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: 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 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

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

Holy Means Whole_According to John Howe (1670)

"This may be said to be a transcendental attribute, that, as it were, runs through the rest, and casts luster upon them. It is an attribute of attributes."

Howe partly argues for his from the statement "the beauty of holiness" (Psalm 110:3). He was apparently well known in Reformed or Presbyterian circles.

In Christ,

Jon

Holy Means Whole: According to Golden and Greatest

UPSETTING THE EQUILIBRIUM (OOPS)

Sometimes Christians are guilty of saying things are OK, when they are not. I remember one such instance, when I was around 10 years old. Our Sunday School teacher asked us this question: “What does love mean?” One thing still stands out to me. I wasn’t as sure I knew what love meant leaving the class as I was when I had come into it. I’m afraid that sometimes children's and adult's experiences with knowing the meaning of holy can be equally unsettling. That is not OK.

There is a number of possible reasons for why I felt uneasy and I am sure my teacher may have felt like saying: "Oops, I left my students a bit overwhelmed." She might have seen it in our faces.

ANALYZING THE DISCREPANCY (UGH)

Maybe I misunderstood the teacher, though it is doubtful based on me offering what she considered the best attempt at defining it. I think the rest of the class was overwhelmed too. Then again, maybe I was daydreaming and missed her great answer right at the end. I suppose I’ve done that once in a while. Maybe the teacher used a bad technique in teaching. I suppose this is possible because I have had wonderful experiences in the Sunday School on other days. Maybe one of my classmates was a bad distraction that day. Actually, I think we were pretty well behaved that day. Or maybe the ultimate culprit is my feeling of comfort before we tried to define holy. Maybe my understanding just wasn’t that good (“caring” was my definition), so I needed to be challenged. This could produce a hot debate.

Trying to figure out the culprit that day is not easy. It is made even more difficult by the fact that this is a 40 year old cold case. I’m not sure even Agatha Christie could make this story come alive. I think if I ask the question of what went wrong that day I would hear as many reasons for why as I would definitions of love on that Sunday morning 40 years ago. So things can get worse through this line of investigation rather than better. Likewise, if we can’t agree on the meaning of love or what went wrong in trying to define it, what hope do we have that we can define holy?

DISCLOSING THE CLUE TO RESOLUTION (AHA)

There might be a clue in the Bible itself that might allow us to solve this 40 year old cold case, even if the facts are not all that clear compared to years ago. Maybe we can find a clue not investigated 40 years ago.

Many people are likely familiar with 2 lines in the Bible. They are: 1) The Golden Rule and 2) The 2nd Greatest Commandment. The Golden Rule (a clear English translation) reads: “Do for others what you want them to do for you.” The 2nd Greatest Commandment reads: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

At first glance these two statements may seem equally easy, but I would argue that it is more likely someone would reach for a dictionary more often on the 2nd Greatest Commandment than on the Golden Rule. For some pastors, the dictionary is the first tool in their tool box. What if they didn’t need to reach for a dictionary as often or you didn’t have to either? What if the definitions for the words of the 2nd Greatest Commandment were in the Bible itself, only hidden from our view by our culture’s educational practices and brought to our view by the Bible’s own educational practices?

In the letter to the Hebrews, part of the the Biblical pattern of education is disclosed. The teacher is to move from milk to solid food, not from solid to food to milk. Likewise, the central point of the statement is that a person should not be satisfied with milk. Another implication is that a person is not a teacher unless they can handle solid food.

One specific example of solid food is “the word of righteousness.” It is pretty well known that this is not initially an easy word to understand. I would argue that the word of love has the same status even though we consider it to be simpler to understand. Here is my reason why. It is that they are both, at a minimum, complex ideas. They require more than just one word to define them. That is why care is not quite adequate to define love, even if it is a step in the right direction. This has big implications for our 40 year old cold case.

This would mean that the teacher was not asking us 10 year olds (maybe only 8 or 9) a milk question, but a solid food question. This would further mean that because we were at most only 10 years old, we were probably not yet equipped to handle the question. That’s probably the real reason I felt unsettled, not because my answer was unsatisfactory and as a 10 year old I needed to be challenged more. My classmates and I had been introduced to a topic over our heads. I would say further that the word of holy is in the same class as righteousness and love in terms of complexity. It can likewise overwhelm us at stages in life.

