects more of an insider's view of Hebrew and an ease of working with the language itself rather than a commitment to other languages being easier or less obscure. I think that is why his etymological system and his commitment to the meaning of individual letters needs to be taken seriously. It has an ease about it in using the language. Hebrew's etymology may not be like our own, but instead easier to use for those who grew up with it.
In any case, his study of etymology opens a new door to understanding Hebrew that may move us from an obliviousness about what holy means, beyond controversy over what it means and finally to an obvious position on what it means. If the ease at which he arrives at some definitions is any indication, then an easy insider meaning of holy may be just around a near corner.
In Christ,
Jon
His principles tell me that his material is worthy of more research. I'll deal with two of his principles in this blog. In the Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, the compiler, Rabbi Matityahu Clark, mentions in his introduction that "by using his etymological system, Hirsch provides unusual insights on common Biblical words and phrases" (p. xi). To quote him further, using holy as one example of unusual insights, he says:
The word [qadosh] is usually translated as `sanctified' or `separated.' But Hirsch explains (in his commentary to Num. 11:18) that the root [qadosh] means `to prepare'
or `to be at the very height of being absolutely ready for all that is good' (p. xii).
This is very close to my understanding of holy as whole, because this is a major implication from it. To further this argument, it fits well with the ideas of the 1800s scholar, Richard Trench, when he develops a group of Greek words that are related both to preparedness and to being whole. I can't develop this fully now, but after reading Hirsch's commentary and going back over Trench's insights, I hope to develop this further in a later blog.
At this point, what I find most fanscinating is the description of Hirsch's principles for understanding the meaning of Hebrew words. Clark says that Hirsch repeatedly said that one should not look to foreign languages to find the meanings of words in Torah (the Law in Hebrew). It is also said that he does not deny borrowing from other languages, but he insists that Hebrew is a "self-contained entity" (p. xii). He also believed Torah (the Law in Hebrew) contained clear and not obscure language.
When I studied LAMP (Language Acquistion Made Practical), one of the most important aspects of the course was the emphasis on connecting with others. Some succeeded at this while others failed, as primarily illustrated on the mission field and as outlined by Dr. Donald Larson, one of the key thinkers behind the LAMP method developed by the Brewsters.
Larson recognized five core principles toward success or failure in connecting: 1) connection and disconnection, 2) someone else and you, 3) insiders and outsiders, 4) ease and difficulty and 5) learning and studying. Each of the these five areas has two options and principles that were reflected by both those who succeeded and by those who failed.
Those who emphasized the former principle in each case, as in connection rather than disconnection, succeeded in connecting with others. Those who emphasized the latter principle in each case, as in disconnection rather than connection, failed in connecting with others. Now relevant to our purpose are two of these success principles. The principles of insiders and outsiders and the principles of ease and difficulty.
Rabbi Hirsch recognizes an insider or internal integrity in Hebrew. He recognizes the need to connect with the language from an insider's perspective on their language rather than relying too much on an outsider's perspective on their language. I think the advantages are perhaps best illustrated by the dangers of an outsider's interpretation.
For example, Moses Ibn Ezra is a significant interpreter of the Hebrew language especially preceding the Middle Ages and the state of Hebrew scholarship in his day. He clearly asserts at that time that the greatest breakthroughs in scholarship of Biblical Hebrew are attributable to Arabic influence. His method relies heavily on Arabic and Aramaic cognates. Some of this was likely due to Arabic being a living language at that time, while Hebrew was not a living language. That means Arabic had the advantage of being a language you can learn and not just study. This advantage according to Larson's principles may have resulted though in a distortion in violation of other principles of connecting. That may be why some say Moses Ibn Ezra overstated a shared Hebrew-Arabic cultural heritage. Hirsch is able to avoid this overstatement by taking more seriously an insider's perspective.
