Holy: Understanding it Better According to Roles

I have been asked two important questions about my work on the definition of holy among others:   1) Who is your audience?  and 2) What is your level of authority or initiative in writing on this topic?   (The latter question is often more implied than stated due to my level of education which is not on the level of a Ph.D. or what is described as the terminal (final) degree.)  Let me answer the first one with "everyone".  Let me answer the second question with the response that "I know my limits or level or degree".  Now I will explain them in the same order. 

First, then is the issue of audience.  Usually when this question is asked, it is asked with 3 possible alternatives: 1) scholars, 2) pastors, and 3) laypeople (laity).  The first is seen as the highest and the third as lowest in terms of having an understanding of written materials through education on the meaning of holy.  There is, I think, an important misunderstanding in the alternatives offered. These alternatives see the whole process of becoming a disciple along one only one directional, while I see it as having two directionals. 

In the diagram above (if it is too small just left click on it for a larger scale), you can see my view in picture form.  It is drawn mainly from the deep and refreshing well of one of my professors at Bethel University (then College), Dr. Donald N. Larson.  He was an important pioneer in trying to develop language schools that would recognize the understanding of languages (and other topics as well) as having two distinct directionals.  He was involved with the Toronto Institute of Linguistics and with other language institutes including one in the Phillipines.  I was very pleased recently to learn that his view and Dr. Wiliiam A. Smalley's view on learning a second language is still being used in a French language learning school for missionaries that is found in France.  Their view was made practical through the Language Acquistion Made Practical (LAMP) text and method of Brewster and Brewster.

These two directionals are significant, because of what Larson and Smalley learned from the study of the success of language teaching programs for missionaries to foreign lands.  Those studies of success point to the primacy of the vertical knower-learner directional over the horizontal teacher-studier (student) directional.  This should make sense to all of us, who have had the opportunity to learn a language from our parents, because in most cases they lacked the formal training for being a teacher.  They were often skilled knowers, who filled our learning minds and mouths with sensible speech.   On the flipside, I can also point to the failure of a teacher-studier directional in junior high.  Our teacher, who taught our class of students French skillfully, failed when she got to France in trying to speak French as the knowers of French do.   What a disappointment this was for her as she expressed in class! 

Now at this point, I need to make a corrective, so that you and I don't run around proclaiming that people only need the knower-learner directional to become a disciple.  No, and again I say no.  Dr. Larson believed that the ideal (and the most successful) is both directionals together.  Being a learner-knower and a studier-teacher is better than only knower-learner, even if that is better than only teacher-studier.  In fact, I would take it a step further and say that both are necessary, if we want to declare ourselves to be disciples.  A real disciple is both a learner and a studier (student).  I will end this discussion here to move on to the next question, but also I could say a lot more on this point to clarify it more and to answer questions you might have.  If you do, feel free to post a question to me below. 

Now from this understanding, lets talk about my intended audience.  These two directionals is part of my reason for why I think my writing goes beyond being classified as narrowly as only for the scholar and the pastor and that it leaves out the layperson.  Sometimes I am speaking directly to what the layperson has learned beautifully.  They are after all, are still disciples and while they may not have reached a terminal degree as a studier and teacher, they certainly can be very advanced as knowers.  Sometimes too I have also met great studiers among laypeople, who have relied on the books of teachers and who have been able to build on the teaching principles that they received in their younger years.  The beauty of all of this self-study is mainly seen in the results of their work and the keen insights they deliver. 

So while each entry can't be for "everybody" everytime, it does mean that among these entries are entries for many classes of people.  It is also true that I am not trying to make this blog into the writing of a dissertation for seminary, though that is something I am working on for my teachers.  Here I leave out the terminology, but that does not mean I don't know the terminology.  It is just that I am aiming for a wider audience. 

Scholars though can certainly fire off questions to me and I can try to answer them to the best of my educational ability in their terms!   While I was at Fuller Seminary I learned this difference from experience.  I wrote what I thought was a very good paper for a class, but I received only a "C".  I didn't understand, so I sat down the the Teaching Assistant for the class.   He told me that I hadn't used the professors terminology frequently enough to show I had grasped the material.  I went back to my dorm and re-wrote the whole thing, doing just one thing.  I practiced inserting the professor's terminology where it belonged and I got an "A".  So to this day I possess two versions of the paper.  This blog is more like the "C" kind, though I can quickly edit it to be an "A" paper, if called upon.  The real proof will be in my paper that I am writing for my S.T.M. on my way toward a Ph.D.

[major break for the second question]

Second then is who can a person trust.  Let me start out by saying that one of the best indications is in the quality of recognizing one's limitations.  But there is even more than that to tell us who is trustworthy. 

Trust is built on being trustworthy and I would summarize the way of building trust, and its close cousin of influence, as being by 4 processes: 1)ethical intelligence , 2)relational intelligence, 3)wisdom intelligence and 4)logical intelligence.    It takes character and competence to build trust. 

Purpose: That everyone knows what I am recommending to them as a course of action on the meaning of holy in the Bible. 