So what can be done? In our Christian education growing up, we were most likely introduced to the Golden Rule and the 2nd Greatest Commandment around the same time. In fact, I hear fairly often the 2nd Greatest Commandment declared basic even now. Yet, if one is milk and the other solid food, they should not be introduced at the same time in one’s development. Also, what if Golden is a clue to the value of this rule as a youthful statement of meaning? What if we are to tach the Golden Rule first and the 2nd Greatest Commandment second, so it follows the first and is seen as not basic but at the pinnacle of Biblical education? What too are the implications for understanding holy, if it too is on the solid food level?

Let’s experiment with the method of placing the Golden rule in the place of milk and the 2nd Greatest Comandment in the place of solid food. Let’s see if the milk of the Golden Rule helps us later digest solid food of the 2nd Greatest Commandment.

The way I am going to display this method is to write out the 2nd Greatest Commandment/solid food and then write in parentheses behind each word of the commandment words from the Golden Rule/milk. In a 2nd stage I will add block parentheses for words to give a fuller meaning to the commandment.

The 2nd Greatest Commandment reads:
Love (do for) your (you) neighbor (others) as (what you want them to do for) yourself (you).

Notice the simple definitions you can equip people with for understanding more complex ideas. And these definitions are right out of the Bible itself. Please don’t throw any of your dictionaries quite yet.

The 2nd Greatest Commandment reads again (now with added block parentheses):
Love ([all kinds] do for) your ([of] you) neighbor ([nearest] others) as (what you want them [others] to [all kinds] do for) yourself ([self {all of hearts, soul, strength, mind}] of you).

Notice this even better demonstration of the complexity of the 2nd Greatest Commandment over the Golden Rule. While the Golden Rule is very good at explaining the basics it is not equal in greatness to the 2nd Greatest Commandment. It is like comparing milk and solid food.

Yet moving toward a solution to our earlier problem in Sunday school requires moving in the opposite direction and seeing the hidden value of something golden or something that is called milk. Love is far easier to grasp, if you begin by defining it with “do for.” Your and yourself are much easier, if you begin from “you.” As is far easier to grasp, if you think of “what you want them to do for you.” It expresses equality and justice at a pretty basic level. So likewise I would argue that we need to know the milk word behind the solid meat word to really understand what holy means. Holy is solid food. What would be its parallel milk word?

Let me share with you some baby steps or should I say milk steps in the area of what might be the gold before the greatest when it comes to holy. I believe the place to begin to understand holy is with the simpler concepts of the body and its members. That is what I believe is the milk of the Word that needs to precede the solid food of the Word. These need to precede holy and its parts.

My strongest argument for this idea right now is the frequency of the words involving these topics – body, members, feet, foot, eye, hand, finger, etc. and that frequency in writing can point to its level of importance in language. I also believe that this is a popular analogy with Paul and Jesus. Likewise we know holy is very important and very frequently used involving – holy, holiness, sanctification, sanctify, hallow, etc. We also know its importance from: “holy, holy, holy.” So they could have a connection like the Golden Rule and the 2nd Greatest Commandment, because of their equivalent importance on their respective levels.

To use actual Biblical texts as a starting point, I think the Bible moves from milk to solid food or from Golden to Greatest in the following:
“… the body is one and has many members and all the members, though many, are one body….” (1 Cor. 12:12 – in part).
“Because it is written, `Be holy for I am holy.’” (1 Peter 1:16 – in part)

Let me demonstrate how this works out through a process similar to what I did before:
Be holy (one and has many members) for I am holy (all the members, though many, are one).

In plain language, this is all I have ever been saying in anything I have written previously in trying to define holy. It is that basic on the level of milk.

These texts above may not be the most important texts in the Bible for what I am saying, but I do think that they are at least baby or milk steps in the right direction. When I get more time, I will come up with the best two texts to use.

EXPERIENCING & ANTICIPATING CONSEQUENCES (YEAH)

A major part of my confidence is in the idea that both milk and solid food have this is in common, that they are both healthy. Holy should produce healthy consequences like the importance of the body and not just singular members. They should have things in common like that of the Golden Rule and that of the 2nd Greatest Commandment.