Rabbi Hirsch also reflects a commitment to the idea of ease in his idea that Scripture is clear rather than obscure in its language. This means that one understands that for the native speaker things are not as obscure as they seem to the foreigner. But the foreigner must maintain a firm belief that another person's language is an easy as their own, given the same circumstances. Otherwise motivation drops and a connection with another culture is compromised. That person who is failing in connecting then relies more and more on the ease of their own language while stressing also the difficulty of another's language. Hirsch is able to avoid this problem as well.
Through these twin commitments, Hirsch's work reflects more of an insider's view of Hebrew and an ease of working with the language itself rather than a commitment to other languages being easier or less obscure. I think that is why his etymological system and his commitment to the meaning of individual letters needs to be taken seriously. It has an ease about it in using the language. Hebrew's etymology may not be like our own, but instead easier to use for those who grew up with it.
In any case, his study of etymology opens a new door to understanding Hebrew that may move us from an obliviousness about what holy means, beyond controversy over what it means and finally to an obvious position on what it means. If the ease at which he arrives at some definitions is any indication, then an easy insider meaning of holy may be just around a near corner.
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Holy Means Whole: According to the Best (Not the Good)
One of my professors had a saying he was fond of repeating: "The good is the enemy of the best." Just yesterday I witnessed another episode of the truth of this saying. I think the same holds true for the discussion of the meaning of holy. Many good people hold the position that holy means to set apart or to be separate. Yet the problem is that being good is not good enough.
The best reformers of the past 500 plus years in my tradition were: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Richard Hooker, John Wesley and Charles Haddon Spurgeon. These were the best in the respective denominations of: Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist and Baptist. Many good men and women preceded them and followed them. Yet when it comes time for renewal to happen again, the good can become the enemy of the best.
One of my favorite biblical examples of this comes from the biblical story of Israel's kings. Following David, it is not uncommon to notice that he has set the bar for all future kings including his son Solomon. Following David and Solomon (both who are recognized more than the others because they are also biblical authors), there is this succession of leaders: Jeroboam (arose first but didn't become a king till the time of Rehoboam), Rehoboam, Asa and Jehosophat.
Each of these kings at least started good or were good except in the case of certain issues. But none was on the level of the best in King David. Following these kings, there were a series of bad kings before once again good kings arose. They were: Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah and Jotham. Finally following these kings we hear of two of the best kings, who are compared to David favorably: King Hezekiah and King Josiah. During their time we read about festival events that exceeded those times of the good kings.
Generations struggle that follow even the best generations. There is always the dangers for generations that wise Solomon outlines:
There is a generation:
1) curses it's father
and does not bless it's mother (Proverbs 30:11 )
2) pure in its own eyes
yet is not washed from its filthiness (Proverbs 30:12)
3) oh, how lofty are their eyes!
and their eyelids are lifted up (Proverbs 30:13)
4) whose teeth are like swords
and whose fangs are like knives
to devour the poor from off the earth
and [to devour[ the needy from among men. (Proverbs 30:14)
These may seem like they only apply to the evil ones on earth, but they can also apply to the good people and movements as things degenerate after them or to the remnant of evil that is pointed out during their lifetime. For one example, Jehosophat is given warning by Elijah during his lifetime of this ties to King Ahab. He is not like his "father" King David in this regard.
Another book of wisdom, the book of James, points out the importance of the meekness of wisdom (James 3:13). This is in contrast to the bitter envy and self-seeking of the generations found in Proverbs 30 (James 3:14).
What I have noticed more and more as a Christian is that bitter envy and self-seeking are on the rise rather than the meekness of wisdom. In Jesus' day, his sect, either during his lifetime or following, became known as the Nazarene sect. He tried to convince four other sects to show the meekness of wisdom: the Sadducees, the Essenes (the Qumran community), the Pharisees and the Zealots. Yet they were very reluctant and only after his crucifixion to we read in Acts that many Pharisees believed and joined the Nazarene sect.