If you are a leader, I recommend that

If you are a missionary of any kind, I recommend that

If you are a pastor, I recommend that

If you are a preacher, I recommend that

If you are a teacher, I recommend that

If you are a board member, I recommend that

If you are a layperson, I recommend that 

Conclusion: That my audience is diverse and so I have different recommendations (not declarations) for each of them as described in this blog entry.  Also certain blog entries will make more sense to different members of my audience. 

[I have thrown out my original plan and this is my outline for a new course for this entry.  Please stop back to see its completion. ]

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Genesis 2:1-3, cont.

How can we know for certain what holy means?  Is it by reading a great number of lexicons written by scholars?  I've discovered that this method is applied more than most of us realize.   In February, I posted an entry on Genesis 2:1-3 dealing with holy's use in context.  I plugged both possible meanings into the context rather than testing only one alternative with a heavy reliance on etymology (the root meaning for a word).   I would like to re-visit this text and add some things to what I said then.  My simple answer to the opening question is using context along with the other methods like etymology that have been applied to holy's meaning in the original languages. 

If you have not read my February post yet, you may want to start there first and then return to this post.  The key that can open many doors to certainty about the meaning of holy is to look at the very large number of contexts of holy's use in the Bible.   This is sometimes referred to as a large corpus and that is a big advantage in solving the problems of the unknown or the uncertain.  Other methods of trying to solve this problem are valuable togther with looking at context, but I think this method has to be a big contributor for the possibility of producing confidence or certainty about its meaning. 

Some begin the discussion of the meaning of holy by refusing to admit uncertainty about its meaning.  It could be that this is because eternity is on the line and holy is an extremely important word.  They are correct!  It is not a word on the periphery of biblical language. 

This unwillingness to admit uncertainty is generally driven by fear associated with the question of eternal salvation and the failure to recognize a very healthy way to deal with this instance of uncertainty.  It is also driven by the fear of questioning the experts in the field, biblical scholars, that sometimes fails to recognize that questioning can be done very respectfully and in a context of trust.  There is an ancient method used by biblical scholars or scribes, who recorded the original texts in Hebrew to deal with both concerns of respect and trust.

Their method was to preserve both options (one in the text and another in the margin) until the uncertainty is removed perhaps at a later date.  So step one is that we have to get past the fear of uncertainty or the fear of questioning experts by producing certainty or security in another more healthy way, like the way used by the ancient scribes.  That is what those early copyists did and thank goodness that they used that method!  They made a very robust decision rather than avoiding risk altogether or accepting risk that is unacceptable.  They wrapped certainty around uncertainty by keeping both options, knowing with higher certainty that one of the options is correct.  Lives are on the line, when we refer to a word like holy that has to do with God's character and our own. 

This entry along with my previous one on Genesis 2:1-3 focuses on plugging both possible meanings ("set apart" or "whole") equally into the contexts of holy's use in the Bible.   But also I need to comment further on context, because sometimes context is used in a way that does not observe the best rules for context. 

Context can give us clues that also wraps certainty around uncertainty.  It can contain highly important clues, but there has to be rules for this method or otherwise too many definitions can be assigned to one word. 

Here are the rules I have learned over the years from widespread teaching and reading on the topic:

• Contexts that have a fixed parallel that is certain in its meaning are most valuable.  Contexts in general are not as valuable as those that have well understood parallels.  (ex. The Rosetta Stone where a known language helped in the discovery of meaning for an unknown language.  ex. The parallels used to find the meaning of many Mayan glyphs [meaning like that in hieroglyphs].) 

• Some contexts are not very valuable because of the context working with more than one plausible meaning.  (ex. Johann [John] Bengel's use of the context of name to define the word "holy" in Hebrew and Greek.  Did the comprehensiveness of a name support his idea or does name more centrally focus on the personhood of the name?)

• In using the information found in a context, the more immediate context takes precedent over more remote contexts.  (ex.  Dr. Daniel P. Fuller used this rule extensively in his inductive bible study classes and I experienced its value many times over.  The best clues are right there in the immediate context, while those furthest away had the greatest likelihood of producing error, because the meaning of words is not always the same, even if related.)

• These twin rules are related to the prior rule.  It is easier to solve problems using the most immediate context.  It is more difficult using the more remote context.  This is because the possibility of corruption from outside sources increases.  I have found that the more immediate context simply needs more observation and more focus.  This is easier once you discipline yourself to do it.  (ex. The story of a student who was to observe a fish in his lab and record his observations.  After thinking early on that he had completed all the observations he could make, the professor told him to continue to examine the fish.  With continued time and effort the number of observations that the student made from observing a dead fish on a tray increased dramatically.  It was astounding.)

• There is a reason why the immediate context is more helpful.  If the is from the same same location and time - immediate, there is then more of a connection or more of a bond in that context.   There is also a reason why the remote context is less helpful.  If the context is from a different location and time - remote, there is less of a connection or more of a barrier in that context.  (ex. You see an illustration of this every day, when history is lost because of the greater distance in time or when people from different distant parts of the world have a harder time understanding cultural practices.)