So in summary, I believe we need to do the following:

· Proceed from milk to solid food, from golden (least) to greatest
· Use milk words as the Bible’s own internal dictionary for solid food words
· Don’t overload or overwhelm children with solid food nor let adults be satisfied with milk
· Use this method of milk to solid food to clarify solid food words like holy, righteous or love
· Lastly, discover the culprit who has reversed the order to solid food to milk.

I don't think my teacher was the primary culprit since she probably was not the first nor the last. Besides this I am convinced she loved us in the truest sense, so I doubt she reversed things intentionally.

Please be aware that my confidence in writing about holy does not come so much from my grasp of greatest things as in my grasp of least things. My understanding of “this little piggy went to market,” apparently from Mother Goose origin and definitely from my mother, has a lot to do with my confidence. I got what my mother was trying to teach me about my body and its members. So I understand very well the healthy teaching of the concept of the body and its members. It is my best explanation for the meaning of holy I have argued for up to this moment. This is what I mean when I say holy means whole.

I am suggesting that holy is a healthy continuation from body like love is from do for. Like moving from milk to solid food there is a healthy continuation from the stage of childhood to adulthood. The food needs change. Milk alone is a very poor diet and unhealthy. But the solid food choices in this world are inexhaustible, so not as easy as an early diet. I think likewise love, righteousness and holiness are inexhaustible ideas that have a complexity to them that simple ideas alone do not grasp. You can use a number of these simple ideas to define them, but one alone does not suffice.

Please join with me in proceeding from the least to the greatest, but don’t lose the gold of the least or lose yourself in the idea that only the greatest words deserve your attention. Then it will be alright for Christians to say things are OK, when it comes to education in the church. It will also assist the church in seeing that holy means whole. Then things will truly be OK.

Sincerely,

Jon

Holy Means Whole: According to Thomas Cranmer

Thomas Cranmer and Richard Hooker are to Anglicans or Episcopalians what Martin Luther and Philip Melanchton are to Lutherans. The parallels are not at all exact, but the importance of each pair of leaders is very close. There are two reasons why I think Thomas Cranmer and Richard Hooker both recognized holy as meaning whole.

First is that historically both were very close to our earlier translators like Wycliffe and Tyndale, the latter who clearly used holy to replace an earlier English word that clearly meant whole to every single etymologist I have ever read. I have developed this argument elsewhere in talking about earlier dictionaries and I won’t develop that argument more here. Second is that the word that is often translated “healthy” or “sound” in our translations today was translated by “wholesome” by Tyndale at the time of Cranmer.

What I want to do is introduce you to this word “wholesome,” because it is popular in early Anglican writers like Cranmer and Hooker and because it also has an effect much like the word whole. So let me quote Cranmer in some key instances, Tyndale’s translation of Titus a few times and Hooker once at least.

So here is Cranmer in his own words (wholesome in italics and bolded):

Will you faithfully exercise yourself in the same holy Scriptures, and call upon God by prayer, for the true understanding of the same; so as ye may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome doctrine, and to withstand and convince the gainsayers?

It is from what is called as late as 1928: “Form and Manner of Ordering Priests." I have not located a great source on the internet yet. I will do more research and add an internet source later.

XI. Of the Justification of Man. We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.
XXV. Of the Sacraments. Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.
XXXV. Of the Homilies.
The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may he understanded of the people.

Selections from: The Thirty-Nine Articles of 1801 (still showing Cranmer’s influence) found at:
http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html.


Therefore now to come to the second and latter part of my purpose. There is nothing so good in this world, but it may be abused, and turned from unhurtful and wholesome, to hurtful and noisome.

Selection from: Thomas Cranmer’s Preface to the Great Bible found at: http://www.bible-researcher.com/cranmer.html.



From William Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament we read:

Titus 1:9
and such as cleaveth unto the true word of doctrine, that he may be able to exhort with wholesome learning, and to improve them that say against it.

Titus 2:1
But speak thou that which becometh wholesome learning:

Titus 2:8
and {with} the wholesome word which cannot be rebuked, that he which withstandeth may be ashamed, having no thing in you that he may dispraise.