This is how sects that perhaps even had a good beginning can become the enemy of the best. In our day, the sects of liberals, conservatives, evangelicals and higher life movements (includes charismatics and holiness movments) are satisfied with holy means set apart or separate.
I would ask them to show the meekness of wisdom. I would also ask these generations to consider that while they may be good in many regards, their goodness may be the enemy of the best in hindering an objective hearing of the evidence on the definition of holy. James 3:14 warns against boasting and lying against the truth. This is sometimes more subtle than blatant for the good rather than the evil. King Asa and King Jeroboam were good kings, yet they should not be smug just because they are not like King Ahab. The good often does not like to acknowledge the best, because that requires a lack of envy and a supply of meekness. It is easier instead to boast that we are better than someone else. That requires no lack of envy and there is no need for meekness to show up.
I myself would rather meekly see the wisdom of the best of God's servants and then find a new reformation coming to us once again, than defend some sort of goodness and hinder another day like that of a King Hezekiah or a King Josiah. We had our warnings in the 20th century from people like Keith Green and Leonard Ravenhill. We also had warnings from people like Francis Schaeffer, Ray Stedman and R. A Finlayson, where we witnessed a desire for something better than these present day sects had to offer. What has happened to that longing?
Have we fallen into apathy? Has the good become the enemy of the best? Have we only eyes to see the faults of the best (I understand David had one)? Why can't we hear the evidence about the meaning of holy objectively? Why has no one from these sects called for an objective hearing of reformation views on holy to test the controversial position these four sects hold and to see if it can hold up under a challenge? Why are the originally good sects so quick to hold to a definition that has had over 100 years to prove itself effective and yet has little fruit to show for it?
I have no axe to grind. I have no desire for the latest new thing. I have submitted to a type of discipline unknowingly that helps me avoid envy. I have investigated the best of the Reformers and found that and found it crushes envy. How can a person who is putting on armor boast before people who have taken it off?
So I now wonder out loud: "How much is envy driving these contemporary sects right now?" Only actual actions that show the "meekness of wisdom" carries the answer. I am calling for an open objective hearing of all the evidence as I create my posts on the internet. That is all I ask for from our present Christian leaders. Will the good once again be the enemy of the best? Or will we see again the meekness of wisdom in action and see reformation? Time will tell the truth.
In Christ,
Jon
The best reformers of the past 500 plus years in my tradition were: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Richard Hooker, John Wesley and Charles Haddon Spurgeon. These were the best in the respective denominations of: Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist and Baptist. Many good men and women preceded them and followed them. Yet when it comes time for renewal to happen again, the good can become the enemy of the best.
One of my favorite biblical examples of this comes from the biblical story of Israel's kings. Following David, it is not uncommon to notice that he has set the bar for all future kings including his son Solomon. Following David and Solomon (both who are recognized more than the others because they are also biblical authors), there is this succession of leaders: Jeroboam (arose first but didn't become a king till the time of Rehoboam), Rehoboam, Asa and Jehosophat.
Each of these kings at least started good or were good except in the case of certain issues. But none was on the level of the best in King David. Following these kings, there were a series of bad kings before once again good kings arose. They were: Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah and Jotham. Finally following these kings we hear of two of the best kings, who are compared to David favorably: King Hezekiah and King Josiah. During their time we read about festival events that exceeded those times of the good kings.
Generations struggle that follow even the best generations. There is always the dangers for generations that wise Solomon outlines:
There is a generation:
1) curses it's father
and does not bless it's mother (Proverbs 30:11 )
2) pure in its own eyes
yet is not washed from its filthiness (Proverbs 30:12)
3) oh, how lofty are their eyes!
and their eyelids are lifted up (Proverbs 30:13)
4) whose teeth are like swords
and whose fangs are like knives
to devour the poor from off the earth
and [to devour[ the needy from among men. (Proverbs 30:14)
These may seem like they only apply to the evil ones on earth, but they can also apply to the good people and movements as things degenerate after them or to the remnant of evil that is pointed out during their lifetime. For one example, Jehosophat is given warning by Elijah during his lifetime of this ties to King Ahab. He is not like his "father" King David in this regard.