• Change is likely greater or more likely over a longer distance and a longer time leaving open an increasing possibility of corruption.  This can be overcome, but it most be consciously addressed as a potential problem rather than ignored as not an issue.  (ex. In linguistics time and location are important factors in language change)

• The synonyms in a context can be very helpful, because words of the same class of meaning (amount, relationship, whole, action, and thing) will behave or function like other words in the same class, when it comes to he elements of the context around it.  (ex. If holy  means whole, then it will behave or function like other words for whole that are in that same class of meanings.  If it means set apart or separate, then it will behave or function like other words of that same class.)

These rules applied to the context of Genesis 2:1-3, yield some interesting results.  The first is that Genesis 2:1-3 is more immediate and perhaps more valuable than all of chapter 1 and the first 3 verses of chapter 2.  Yet there are things in chapter 1 that are significant, when it comes to days and when it comes to the meaning of blessing. 

Blessing as it is used in Genesis 2:1-3 seems to be best understood from blessing's use in chapter 1 and its immediately connected concept of "be fruitful and multiply".  So you can't leave out the full context of Genesis 1:1 -2:3.   These 7 days of creation seem to make together a full unit and story.  So 2:1-3 is not a separate unit as far as the first full account of creation is concerned. 

But also in the larger context, we also find words that could be called synonyms for both possible meanings of holy.   We find the word "divide" feartured in the creation story as a potential synonym for "holy".  Yet we also find potential synonyms for "holy" that mean "whole" in the context of 2:1-3. 

So this context is going to require more observation.  It is a context that on the surface of context can be argued from the rules of context in both directions.  This is no worse than a textual variant, provided we keep both plausible ideas in mind and we continue to search deeper. 

In the future, I hope to approach this passage from 5 different angles by creating 5 separate entries on this porton of Scriptjure.  This entry has focused mainly on the relational or "transering" (see my May entty and other entries) angle of this passage.  It will likely take the other angles to solve this problem in a way that advances either argument.  Don't worry in the meatime.  It can be solved and you are likely already better off, because at least you know the two most plausible definitions already for holy in Genesis 2:1-3 and are not eliminating either one prematurely. 


In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better by Distinguishing Status from Proof

At present, the definition of holy as "set apart" enjoys the greatest status as far as possible definitions of holy.  Prior to its rise in the late 1800s and its continuing rise in the 1900s (the 20th century), the definition of holy as "whole" held the same higher status (with "set apart" as only its secondary or narrow definition).   So it becomes very important for every serious scholar to not substitute status for evidence. 

Status should follow after evidence and it should follow proof.  Status should not itself be proof or evidence.  This sounds quite obvious to anyone acquainted with science or scholarship.  Yet it is easily forgotten.  Luther once said that he preached a theology of the cross, not just a theology of glory.  Good ideas also can suffer for a time. 

Sometimes sitting down with scholars to discuss the definition of holy, I have often (but not always) noted a bias toward "set apart" that is heavily ingrained.  This is likely because of the status of that definition at the present time and because of the status of the scholars that hold that position.  The problem is that status can bias even some of the better scholars against testing two options equally. 

Status itself is not wrong or harmful.  Status is an excellent thing like glory, when it follows from evidence or proof.  But current status is not proof that the definition of holy is correct.  The order cannot be reversed.  I would argue that the number of scholars that hold one definition versus another is something that deserves attention, because in itself it is not wrong.   Yet greater than status is the merits of the argument that resulted in the status. 

This is why in some of my blogs, I point out that some of the evidence from some scholars of status is shaky or probable at best by their own admission.  So their personal status as scholars and their endorsement of a definition for holy cannot rest on their recognized scholarly status. 

The reason my previous blog is so important and why it is taking extra time to complete is because it is an example of my attempt to set aside status from before the year 2000 and before the year 1900 (both are approximate dates for the status change for both definitions).  I want to fully test both of the views alluded to above side by side using recognized units from within Scripture and each unit's immmediate context as the best test for the meaning of holy.  May the better definition and its merits get the status it deserves following the year 2000 (again approximate)!

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy: Understaning It Better Through Genesis 2:1-3

The most important arguments for the meaning of holy come from the biblical text itself for at least two reasons among others.  The first is that the etymology for the Hebrew word for holy is at best probable and not certain.  The second is the sheer volume of the use of the Hebrew word for holy, qadosh. etc., in the biblical text far outweighs the evidence from outside the biblical text.  This is a tremendous asset in trying to solve the problem of defining a word.  The larger the amount of text available, the more likely we are to solve any questions as to meaning.  So I would like to look at the two most likely possibilities for the meaning of holy.  The biblical words for holy in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek could mean either "set apart" or they could mean "whole."  The best method is to test both possibilities side by side to see which one has greater merit.

The best method I have found testing the definition of a word is to try to substitute the definition into the surrounding context and then look for possible parallels to test its meaning.   I am going to begin from the two most popular translations of the Bible that people are likely to know and then I will amend things from the original Hebrew text, if I think it would be helpful in an effort to identify parallels.  Overall, however, I find both of these translations to be the best in reaching the twin goals of being clear and meaningful.  The NKJV, I find is slightly more clear, the NIV is slighty more meaningful.  

In the NKJV (New King James Version), we read:

Genesis 2:1-3

2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 

² And on the seventh day God ended His work

which He had done,

and He rested on the seventh day from all His work

which He had done.

³ Then God blessed the seventh day

and sanctified it,

because in it He rested from all His work

which God had created

and made.