Selections from: THE NEW TESTAMENT (Tyndale, Rogers, Coverdale, Cranmer): Titus found at: http://faithofgod.net/TyNT/tt.htm#content.

Then from a sermon by Richard Hooker in two places:

The reason whereof being not perceived, but by greater intention of brain than our nice minds for the most part can well away with, fain we would bring the world, if we might, to think it but a needless curiosity to rip up any thing further than extemporal readiness of wit doth serve to reach unto. Which course if here we did list to follow, we might tell you, that in the first branch of this sentence God doth condemn the Babylonian’s pride; and in the second, teach what happiness ofc state shall grow to the righteous by the constancy of their faith, notwithstanding the troubles which now they suffer; and, after certain notes of wholesome instruction hereupon collected, pass over without detaining your minds in any further removed speculation. But, as I take it, there is a difference between the talk that beseemeth nursesd amongst children, and that which men of capacity and judgment do or should receive instruction by.

But as unruly children, with whom wholesome admonition prevaileth little, are notwithstanding brought to fear that ever after which they have once well smarted for; so the mind which falleth not with instruction, yet under the rod of divine chastisement ceaseth to swell. If, therefore, the prophet David, instructed by good experience, have acknowledged, Lord I was even at the point of clean forgetting myself, and ofn1 straying from my right mind, but thy rod hath been my reformer; it hath been good for me, even as much as my soul is worth, that I have been with sorrow troubled: if the blessed Apostle did need the corrosive of sharp and bitter strokes, lest his heart should swell with too great abundance of heavenly revelations2 : surely, upon us whatsoever God in this world doth or shall inflict, it cannot seem more than our pride doth exact, not only by way of revenge, but of remedy.

Selections from A LEARNED SEROMON ON THE NATURE OF PRIDE 1. Found at: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=923&chapter=85514&layout=html&Itemid=27.

It seems to me as I read Cranmer, Tyndale’s translation of Titus or Hooker that “wholesome” easily fell from their lips, as if it was a major theme for them. I know I did not hear it, when I was growing up in an evangelical and Baptist tradition. This pursuit of being "wholesome" like the pursuit of being healthy or sound from our modern translations, seems to have lead to a similar outcome to what you would see with holy meaning whole. You could say the parallel is that healthy means “wholesome” for them. I should note also that the letters used for spelling "wholesome" in the Greek original are very similar to those used for "holy" in the Greek original. This is worthy of some serious study, if not already consideration.

I think this lends some support to the historic idea of historica Anglican comprehensiveness being an expression of being "wholesome" or being healthy or sound. I wonder too if this word “wholesome” isn’t the root from which the Anglican and Episcopalian idea of comprehensiveness first grew.
If so, then I would have to back off from my earlier idea that possibly its main root was holy. While that proposal was made by an Anglican, my further research has not shown much fruit or much support among those with the experience and credentials to know.

I wonder too if "wholesome" is not also a strong idea alongside of holy supporting the concept of the importance of being whole. The nature of Hooker’s writing itself has a style that strives for completeness or wholeness of thought.

As I make these observations, it strengthens my idea that this is one of the key areas where Anglicanism and the Episcopal Church have gone astray. It seems that they have lost track of their biblical moorings dating back to Cranmer, Tyndale and Hooker.

It also convinces me that I need to study this more with Anglicans and Episcopalians by my side to see if in fact these things are true. That is why I have enrolled in studying this tradition on a post-graduate level. With the Lord’s provision, which I am still waiting on, I hope to being studying these things more this summer. Please pray that He may guide my steps, even as I get my feet wet in trying to follow His will and in studying His Word.


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 What If ....

There is a great possibility that the definition of holy could be become clear, rather than controversial once and for all. There are a few keys to this. One is discovering the meaning of the word through its symbols or letters.

I was in Northern Wisconsin earlier this summer and I heard a very interesting presentation on Chinese characters and their ancient meanings. This got me thinking about Hebrew characters and their ancient meanings. So let me present a possibility that is incredible, if it is true.

In short summary, the presenter this last summer tried to argue that ancient Chinese character combinations pointed back to the story of creation. In other words, their combinations were based on a story that tied their individual concrete meanings together. I will not go into detail here, but let me say that the implication I saw was that possibly Hebrew characters did something similar.