Another book of wisdom, the book of James, points out the importance of the meekness of wisdom (James 3:13). This is in contrast to the bitter envy and self-seeking of the generations found in Proverbs 30 (James 3:14).
What I have noticed more and more as a Christian is that bitter envy and self-seeking are on the rise rather than the meekness of wisdom. In Jesus' day, his sect, either during his lifetime or following, became known as the Nazarene sect. He tried to convince four other sects to show the meekness of wisdom: the Sadducees, the Essenes (the Qumran community), the Pharisees and the Zealots. Yet they were very reluctant and only after his crucifixion to we read in Acts that many Pharisees believed and joined the Nazarene sect.
This is how sects that perhaps even had a good beginning can become the enemy of the best. In our day, the sects of liberals, conservatives, evangelicals and higher life movements (includes charismatics and holiness movments) are satisfied with holy means set apart or separate.
I would ask them to show the meekness of wisdom. I would also ask these generations to consider that while they may be good in many regards, their goodness may be the enemy of the best in hindering an objective hearing of the evidence on the definition of holy. James 3:14 warns against boasting and lying against the truth. This is sometimes more subtle than blatant for the good rather than the evil. King Asa and King Jeroboam were good kings, yet they should not be smug just because they are not like King Ahab. The good often does not like to acknowledge the best, because that requires a lack of envy and a supply of meekness. It is easier instead to boast that we are better than someone else. That requires no lack of envy and there is no need for meekness to show up.
I myself would rather meekly see the wisdom of the best of God's servants and then find a new reformation coming to us once again, than defend some sort of goodness and hinder another day like that of a King Hezekiah or a King Josiah. We had our warnings in the 20th century from people like Keith Green and Leonard Ravenhill. We also had warnings from people like Francis Schaeffer, Ray Stedman and R. A Finlayson, where we witnessed a desire for something better than these present day sects had to offer. What has happened to that longing?
Have we fallen into apathy? Has the good become the enemy of the best? Have we only eyes to see the faults of the best (I understand David had one)? Why can't we hear the evidence about the meaning of holy objectively? Why has no one from these sects called for an objective hearing of reformation views on holy to test the controversial position these four sects hold and to see if it can hold up under a challenge? Why are the originally good sects so quick to hold to a definition that has had over 100 years to prove itself effective and yet has little fruit to show for it?
I have no axe to grind. I have no desire for the latest new thing. I have submitted to a type of discipline unknowingly that helps me avoid envy. I have investigated the best of the Reformers and found that and found it crushes envy. How can a person who is putting on armor boast before people who have taken it off?
So I now wonder out loud: "How much is envy driving these contemporary sects right now?" Only actual actions that show the "meekness of wisdom" carries the answer. I am calling for an open objective hearing of all the evidence as I create my posts on the internet. That is all I ask for from our present Christian leaders. Will the good once again be the enemy of the best? Or will we see again the meekness of wisdom in action and see reformation? Time will tell the truth.
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Holy Means Whole: According to Proof, Proof, Proof
If you read through my blog you will notice in the titles "according to." The reason is because the purpose of this blog is to offer evidence for the meaning of holy. It offers all different kinds of proof. It essentially offers four separate kinds that combined form a very strong proof for why I think holy means being morally whole. They are: scriptural, traditional, experiential and reasonable.
Scriptural means that I have a high regard for the rule or measure of Scripture. I regard that measure as the standard in all things. It is a standard that stands alone.
Traditional means that I have a high regard for connections with other Christians over time. In other words, I would consider it very strange if I could not find Christians since the time of Christ/Messiah, who held the same viewpoint I am expressing. I would find it especially troublesome, if I could not find my views being held by fellow believers in Christ/Messiah during times of renewal as opposed to periods of degeneration.