In the NIV (New International Version) (1984), we read:

Genesis 2:1-3

¹ Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
² By the seventh day God had finished the work
he had been doing;
so on the seventh day he rested^[a] from all his work.
³ And God blessed the seventh day
and made it holy,
because on it he rested from all the work of creating
that he had done.


In the NKJV (New King James Version) with substitutions for clarity and with amendments for making things explicit, we read:

Genesis 2:1-3 (with whole for sanctified or holy)

2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and the whole of the host of them, were finished wholly.

² And on the seventh day God finished wholly His work

which He had done,

and He rested on the seventh day from the whole of His work

which He had done.

³ Then God blessed the seventh day

and made [the seventh day observance the] whole [day],

because in it He rested from the whole of  His work

which God had created

and made.

Genesis 2:1-3 (with set apart for sanctified or holy)

2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and the whole of the host of them, were finished wholly.

² And on the seventh day God finished wholly His work

which He had done,

and He rested on the seventh day from the whole of His work

which He had done.

³ Then God blessed the seventh day

and set [the seventh day] apart [from the other six days],

because in it He rested from the whole of His work

which God had created

and made.

In the NIV (New International Version) (1984) with substitutions for clarity and with amendments to make things more explicit, we read:

Genesis 2:1-3 (with whole for sanctified or holy)

¹ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished wholly in the whole of  their vast array.
² By the seventh day God had finished wholly the work
he had been doing;
so on the seventh day he rested^[a] from the whole of  his work.
³ And God blessed the seventh day
and made [the seventh day obervance the] whole [day],
because on it he rested from the whole of the work of creating
that he had done.

Genesis 2:1-3 (with set apart for sanctified or holy)

¹ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished wholly in the whole of their vast array.
² By the seventh day God had finished wholly the work
he had been doing;
so on the seventh day he rested^[a] from the whole of his work.
³ And God blessed the seventh day
and set [the seventh day] apart [from the other six days],
because on it he rested from the whole of the work of creating
that he had done.

So for clarity I substituted in each case for sanctified the words "whole" or "set apart".  For the sake of parallels, I also amended the text to show the similarity between a group of Hebrew words used that are properly connected with the idea of whole.  This is so that the reader can decide for themselves whether the context supports the concept of "whole" more or the context of "set apart" more.  If I leave the words as "all, etc.", it is much more difficult to see the possibility that holy or sanctifies is parallel with "whole" or even complete. 

So now I ask you the reader.  How long can we halt between two opinions?  Which one of the two optoins bears the most evidence from the parallels around it?  One has the support of six days in the context prior to the seventh.  The others has in the verses dealing with the seventh day five words connected with the idea of whole.  I pray I can find more time to develop other texts in this same manner as well. 

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through One Word Versus Many

I don't like confusion and I would guess you don't either.  Recently, I ran across an explanation that I never heard before for why there are so many words that translate the one word in Hebrew and the corresponding one word in Greek that are usually translated as holy.  Desiderius Erasmus, of Reformation fame, understood copiousness to be a distinct advantage in rhetoric or persuasive communication.   What he meant by copiousness is saying one thing in many different ways.  This is probably the best explanation for why translators translate one word in Hebrew and its corresponding one word in Greek by so many words. 

The one root or word in Hebrew can be translated in English by saint, sacred, sanctified, sanctuary, consecrated, hallowed, hallow, Holy One or holy.  Someone could easily see a Latin influence here, but the bigger question is why those words were kept alongside the more Anglo-Saxon words.  In some recent translations, the list gets even longer with set apart or separate.  In some older translations there was also halig and wholly.  Then you can add to this the theological vocabulary of sanctification or holiness.  Then to make matters more confusing saint can be replaced by santa in more popular usage.  At Christmas time it is interesting to realize this last connection. 

For clarity's sake, I would argue that it would have been far more effective to have used one word like holy each time for the one word in Hebrew and its corresponding one word in Greek.  Clarity is there in the original that simply is lacking in many translations because one word is replaced by many words. 

The way to create clarity is to have just one word for one word, where clearly the basic context is the same.  The way to create confusion is to have more than one option, when the context does not demand a different basic meaning.  This is more likely to cause connections to be missed by the average reader.

My own favorite example of this is my missing the connection between holy and "hallowed be Your Name" in the Lord's Prayer.  "Holy be your name" would be much clearer for showing the connection between that statement and "Yahweh [His name] your God is holy." 

I used to think the variety in words for one word came from William Shakespeare and poetic influence.  Maybe some of it did, but Desiderius Erasmus now seems to me a better explantion for an influence on translators.  So while I greatly admire Erasmus for most of what he contributed to scholarship, I think his idea of copiousness for persuasive speech or writing may have been applied inappropriately and it may have created unnecessary confusion in the ordinary English reader's mind. 

So I hope, if nothing else, by understanding this tendency in translation, you will be able to realize that in the majority of cases, the many words for "holy" are really one word.  The most common one word in English translation is holy.  I'd love to see a translation that used only this one word in its different forms, like the original did and like the Greek translation of the Hebrew did in the New Testament.  I think this would eliminate some, but not all, of the confusion out there over what "holy" means, because the connections between different parts of Scripture would be clear.  This would be a small step forward. 