Jeff A. Benner has written a book titled, "The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible." He argues in it that the ancient forms of Hebrew letters were pictographs. So he starts to formulate meanings based on ancient pictographs, rather than on later understandings of a word's meaning. One of my greatest linguistics professors, Dr. William A. Smalley, once said about both major lines of writing that, "writing developed originally out of representation of messages in pictures." The problem though according to Smalley was that "picture language has severe limitations." That is why written language developed further. So knowing this and after examining the early portions of Benner's lexicon, I think Benner's idea holds great promise.

Unfortunately, when Benner comes to holy, he relies on later scholarly opinion, rather than on his own method of using ancient pictographs. He violates his own insights. I have written to him on this and I have not yet heard back. Yet I want to share with you now a possibility based on his method. So the idea of possibility is why I titled this piece, "Holy Means Whole: According to What If ...."

What I want to attempt to do is use Jeff's insights with some insights from Dr. Smalley. Dr. Smalley once said:

Imagine, for example, a picture (or sequence of pictures) showing a person lying on a bier, with symbols of royal status, and some people wailing. This could well convey a message expressed in a various ways in English, including the following:

"The king is dead and the people are mourning."
"People are mourning, because the king has died."
"The king has died and is lying in state; people are coming to mourn."
"We mourn, because our king has passed away."

This shows some of the difficulty in using pictographs, yet it also shows how pictographs might function in communicating a message or messages. So I want to show what the pictographs Jeff proposes could mean.

There are four pictographs that make up the word holy in ancient Hebrew. Reading right to left in Hebrew:

1) a picture of the sun at the horizon
2) a picture of a tent peg
3) a picture of a tent door
4) a picture of two front teeth.

It is difficult to understand at first glance, why these objects would be related to each other. Yet it may be possible to imagine a way they are related. Imagine them with their opposites:

1) A sun at the horizon (sunset) versus a sun at high noon (midday)
2) A tent peg versus no peg
3) A tent door versus a tent wall
4) Two front teeth versus being toothless (upfront).

Their meanings then could be:

1) all of a thing versus some of a thing
2) it could be connected versus unconnected
3) it could be moving versus immoveable
4) discerning versus undiscerning.

What is hardest to imagine is the way these things are part of the same picture. How do these pictures form a whole or communicate a message together?

Here is a possibility:

1) all = Amount
2) connected = Relationship
3) moving = Action
4) discerning = Thing

Dr. Smalley and others like Dr. Dan Shaw taught me a Wycliffe method of recognizing basic meanings in language or in words. There were four parts of meaning that made up the whole of meaning. Each of these pictographs could be communicating a concept of language that are connected at a fundamental level to include all the meanings or parts of communication. This is what would be incredible.

Holy, as an ancient pictograph, could then communicate to us that:

in amount, we are expected to give our all as pictured in a sunset at the end of a full day,
in relationship, we are expected to be connected as pictured in a a tent peg that connects a tent
to the ground,
in action, we are expected to be moving as pictured in a tent door that moves when we push it,
in thing, we are expected to be discerning as pictured in teeth that separate one thing from
another.

Holy would then mean the whole, because each of its parts of the whole would be represented in each of the pictures. They would be an ancient object lesson or picture lesson for the people.

These ancient meanings could also explain why the root meanings that have been proposed for holy are diverse. One meaning for holy that has been proposed that has been proposed for boosting the definition of being whole is that of shining. Obviously this connects with the first pictograph. The other meaning for holy that has been proposed is connected with being separate. Obviously this connects with the fourth pictograph. This could bring clarity to the situation as to where historical definitions got their ideas.

All I can say is that would it not be something, if what I propose as possible is also true? It could give us not only a settlement of controversy, but a picture of what holiness is supposed to look like. A concrete picture might be the greatest blessing of all!

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy Means Whole: According to Richard Hooker

Generally speaking the core value that is most promoted in the Episcopal debates over their identity is that of comprehensiveness or inclusiveness. The question that is open for debate is what the origin for this value is.