Experiential means that character produces outcomes. It says in Scripture: "If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, then I will heal their land, etc." The condition of certain actions produces certain outcomes. I am troubled by our lack of good outcomes at present and it causes me to ask the question whether our understanding of God's character, and therefore what we imitate, is correct. Could it be that our definition of holy that is instrumental to character could be flawed?
Reasonable means that reason has a role. We are not to throw out our minds, but use them. We are to be as diligent for proof as the myriad of popular shows like CSI Miami. We are to desire proof from the evidence of our senses. We are to avoid nonsense. At present we are in trouble because the standards of proof are being lowered, not raised. I want to keep the standard up and look for proof that is valid to our minds. That is why I use tools related to language and not tools that fail to take language into account.
The troubling issue right now is that proof has fallen into disrepair when you look at the evidence for the ideas that holy means set apart or holy means separation (to). First, it does not have a myriad of evidence from many witnesses, but primarily from one witness. Second, it is not persuasive in the sense of conclusive, but instead is in a state of controversial when it comes to the evidence.
On the first point, I would like to quote Richard Hooker, the great Anglican writer, who once said: "Though ten persons be brought to give testimony in any cause, yet if the knowledge they have of the thing where they come as witnesses, appear to have grown from some one among them, and, to have spread itself from hand to hand, they are all in force but the one testimony" (Richard Chapman, Law and Revelation: Richard Hooker and His Writings, Norwich, UK: Canterbury Press, p. 28).
The great number of lexicons, who give witness to separation or set apart, fall under this problem. They are but one witness in most cases, because they have fed off of one source. The other witnesses that have tried primary investigation, also admit that their position is "controversial." This includes people like Rudolph Otto (author of The Idea of the Holy) and Norman Snaith (author of The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament). It is also admitted by the writer on qadosh (holy) in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. (The latter does attempt a further proof, the other two did not).
On the second issue, I would like to quote Richard Hooker again: "... inasmuch as if it [that God's spirit did reveal] did come of God and should for that cause prevail with others, the same God which revealed it to them would also give them power of confirming it to others, either with miraculous operation, or with strong and invincible remonstrance of sound Reason, such as whereby it might appear that God would indeed have all men's judgments give place to it; whereas now the error and unsufficiency of their arguments do make it on the contrary side against them a strong presumption, that God has not moved their hearts to think such things as he has not enabled them to prove" (Chapman, p. 102-3). The last part is the most powerful in this quote: "to think such things as he has not enabled them to prove."
This really spoke to me when I read it, because it challenged me to consider what God has enabled me to prove. It also challenged me to think through what all writers on the subject of holy have been able to prove. It is a real challenge for parties on both sides. The right response is to meet this challenge rather than shrink from it. It does not solve the problem to avoid the problem. That is my issue with too much of what is written in the last 100 years. With little more than a controversial proof, big assumptions have been carried forward.
I think the better posture is to hit our knees, humble ourselves before God and ask him for the proof of what holy means. I myself desire greater proof for the point of view I have argued for. I realize I need further revelation from God that might convince a greater number of people that the proof is there in Scripture and that it is consistent with the other kinds of proof. Pray to God with me that he would bring the consequences of "proof, proof and proof" to our land.
In Christ,
Jon
Scriptural means that I have a high regard for the rule or measure of Scripture. I regard that measure as the standard in all things. It is a standard that stands alone.
Traditional means that I have a high regard for connections with other Christians over time. In other words, I would consider it very strange if I could not find Christians since the time of Christ/Messiah, who held the same viewpoint I am expressing. I would find it especially troublesome, if I could not find my views being held by fellow believers in Christ/Messiah during times of renewal as opposed to periods of degeneration.
Experiential means that character produces outcomes. It says in Scripture: "If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, then I will heal their land, etc." The condition of certain actions produces certain outcomes. I am troubled by our lack of good outcomes at present and it causes me to ask the question whether our understanding of God's character, and therefore what we imitate, is correct. Could it be that our definition of holy that is instrumental to character could be flawed?