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

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

Holy Means Whole: According to Some Contemporary Scholarship

Sometimes contemporary scholarship is assumed to entirely favor the view that holy means separate or set apart. This isn’t quite true. It is easy to overlook some of its views on the meaning of holy. Mary Douglas, a rather well known anthropologist, apparently is responsible for a number of scholars considering that holy means whole. I mention her and others, because I do not want people to think I am alone in my view from a scholarly perspective.

Other mentionable scholars beyond Mary Douglas include:

Saul Mitchell Olyan @ Brown University
Ronald S. Hendel @ the University of California, Berkeley
Jacob Milgrom, Emeritus @ the University of California, Berkeley
Ralph W. Klein @ Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Gordon Wenham @ Trinity College Bristol
Philip J. Budd @ ??
?? @ Macalaster College, St. Paul, MN
Ronald E. Clements (a possible supporter)

Each of these scholars comes with numerous credentials, when it comes to recognition for their scholarship. Philip J. Budd for example has written the Numbers volume in the Word Biblical Commentary series. Gordon Wenham is well recognized in Evangelical circles as well for his writing.

With Ronald Hendel, I found an extensive Curriculum Vitae (if you know what that is) through the internet. Ralph W. Klein has an extensive web site dedicated to his work. Jacob Milgrom is known for a tremendous Jewish commentary on Numbers. While I cannot endorse everything that these writers each believe, I think there scholarly credentials still have merit on the subject of the meaning of holy.

So I just want those, who think that through surveying a few lexicons that the issue is settled, to realize that humility is required. Those lexicons are not settling the issue so easily for some very credible scholars. I think that is significant. In the future, I will try to address the issue of the evidence from the Hebrew language more directly, but this will have to suffice for now. What I am currently working on is simply taking more time, because I have less time than I wish to work on it. Stay tuned. Thank you.

In Christ,

Jon

Holy Means Whole According to Stephen Charnock

Stephen Charnock (1628 - 1680), Puritan divine, was an Engllish Puritan and Presbyterian clergyman. He is most renowned for a book that was likely published after his death. It is titled: The Existence and Attributes of God. Apparently it was originally a series of sermons.

In this book that I mentioned, he has a very profound pair of quotes that I think are rather significant. They read:

“Power is God’s hand or arm, omniscience His eye mercy His bowels, eternity His duration, but holiness is His beauty.”

“His name, which signifies all His attributes in conjunction is `holy.’”


The most significant of the two is the second, because it may be an important part of the foundation for later thinkers, like Charles Spurgeon, who loved the Puritans, for being convinced that holiness is wholeness. God's name and God's holiness were seen by Spurgeon as being parallel to each other in particular biblical texts and that is one of his reasons for believing that holiness was holiness. It was because it was "all of his attributes in conjunction." That was understood to be the basic idea of a name in Hebrew thought.

Having understood this idea of a conjunction of attributes the following quote about Stephen Charnock himself may prove interesting. To understand his character as a whole, the following quote may best summarize it.

It reads:

But that which gave the finish to Charnock's intellectual character, was not the predominance of any one quality so much as the harmonious and nicely balanced union of all. Acute perception, sound judgment, masculine sense, brilliant imagination, habits of reflection, and a complete mastery over the succession of his thoughts, were all combined in that comely order and that due proportion which go to constitute a well-regulated mind. There was, in his case, none of that disproportionate development of any one particular faculty, which, in some cases, serves, like an overpowering glare, to dim, if not almost to quench the splendour of the rest. The various faculties of his soul, to make use of a figure, rather shone forth like so many glittering stars, from the calm and clear firmament of his mind, each supplying its allotted tribute of light, and contributing to the serene and solemn lustre of the whole. As has been said of another, so may it be said of him—"If it be rare to meet with an individual whose mental faculties are thus admirably balanced, in whom no tyrant faculty usurps dominion over the rest, or erects a despotism on the ruins of the intellectual republic; still more rare is it to meet with such a mind in union with the far higher qualities of religious and moral excellence."


Charnock's concept of a person's name and the idea of holiness being connected with both beauty and a combination of all of God's attributes seem to have played out in his life. They also seem to have been, from my reading elsewhere, part of the foundation for holiness means wholeness, because of the idea of a combination of attributes. This idea is more than a mere folk theory. Even among some scholars today, it is recognized as having this significance in the world of Hebraic thought. When we approach another culture, we must remember that their thoughts may not be our thoughts. So understanding Hebrew culture regarding names is important.

In Christ,

Jon

Holy Means Whole: According to Webster's Word Histories

I thought about writing a summary of my writings for the year, but I did that pretty much in a recent entry. One thing that has always stood out to me is the absurdity of growing up in the 20th century without any sense of holiness meaning wholeness, when this was a very traditional understanding in the English-speaking world of translation. One of the best proofs of this is the many dictionaries that show the etymology of holy having a connection to the meaning of whole. I want to present one of those dictionary etymologies as given in a newer book titled Webster’s Word Histories.


The actual entry is that of Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, but for our purposes I am going to leave out the Ghost and Spirit histories. It is easy to separate it out without doing any injustice to the evidence for the history of the meaning of holy. One other change is that I am going to write out a full meaning for any abbreviations. The actual entry is found on page 223 of Webster’s Word Histories, if you want to read it without any changes.