Some argue that it comes from the mediating position of the Anglican Church between that of Catholicism and that of Protestantism. This is what makes it comprehensive or inclusive. This idea of following a middle course then is the determining factor in what comprehensiveness means. Add to this the fact that comprehensiveness is the idea behind the great debates currently happening in the Episcopal and Anglican Churches over homosexuality and then you realize this is no small matter.

The difficulty is that finding the true historical roots for comprehensiveness is not easy nor is it without controversy. Back in 2004 or 2005 I ran across a person who argued that the root meaning for comprehensiveness came from the meaning of holiness or wholeness. Unfortunately for me, this person’s writings on the internet on no longer available at the link I had discovered. He also argued that Richard Hooker was the key author behind this idea.

I think you could argue that it would go back further than Hooker and it would have to originate at least in Cranmer, if this argument is true. This is because Cranmer included in parts of the prayer book or the 39 articles the concept of wholesome. You might even have to go back to a translator named John Wycliffe and argue that his understanding of holiness and wholeness as synonymous is significant.

Yet Richard Hooker is one of the key people in the debate as to the meaning of being an Anglican or an Episcopalian. Both sides of the current debates claim an historical legacy to support their cause.

I think it is not controversial to say that one of the core values of being an Anglican or Episcopalian has to be their comprehensiveness in the sense of wholeness. To pick just one prominent example, their stance is that of recognizing 5 solas in the place of Luther’s 3 solas. On a core value level they instinctually identify when others have left some things out.

Richard Hooker once preached a sermon titled: “A Learned and Comfortable Sermon of Certainty and Perpetuity.” In that sermon he had this among many other things to say: “The truth of some things is so evident, that no man which hears them can doubt them: As when we hear, that a part of anything is less than the whole, the mind is constrained to say this is true.”

I think this is a core value of Anglicanism, when you see the architectural magnificence of Hooker’s writings and when you see 5 solas rather than just 3. They are not satisfied with just some of the parts of anything. They strive also for the whole. They see the whole as greater.

Whether or not holiness or wholeness is the origin for the idea of comprehensiveness or not, though I suspect it is, the value of wholeness is at least one of the core values of Anglicans and Episcopalians.

I wish they would come back to this core value. It would be helpful to both sides of their titanic debate. It might even solve their greatest problems and weaknesses in the debate.

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 Andrew Murray, Part II

Here is the other part from Murray that I could not wait to get out on the internet. It reads in part:


Note C (p. 208)
The Holiness of God

There is not a word so exclusively scriptural, so distinctly divine, as the word holy in its revelation and its meaning. As a consequence of this divine origin, it is a word of inexhaustible significance. There is not one of the attributes of God which theologians have found so hard to define, or concerning which they differ so much. A short survey of the various views that have been taken may teach us how little the idea of the divine Holiness can be comprehended or exhausted by human definition, and how it is only in the life of fellowship and adoration that the holiness which passes all understanding can, as a truth and a reality, be apprehended.
1. The most external view, in which the ethical was very much lost sight of, is that in which holiness is identified with God’s separateness from creation, and elevation above it. Holiness was defined as the incomparable glory of God, his exclusive adorableness, his infinite majesty. Sufficient attention was not paid to the fact that though all these thoughts are closely connected with God’s Holiness, they are but a formal definition of the results and surroundings of the Holiness, but do not lead jus to the apprehension of that wherein its real essence consists.

2. Another view [from #1], which also commences from the external, and makes that the basis of its interpretation, regards holiness as simply an expression of a relation. Because what was set apart for God’s service was called holy, the idea of separation, of consecration, of ownership, is taken as the starting-point. And so, because we are said to be holy, as belonging to God, God is holy as claiming us and belonging to us too. Instead of regarding holiness as a positive reality in the divine nature, from which our holiness is to be derived, our holiness is made the starting-point for expounding the Holiness of God. `God is holy as being, within the covenant, not only the Proprietor, but the Property of his people, their highest good and their only rule’ (Diestel). Of this view mention has already been made in the note to Sixth Day on Holiness as Proprietorship.