Reasonable means that reason has a role. We are not to throw out our minds, but use them. We are to be as diligent for proof as the myriad of popular shows like CSI Miami. We are to desire proof from the evidence of our senses. We are to avoid nonsense. At present we are in trouble because the standards of proof are being lowered, not raised. I want to keep the standard up and look for proof that is valid to our minds. That is why I use tools related to language and not tools that fail to take language into account.
The troubling issue right now is that proof has fallen into disrepair when you look at the evidence for the ideas that holy means set apart or holy means separation (to). First, it does not have a myriad of evidence from many witnesses, but primarily from one witness. Second, it is not persuasive in the sense of conclusive, but instead is in a state of controversial when it comes to the evidence.
On the first point, I would like to quote Richard Hooker, the great Anglican writer, who once said: "Though ten persons be brought to give testimony in any cause, yet if the knowledge they have of the thing where they come as witnesses, appear to have grown from some one among them, and, to have spread itself from hand to hand, they are all in force but the one testimony" (Richard Chapman, Law and Revelation: Richard Hooker and His Writings, Norwich, UK: Canterbury Press, p. 28).
The great number of lexicons, who give witness to separation or set apart, fall under this problem. They are but one witness in most cases, because they have fed off of one source. The other witnesses that have tried primary investigation, also admit that their position is "controversial." This includes people like Rudolph Otto (author of The Idea of the Holy) and Norman Snaith (author of The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament). It is also admitted by the writer on qadosh (holy) in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. (The latter does attempt a further proof, the other two did not).
On the second issue, I would like to quote Richard Hooker again: "... inasmuch as if it [that God's spirit did reveal] did come of God and should for that cause prevail with others, the same God which revealed it to them would also give them power of confirming it to others, either with miraculous operation, or with strong and invincible remonstrance of sound Reason, such as whereby it might appear that God would indeed have all men's judgments give place to it; whereas now the error and unsufficiency of their arguments do make it on the contrary side against them a strong presumption, that God has not moved their hearts to think such things as he has not enabled them to prove" (Chapman, p. 102-3). The last part is the most powerful in this quote: "to think such things as he has not enabled them to prove."
This really spoke to me when I read it, because it challenged me to consider what God has enabled me to prove. It also challenged me to think through what all writers on the subject of holy have been able to prove. It is a real challenge for parties on both sides. The right response is to meet this challenge rather than shrink from it. It does not solve the problem to avoid the problem. That is my issue with too much of what is written in the last 100 years. With little more than a controversial proof, big assumptions have been carried forward.
I think the better posture is to hit our knees, humble ourselves before God and ask him for the proof of what holy means. I myself desire greater proof for the point of view I have argued for. I realize I need further revelation from God that might convince a greater number of people that the proof is there in Scripture and that it is consistent with the other kinds of proof. Pray to God with me that he would bring the consequences of "proof, proof and proof" to our land.
In Christ,
Jon
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Holy Means Whole: According to Dr. John Piper
For a seminary class I am taking as part of my post-graduate degree program, I ran across the following quote from one of my professors in college, who is now pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, MN. He, in The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright, says:
The reasoning goes like this: The ultimate value in the universe is God - the whole panorama of all of his perfections. Another name for this is God's holiness (viewed as the intrinsic and infinite worth of his perfect beauty) or God's glory (viewed as the out-streaming manifestation of that beauty). Therefore, "right" must be ultimately defined in relation to this ultimate value, the holiness or the glory of God - this is the highest standard for "right" in the universe. Therefore, what is right is what upholds in proper proportion the value of what is infinitely valuable, namely, God (p. 64).
He says this in the context of defining what righteousness means. In the end, I think his definition of righteousness falls a little short, because he leaves out the idea of holiness and only speaks of God's glory, but in this portion of his paragraph I agree wholeheartedly with his meaning for holiness.