The entry then reads:


[Holy from Middle English holi, from Old English halig, translation of Late Latin sanctus, translation of Greek Hagion, translation of Hebrew ha-godesh; holy, from Middle English hooli, translation of Late Latin sanctus]


You can check out any standard dictionary for the meaning of the Old English halig. It clearly was tied to the concept of whole or healthy. Our earliest English translators clearly saw a meaning of whole in the word holy as a later replacement for halig. That is the stance of any serious etymology.


I think this should cause all of us to pause at the end of this year and to consider carefully the steps we are following in moving away from a meaning handed down to us by pretty reliable men. John Wycliffe and William Tyndale along with many others gave us a rich tradition of the Bible in our own words. These translators also helped give birth to renewal.


I know that in our day many are big believers in progress. So seeing Wycliffe and Tyndale as reliable seems a bit quaint or odd. Certainly, we say, translation has progressed too. But perhaps we can see them as quite reliable without giving up on progress over time. Could it be that they were right on a fundamental level, yet not entirely right, when it comes to a fuller understanding of what this really means? Did they really make the meaning of whole crystal clear in translation? The possibility that they did not, leaves open the room for plenty of progress, yet not the kind that undercuts the fundamentals. Could it be that our understanding of progress is driving some of us, more than actual evidence regarding the meaning of holy?


We, as Christians, are not today in the midst of any renewal like that of the Reformation. So we need to do at least two things. We need to acknowledge to the world, or at least to the Christian world, that we are questioning the reliability of these Christian men on a very critical fundamental point. It could be a cause for our lack of renewal. Also, if that had been done in the 20th century, I might have sooner known at least that holy might mean whole. As I said earlier, we also need to slow down and consider. We need to ask: “Could we be mistaken?” Perhaps then 2010 might be the year for us to amend our ways.



In Christ,


Jon

Holy Means Whole: According to Micah 3:5

Holy Means Whole: According to Micah 3:5

The Gettysburg Address lasted all of 5 minutes, I believe. The speaker before Lincoln spoke for 1 ½ hours, if I recall correctly. That speaker, who no one remembers, wrote to Lincoln and told him he said more than him during his 5 minutes. I am going to keep this short and still try to say more than a longer discussion. I want to show you an example of how holy means whole has implications for wonderful meaning.

I’ll let you look at the larger context yourself, yet in Micah 3:5d, we read in a literal translation: “they even sanctify a war against him.” Today the meaning would be: “they even set apart a war against him.” To get more meaning you might say that this means “they even make a special war effort against him. “ Yet that might be a stretch for the meaning of setting apart a war. On a common sense level, I am not sure I get the point.

In Micah 3:5d, we could instead see the meaning as “they even put together all the parts of a war against him.” To get even more meaning you might say that this means “they made a very significant effort war effort against him.” Rather than just a partial war against him, they were going to make a whole ware effort against him. They were not going to leave anything out in the overall arsenal of war.

To me, this translation or meaning is far more meaningful than the first. To literally put together all the parts of a war effort against an enemy means you are giving your all which fits with the context of using the word “even.” Even means something goes against expectation. In this context, you might expect their anger resulting in some insignificant efforts, yet you would not expect an all out war effort.

So they are not giving just a half-baked effort, they are giving their all by leaving no part of a war effort out. So holy means whole has very big significance even in small places. I think this is “a wonderful new meaning” to quote Luther on his new understanding of righteousness.

In Christ,

Jon

Holy Means Whole: According to a Persuasive Essay Outline

In How to Write Fast (While Writing Well), the author argues that the outline is the key to writing fast while writing well. To meet my goal of writing every month without failure, I am going to use his insight to write fast, while writing well. The way I am going to do it is to use a persuasive essay outline that I discovered to outline one way to persuade others that holy means whole. So a bared bones outline is what I will present this time.

I. Introduction

A. Get the reader’s attention by using a “hook.” Many in history, who have been accused of being ignorant, actually were those who knew. Many historical examples could be mentioned: Galileo, Luther, Wilberforce, Lincoln, Einstein, etc.
B. Give some background information, if necessary. I would refer you to my earliest postings on my blog for some background. So I will not bore you with more of it here.
C. Thesis or focus statement. My thesis is that if you follow the sound guidelines for learning the meaning of any word you will arrive at holy meaning whole.

II. First argument or reason to support your position. It is that traditionally many have believed that holy means whole. It is only during the 20th century that things were turned upside down.

A. Topic sentence explaining your point. Martin Luther, John Calvin, Richard Hooker, John Wesley (rather Johann Bengel his favorite commentator) and Charles Spurgeon all agree that the primary definition of holiness is wholeness.
B. Elaboration to back your point. These all believed that holiness means wholeness based on the scholarship of their day. It is also true that during these times and under their leadership and with this understanding they led renewal movements. I think it is important to contrast the effects of their understanding with our own when we are in a declining movement rather than renewal movement.