3. Passing over [from #2] to the views of those who regard holiness as being a moral attribute, the most common one is that of purity, freedom from sin. `Holiness is a general term for the moral excellence of God. There is none holy as the Lord: no other being absolutely pure and free from all limitations in his moral perfection. Holiness, on the one hand, implies entire freedom from moral evil, upon the other, absolute moral perfection’ (Hodge, Systematic Theology). The idea of holiness as the infinite purity which is free from all sin, which hates and punishes hit, is what in conception is the most prominent idea. The negative stands more in the foreground than the positive. The view has its truth and its value from the fact that in our sinful state the first impression the Holiness of God must make is that of fear and dread in the consciousness of our sinfulness and unholiness. But it does not tell us wherein his moral excellence or perfection of God really consists.

4. It is an advance on this view [#3] when the attempt is made to define what this perfection of God is. A thing is perfect when it is in everything as it ought to be. It is easy thus to define perfection, but not so easy to define what the perfection f any special object is: this needs the knowledge of what is nature is. And we have to rest content with very general terms defining God’s Holiness as the essential and absolute good. `Holiness is the free, deliberate, calm, and immutable affirmation of himself, who is goodness, or of goodness, which is himself’ (Godet on John 17:11). `Holiness is that attribute in virtue of which Jehovah makes himself the absolute standard of himself, of his being and revelation.’ [likely Godet again]

5. Closely allied to this [“#4] is the view that holiness is not so much an attribute, but the `whole complex of that which we are wont to look at and represent singly in the individual attributes of God.’ So [Johann] Bengel looked upon holiness as the divine nature, in which all the attributes are contained. In the same spirit Howe says of holiness as the divine beauty, the result of the perfect harmony of all the attributes., `Holiness is intellectual beauty. Divine holiness is the most perfect beauty, and the measure of all other. The divine Holiness is the most perfect pulchritude [def. physical beauty], the ineffable and immortal pulchritude, that cannot be declared by words, or seen by eyes. This may therefore be called a transcendental attribute that, as it were, runs through the rest, and casts a glory upon every one. It is an attribute of attributes. These are fit predications, holy power, holy love. And so it is the very luster and glory of his other perfections. He is glorious in holiness’ (Howe in Whyte’s Shorter Catechism). This was the aspect of divine Holiness on which Jonathan Edwards delighted to dwell. `The mutual love of the Father and the Son make the third, the personal Holy Spirit, or the Holiness of God, which is his infinite beauty.’ `By the communication of God’s Holiness the creature partakes of God’s moral excellence, which is perfection, the beauty of the divine nature.’ `Holiness comprehends all the true moral excellence of intelligent beings. So the Holiness of God is the same with the moral excellency of the divine nature, comprehending all his perfections, his righteousness, faithfulness and goodness. There are two kinds of attributes of God, according to our way of conceiving him: his moral attributes, which are summed up in his Holiness, and his natural, as strength, knowledge, etc., which constitute his greatness. Holy persons, in the exercise of holy affection, love God in the first place for the beauty of his Holiness.’ The holiness of n intelligent creature is that which gives beauty to all his natural perfections. And so it is in God: holiness is in a peculiar manner the beauty of holiness (Psalm 29:2; 96:9; 110:3). This renders all the other attributes glorious and lovely.’ `Therefore, if the true loveliness of God’s perfections arise from the loveliness of his Holiness, the true love of his perfections will arise from the love of his Holiness. And as the beauty of the divine nature primarily consists in God’s Holiness, so does the beauty of all divine things.’ [This is implied elsewhere to be Andrew Murray’s view also.]

6. In speaking of God’s Holiness as denoting the essential good, the absolute excellence of His nature, some press very strongly the ethical aspect. The good in God must not be from mere natural impulse only, flowing from the necessity of his nature, without being freely willed by himself. `What is naturally good is not the true realization of the good. The actual and living, will, to be the good he is m must also have its place in God, otherwise God would only be naturally ethical. Only in the will which consciously determines itself, is there the possibility given of the ethical. The ethical has such a power in God that his is the holy Power, who cannot and will not renounce himself, which must be, and would be thought to be, the holy necessity f the goodness which is himself – to be the Holy. The love of God is essentially holy; it desires and preserves the ethically necessary or holy, which God is’ (Dorner, System, Vol. I).