On careful reading, his definition is: "the whole panorama of all his perfections" as the other "name for this is God's holiness." This sounds like it could have come right out of Jonathan Edwards, who I know Dr. Piper is fond of reading, and likely also from the influence of Edwards' writing, The Religious Affections.
Notice also that he says that "this ultimate value" is "the holiness or glory of God," if you read carefully. So I could not agree more with him as one of my early teachers in college on his understanding of holiness. Yet the unfortunate thing in the end is that he does not develop his meaning for holiness further in his final definition of righteousness, but drops it in favor of the word "glory."
This is likely due to his commitment to the words from the Westminster confession that: "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever." This apparently causes him to veer slightly from good exegesis and powerful biblical theology. Yet he comes so close.
That in turn would seem to cause him to miss out on all the implications that are possible from his definition of holy in understanding the whole of Scripture and in the actual understanding of ourselves and our lives. This is why our commitment must be to God's word as our final authority, even while understanding the value of a connection with other believers accross the ages. Notice that I value both. Both can assist each other as long as we understand that our first commitment is to God, but also that it would be silly to think of ourselves as only ones with that commitment.
In Christ,
Jon
The reasoning goes like this: The ultimate value in the universe is God - the whole panorama of all of his perfections. Another name for this is God's holiness (viewed as the intrinsic and infinite worth of his perfect beauty) or God's glory (viewed as the out-streaming manifestation of that beauty). Therefore, "right" must be ultimately defined in relation to this ultimate value, the holiness or the glory of God - this is the highest standard for "right" in the universe. Therefore, what is right is what upholds in proper proportion the value of what is infinitely valuable, namely, God (p. 64).
He says this in the context of defining what righteousness means. In the end, I think his definition of righteousness falls a little short, because he leaves out the idea of holiness and only speaks of God's glory, but in this portion of his paragraph I agree wholeheartedly with his meaning for holiness.
On careful reading, his definition is: "the whole panorama of all his perfections" as the other "name for this is God's holiness." This sounds like it could have come right out of Jonathan Edwards, who I know Dr. Piper is fond of reading, and likely also from the influence of Edwards' writing, The Religious Affections.
Notice also that he says that "this ultimate value" is "the holiness or glory of God," if you read carefully. So I could not agree more with him as one of my early teachers in college on his understanding of holiness. Yet the unfortunate thing in the end is that he does not develop his meaning for holiness further in his final definition of righteousness, but drops it in favor of the word "glory."
This is likely due to his commitment to the words from the Westminster confession that: "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever." This apparently causes him to veer slightly from good exegesis and powerful biblical theology. Yet he comes so close.
That in turn would seem to cause him to miss out on all the implications that are possible from his definition of holy in understanding the whole of Scripture and in the actual understanding of ourselves and our lives. This is why our commitment must be to God's word as our final authority, even while understanding the value of a connection with other believers accross the ages. Notice that I value both. Both can assist each other as long as we understand that our first commitment is to God, but also that it would be silly to think of ourselves as only ones with that commitment.
In Christ,
Jon
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Holy Means Morally Whole: According to the Elementary Level
In the end, I suppose everything is in one sense elementary. If I was asked to give one of the most important arguments for the idea that holy means whole, I would have to include the argument from the elementary level of language. Holy is not on that level, but whole is certainly near to the elementary level.
There are generally four levels ranging from the elementary up to the advanced level for communication or language development. The level that the majority of us clearly complete is that of the elementary level.
Mortimer J. Adler lists four levels when it comes to reading as a part of communication or language development. He lists:
1) elementary reading
2) inspectional reading
3) analytical reading
4) comparative reading
When it comes to the mastery of vocabulary, whole most likely falls into the inspectional reading level and holy into the comparative reading level. But I think what is interesting is what word would be below both of them at the elementary level.
If you agree with the idea of levels like Adler, then you might see the levels of vocabulary in the Bible as follows:
1) elementary - body (ex. human being) and members (head, arms, legs, trunk, etc.)