III. Second argument or reason to support your position.

A. Topic sentence explaining your point. The idea that holy means whole is backed up by scholarship grounded in a very simple object called a rock that everyone can understand.
B. Elaboration to back your point. Mary Douglas, a famous anthropologist, uses parallel passages to suggest that holy means whole, because a physical object known as a rock is whole. This should be very easy to understand once we agree on the parallel.

IV. Third argument or reason to support your position.

A. Topic sentence explaining your point. Ancient Hebrew script could ultimately be the best argument for holy means whole.
B. Elaboration to back your point. Jeff Benner has demonstrated a connection between Ancient Hebrew Script and the idea of pictographs that express ideas. What is left is more detailed analysis of the root letters for holy.

V. Opposing viewpoint to show that I have considered another point of view and have a rebuttal to it. I have considered the opposing view and found it originally hard to change my point of view from what I grew up with.

A. Opposing point to my argument. The opposing point to my argument is the idea that the root idea of holy is separate or to be set apart.
B. My rebuttal to the opposing point. My rebuttal is that scholars who hold this point admit that this point of view is controversial. The problem is that this is often not pointed out in many of the lexicons that pastors rely upon, so that the argument appears, but is not really, a slam dunk.
C. Elaboration to back your rebuttal. No original research can seriously deny this point. This is admitted by people like Rudolph Otto who then make their choice for separate based on philosophical reasons not linguistic reasons.

VI. Conclusion

A. Summary of main points or reasons. To summarize, there are at least 3 major reasons supporting the idea that holy means whole. There is historical precedent during times of reformation, renewal or revival. There is scientific evidence grounded in a simple object like a rock. There is the potential for Ancient Hebrew letters to give us further insight.
B. Restate your thesis statement. My thesis is that if you follow the sound guidelines for learning the meaning of any word you will arrive at holy meaning whole.
C. Personal comment or a call to action. I have always tried to be a team player as an athlete. I think we need the same in the case learning the meaning of holy. I want to work with a team of people including scholars and other kinds of support help that can prove once and for all the meaning of holy. In the end, this word is too important for us to be uncertain about, when it comes to its meaning. Let’s do something rather than leave things as they are. PLEASE JOIN WITH ME IN ANY WAY YOU CAN.

Thank you.

In Christ,

Jon

Holy Means Whole: According to the Forgotten Ways

When I first discovered the idea that holy means whole, I was a bit startled by its seeming novelty. I had never heard the idea before November 2004. That was until I researched the way the word for holy was translated in the King James Version, using Strong’s Concordance. There showed up the translation of the original for holy as wholly. This was what originally initiated my search. Since then, I have discovered that the idea was not novel, but forgotten.

Somehow the far right, the far left and the mushy middle forgot to pass it on to those of us who were born in the twentieth century. I’ve been asked how this could have happened or did happen. I think I can now venture a good idea as to how this happened. But before I say how it happened, I think it is important to point out that it happened for both unintended and intended reasons.

Sometimes crisis events prevail over accurate definitions. In the late 1800s, there are two crisis events that in turn changed the definition of holy. The first was a quest for clarity and a scientific basis for the meaning of biblical words. The second was a response to the quest to be clear and scientific.

I have to simplify the story, so I will make it about just two historical characters. The first is Julius Wellhausen. The second is Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Both are villains and heroes, depending on who you talk to and who knows who they are. Wellhausen is sometimes credited with first establishing credibility for the critical study of the Bible. Spurgeon is sometimes credited with first establishing a beachhead in response to critical study. Let’s live with these oversimplifications for our purposes.

Wellhausen had a pretty significant event in his life, when he had a falling out with his theological mentor, Ewald. From the climate of that time in Germany, there was a strong emphasis on being scientific. One had to have clear ideas in order for something to possess intelligence, to paraphrase Wellhausen. He did not find that in Ewald’s approach to the Bible.

Further, Wellhausen’s efforts had to be objective in order to be scientific. Part of this, was the conviction that a person must study, not just Hebrew religion and Christian religion, but also the other religions of the Ancient Near Eastern world. In this way, by demonstrating objectivity in at least initially treating all religions in that time and place as equals, one could establish credibility in the scientific realm.

Yet the implications were greater than that, because with this objectivity, there also was a belief that there might be themes that all religions held in common. One of those themes was believed to be a distinction between the taboo items of life and the ordinary items of life. Taboo things were things restricted to the sacred and the ordinary things were the common items of everyday life. The idea of holy in Judaism and Christianity supposedly were restricted by taboo and therefore sacred. They were set apart. The profane were the things not under restriction and therefore secular.

Being scientific about the meaning of holy in the original writings is a little more complicated than it is with many words. Some have what is called a clear etymology or a clear line from one word to another that helps us determine its meaning. For holy this is controversial rather than clear. This is the admission of every serious scholar. So into this vacuum stepped the insight of what was discovered in other religions, that there are items which are taboo or set apart and that there are items which are profane or common. So much for one part of our story. This is the root story for the far left side of the tracks.

Spurgeon’s efforts had to have credibility as well. He was not opposed to being objective, but he questioned some of the objectivity of Wellhausen and others, who felt comfortable with some critical views on Scripture that Spurgeon could not agree was objective. This came to a head, while he was part of what was called the Baptist Union.