7. It was felt that in such views [#3-6] that there was not a sufficient acknowledgment of the truth that it is especially as the Holy One that God is called Redeemer., that that he does the work of love to make holy. This lead to the view that holiness and love are, if not identical, at least correlated expressions. `God is holy, exalted above all the praise of the creature in his incomparable praiseworthiness, on account of his free and loving condescension to the creature, to manifest in it the glory of his love.’ `God is holy, inasmuch as love in him has restrained and conquered the righteous wrath (as Hosea says, 11:9) and the judgment is exercised only after every way of mercy has been tried. This holiness is disclosed in the New Testament name, as exalted as it is condescending, of Father’ (Stier on John 17).

8. The large measure of truth in this view {#7] is met by an expression in which the true aspect os the Holiness of God are combined. It is defined as being the harmony of self-preservation and self-communication. As the Holy One, God hates sin, and seeks to destroy it. As the Holy One, he makes the sinner holy, and then takes him up into his love. In maintaining his love he never for a moment loses his divine purity and perfection in maintaining his righteousness. He still communicates himself to the fallen creature. Holiness is the divine glory, of which love and righteousness are the two sides, and which in their work on earth they reveal.
`Holiness is the self-preservation of God, whereby he keeps himself free from the world without him, and remains consistent with himself and faithful to his Being, and whereby he, with this view, creates a divine world that lives for himself alone in the organization of his Church’ (Lange).
`The Holiness of God is God’s self-preservation, or keeping to himself, in virtue of which he remains the same in all relationships which exist within his Deity, or into which he enters, never sacrifices what is divine, or admits what is not divine. But this is only one aspect. God’s Holiness would not be holiness, but exclusiveness, if it did not provide for God’s entering into manifold relations, and so revealing and communicating himself. Holiness is therefore the union and interpretation of God’s keeping to himself and communicating himself; of his nearness and his distance; of his exclusiveness and his self-revelation; of separateness and fellowship. ‘
`The divine Holiness is mainly seclusion from the impurity and sinfulness of the creature, or expressed positively, the cleanness and purity of the divine nature, which excludes all connection with the wicked. In harmony with this, the divine Holiness, as an attribute of revelation, is not merely an abstract power, but is the divine self-representation and self-testimony for the purpose of giving to the world the participation in the divine life’ (Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament 1:160).
`Opposition to sin is the first impression which man receives of God’s Holiness. Exclusion, election, cleansing, redemption – these are the four forms in which God’s Holiness appears in the sphere of humanity; and we may say that God’s Holiness signifies his opposition to sin manifesting itself in atonement and redemption, or in judgment. Or as holiness, so far as it is embodied in law, must be the highest moral perfection, we may say, “holiness is the purity of God manifesting itself in atonement and redemption, and correspondingly in judgment.” By this view all the above elements are done justice to; holiness asserts itself in judging righteousness, an in electing, purifying, and redeeming love, and thus it appears as the impelling and formative principle of the revelation of redemption, without a knowledge of which an understanding of the revelation is impossible, and by the perception of which it is seen in its full, clear light. God is light: this is a full and exhaustive New Testament phrase for God’s Holiness (1 John 1:5) (Cremer).
This view is brought out with special distinctness in the writings of J T Beck. `It is God’s Holiness which, taking the good which was given in creation in strict faithfulness to that good and perfect will of God, as the eternal life-purpose of love, in righteousness and mercy carried out to its completion in God himself to a life of perfection. God does this as the Alone Holy. In the world of sin divine love can only bring deliverance by a mediation in which it is reconciled to the divine wrath within their common centre, the Holiness of God, in such a way that while wrath manifests its destroying reality, love shall prove its restoring power in the life it gives’ (Beck, Lehrwissenschaft, 168, 547

…. [ a lot is left out here that will be added later, p,214a – p. 217a]

Careful reflection will show us that in each of the above views [#1-8] there is a measure of truth. It will convince us how the very difficulty of formulating to human thought the conception of divine Holiness proves that it is the highest expression for that ineffable and inconceivable glory of the divine Being which constitutes him the Infinite and Glorious God.

…. [217b continued]

This section is packed full of wheat and chaff. I will comment on it more later. But suffice to say, Murray did his homework.

In Christ,

Pastor Jon