2) inspectional - whole (ex. uncarved stone) and parts (lost no pieces by not shaping)
3) analytical - self and heart, soul, strength, mind
4) comparative - holy and righteous, true, loving, good
If you agree with the stance that it means to be set apart or separate, you would follow one of two patterns:
1) elementary - this and not that
2) inspectional - God and not man
3) analytical - sinless and sinful
4) comparative - set apart from the ordinary things (ex. that, man, sinful, etc.) (like taboo items)
1) elementary - and and but
2) inspectional - connection
3) analytical - relationships
4) comparative - set apart toward (and - connection ) or set apart from (but - disconnection)
My greatest problem at the elementary level is that these later two patterns don't fit with the importance attached to holy as God's greatest character trait. Let me show you why.
Holy, if it is parallel to whole at the inspecitional level of language, matches up with the greatest aspect in that pattern:
Whole, made up of -
Part 1 Amounts
Part 2 Relationships
Part 3 Actions
Part 4 Things
Holy as set apart though either ends up contrasting things like the elementary level of specifying this and not that or it specifies on an elementary level "and" as in a connection like "mommy and daddy" or "but" as in a disconnection like between "mommy, but not daddy." Neither idea tells us about his whole person, like a personal name at an elementary level.
I think on an elementary level the set of: body and members makes a great case for being the greatest, because the body exceeds the value of any one member. How can it be, in the case of set apart that is only a member, that it could exceed the value of the body?
It makes no biblical sense according to Jesus, who says we ought to sacrifice a limb to save the body. It also makes no elementary sense. To quote Holmes: "It is elementary my dear Watson."
In Christ,
Jon
There are generally four levels ranging from the elementary up to the advanced level for communication or language development. The level that the majority of us clearly complete is that of the elementary level.
Mortimer J. Adler lists four levels when it comes to reading as a part of communication or language development. He lists:
1) elementary reading
2) inspectional reading
3) analytical reading
4) comparative reading
When it comes to the mastery of vocabulary, whole most likely falls into the inspectional reading level and holy into the comparative reading level. But I think what is interesting is what word would be below both of them at the elementary level.
If you agree with the idea of levels like Adler, then you might see the levels of vocabulary in the Bible as follows:
1) elementary - body (ex. human being) and members (head, arms, legs, trunk, etc.)
2) inspectional - whole (ex. uncarved stone) and parts (lost no pieces by not shaping)
3) analytical - self and heart, soul, strength, mind
4) comparative - holy and righteous, true, loving, good
If you agree with the stance that it means to be set apart or separate, you would follow one of two patterns:
1) elementary - this and not that
2) inspectional - God and not man
3) analytical - sinless and sinful
4) comparative - set apart from the ordinary things (ex. that, man, sinful, etc.) (like taboo items)
1) elementary - and and but
2) inspectional - connection
3) analytical - relationships
4) comparative - set apart toward (and - connection ) or set apart from (but - disconnection)
My greatest problem at the elementary level is that these later two patterns don't fit with the importance attached to holy as God's greatest character trait. Let me show you why.
Holy, if it is parallel to whole at the inspecitional level of language, matches up with the greatest aspect in that pattern:
Whole, made up of -
Part 1 Amounts
Part 2 Relationships
Part 3 Actions
Part 4 Things
Holy as set apart though either ends up contrasting things like the elementary level of specifying this and not that or it specifies on an elementary level "and" as in a connection like "mommy and daddy" or "but" as in a disconnection like between "mommy, but not daddy." Neither idea tells us about his whole person, like a personal name at an elementary level.
I think on an elementary level the set of: body and members makes a great case for being the greatest, because the body exceeds the value of any one member. How can it be, in the case of set apart that is only a member, that it could exceed the value of the body?
It makes no biblical sense according to Jesus, who says we ought to sacrifice a limb to save the body. It also makes no elementary sense. To quote Holmes: "It is elementary my dear Watson."
In Christ,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