Spurgeon ended up leaving the Baptist Union, following his accusation that some of its members were on a downgrade path in regard to Scripture. So the controversy became known as the Downgrade Controversy. Spurgeon’s favorite call to others of like mind was to “come out and be separate.”
This battle cry from the midst of a crisis, appears to have replaced Spurgeon’s earlier definition of holiness as wholeness. As he says in one of his sermons about holiness means wholeness, “as I have said many times.” Instead, following the controversy and even more his death not many years after, the definition for holiness took on the idea of “be separate.” So much for another part of this story. This is a root story for the far right side of the tracks.

The evangelicals at this time, were regarded by people like Spurgeon as weaker comrades in the battle against any kind of downgrade. The movement on the issue of holiness seems to have tried to steer a middle course in this controversy. It seems to have contributed very little, except perhaps wedding the idea of set apart to that of be separate. That was their so-called weaker course of peace. They later appeared more comfortable with the pursuit of being scientific in the twentieth century. So much for the final part of this story. This is a root story for the evangelical middle of the tracks.

What was lost in all of these movements and events was that the meaning of holy shifted. It shifted from primarily meaning whole according to Luther, Calvin (see later Jonathan Edwards), (Richard) Hooker, Wesley?? (see his favorite commentator, John Bengel), and Spurgeon. They did also recognize a secondary meaning of separate.

It did not matter whether losing the idea of whole as the primary definition was intentional or not. It got lost and forgotten. I want to recover our forgotten ways.

A forgotten idea may seem novel, until it is realized it was forgotten. It is no longer totally new when it is in fact old. If you want to see the tip of the iceberg of what was lost, please see my earlier posts, especially the oldest. We badly need renewal. A movement with ties to the past (re=again), with ties to the present (new) and ties to the future (al=for all of time). We need to continue improvements, yet we need the past too.


In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy Means Whole: According to C. H. Spurgeon

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the greatest Baptist who ever lived, was one of my college favorites. He had this and other things to say about the meaning of holy:


"In a word, we must labor for holiness of character. What is holiness? Is it not wholeness of character? A balanced condition in which there is neither lack nor redundance. It is not morality, that is a cold, lifeless statue; holiness is life. You must have holiness; ...." He said this in a sermon titled "Forward!" You can access this at: http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/aarm02.htm. You can also access other things he has said through the links I provide on the right margin of my blog.


He also had other things to say about holiness. He connects holiness with a sense of separation or being separate in other sermons. I would never deny this. This should not surprise us, since he felt such an affinity with the Puritans and their sometimes separatist cause. I don't want to misrepresent Spurgeon.


It is likely that Spurgeon followed the Protestant scholarship that preceded him that saw holiness as first wholeness and as second separation. Yet it also remains to be studied as to whether he may have forged a path connecting holiness and wholeness more strongly and more clearly than Protestants before him. He was as a Baptist very committed to knowledge and to discernment, after all is said and done. That is a core value of being a Baptist.


The thing that is very relevant for our time is how much minds forged in the twentieth century missed out on hearing Spurgeon's connection between holiness and wholeness. For all the talk of fundamentalists saying that they preserved faithfully the faith of our fathers, they clearly failed on the subject of holiness. Instead, they either in their eagerness to separate from critical scholarship fled to the meaning of separation exclusive of wholeness on their own or they bought into liberal scholarship's conclusion that holy means to be separate. I imagine more the former than the latter, though the latter later backed them up ironically.


Yet in the minds of many people, wholeness makes no sense as being connected with holiness. It instead carries with it an uneasy sense of resistance. I think it is important to understand how the brain works to understand this mental resistance.


According to some experts, the mind works in in four realms. It consists of the memory of things, the language of action, the thought of ideas and the emotions of clarity. All of this together weighs against the introduction of even reality.

First, many have no memory of hearing that holiness is wholenes, if they grew up in the twentieth century. Second, a person may never have used holiness that way in their use of language. Third, ideas of holiness would all connect with separation, but not with being whole. Finally, a person's emotions are tied up in all of this, because it seemed so clear that holy means to be separate.

Yet, if you go back to the memory in the minds of the Protestant tradition and likely other traditions too, then you must also consider that you are not dealing with just with your memory, but also with the other aspects of your mind. You don't just need to reconsider what you were taught and what you remember. You need to deal with more than that to change your mind about something.


To persuade your mind that it is right to say that holiness is wholeness, you will also have to deal with your emotions which thought previously of only the one definition of separation. Now, by nature of having two possibilities for the definition of holy rather than just one, things will not be so clear and your emotions not quite so settled.

I am warning you that if or when you consider that holiness is wholeness, then you may experience a roller coaster ride of sorts for some time period. Clarity is built on one option versus many options and emotions are built on top of those in our nervous system. The sequence proceeds from one (versus many) then to clarity and then to emotions. So be prepared for an emotional reaction or resistance.

Yet in the end, I have felt a peace of mind and emotions that I have never felt before. It is not a starting point for proving my point. But I am saying that there is peace on the other side of a sometimes fearful questioning of what your mind once considered settled. I began writing this blog to jog people's memories. Now I realize I have more to do, because I also have to deal with the emotions of the mind and nervous system as well. May God richly bless your day.



In Christ,


Pastor Jon