Sometimes a speaker must adapt to their audience rather than wait for the audience to adapt to them. This has come to a real threshold the last couple of months. There is no vigilance by scholars or lay people on the topic of holy - the ability to hold a topic in the attention span long enough for it to make a difference. So this is one of those times that I must adapt to my audience and start equipping them further back in the process.
As I have dealt with holiness, I have noticed that Christian minds especially are not well-equipped to handle the topic. Their emotions and thinking are sloppy. I don't say this to insult anyone. But "the fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom". So in this case, the fear that our thinking may be sloppy is the right place to begin. So I am taking a new approach.
I'm narrowing my focus in TEACHING AND MINISTRY (down from holiness) due to emotional aimlessness and due to a lack of mental focus or over-focus among Christians. So the solution, I figure, is to focus on the first health the US and Christians in the US need - mental health. I'll deal with world mental health later, since the issues are different across the globe. I'll also go back to other health areas under holiness later.
Please don't think that I have lost my vigilance on holiness. I am not at all distracted from the topic, but there comes a time as a teacher when adaption is your only option. Even my supervisor at my current seminary didn't seem to get what I was accomplishing. So I believe that there are basics that are missing. I need to provide those to those I teach.
If you go to my communication basics blog, I will be producing much more there than here for the time being. I am also under a self-imposed deadline to finish the transcript for my book by the end of July - "Mental Health for Everybody". It will focus on the mind and how it is supposed to work and how we should equip our minds as opposed to the current approach. That will then form a basis both emotionally and logically for what holiness means by definition, by implication and by significance.
Go there for more. Thank you for your understanding. I will say this, I have more and more reasons to believe from the biblical text and not from etymology or cognate languages that holy as translated from words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek means ethical or moral wholeness. Have a blessed day.
In Christ,
Jon
Showing posts with label moral wholeness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label moral wholeness. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 09, 2014
Monday, May 19, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through 1 Kings 18 as the Text and Now Your Testimony
People want to know things like definitions for certain. That is an admirable desire on high importance topics like blessed and holy. The problem is that the same people don't know how to get there. The same people who want certainty also can get trapped in wavering rather than knowing. Knowing the meanings of blessed and holy for certain, as found in Genesis 2:1-3, requires something that most lexicons and scholars don't provide. They don't test the meanings of these words from inside the text.
Instead, they test the meaning of each word from outside the text. They use etymology (in some instances when they claim they don't) or they use cognate languages (these are languages like French in relation to English). I don't think that either one of these tests is very valid or certain. If you want reasonable certainty on a very important set of topics, then a lexicon or reading another 100 scholars won't get you there. The way to know something for certain over another possibility is to test what is true and humble versus what is false and proud. But it has to be a complete test. So how do we get to a better place and time, where and when we know for certain the meaning of blessed and holy? I got an answer for that. Read on.
I think the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18 shows how to get past various the many opinions on the meanings of blessed and holy. I'm going to present the story in the following format of questions:
1) What are the numbers? (to form judgments) (i.e. must be)
2) What is the test? (to form testimonies) (i.e. will be)
3) What are complete guidelines? (to form laws) (i.e. wants to be)
4) What is the action? (to form commandments) (i.e. can be)
5) What is the thing? (to form statutes) (i.e. let be)
Before I continue let me present the major opinions I think are worth considering on the definition (one of three kinds of meaning) of holy:
1) "set apart" (by far the most popular in the last 100 years, but not previously)
2) "pure" (made popular in groups like the Puritans, but that is no surprise)
3) "moral wholeness" (the most popular of the last 500 years in Protestant theology)
I believe the latter wins after a thorough testing and experimentation. But for the testing to be successful there must be many testifiers, not just many experiments. Too many times we think of them as the same thing. Read on and see the difference.
What are the numbers? Let me stack up the numbers for you first. Do you remember the story of Elijah? He asks the people for a test. He asks for a time out. He says, "How long will you continue to waver between two opinions?" The people like his idea for ending their wavering. So here is how it went #s wise.
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet
1) 2 opinions, 1 opinion
2) 400 reps/prophets of Baal, 1 rep/prophet for Yahweh (Elijah)
3) 1 altar for Baal, 1 altar for Elijah
4) the whole community assembled as testers/witnesses, the whole community assembled as testers/witnesses
5) Only fire from heaven, only fire from heaven.
6) many slashings leading to bleeding, not even one slashing
7) 0 gallons of water, excess gallons of water
8) Very dry wood, very wet wood
I think you can tell that Elijah is not even worried about the odds being stacked against him in this test. He knows there are two options: 1) a guaranteed decline or failure, which is why he makes fun of them, and 2) an uncertain possibility, which he believes will test out just fine.
I likewise am not at all bothered by the numbers. The number of lexicons means little to nothing, if they all are just Xerox copies of each other. The answers that lexicons, dictionaries, word studies, newer scholarship, older scholarship, and church leaders give wavers between opinions.
So what is the test? Let me stack up the test for you. The test is what will be your opinion here and now. Notice that Elijah is not willing to deal with further procrastination on their part. Their desire to avoid the topic in the here and now is seen in his primary question: "How long will you waver between two opinions?"
Here is my breakdown on the place and time:
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet
1) at present they go to worship Baal and Yahweh, Elijah wants them to go to worship only Yahweh,
2) they have perhaps in even the same building worship to each, Elijah wants them to have separate worship,
3) they want to continue waiting, Elijah wants the waiting to stop,
4) they have put off agreeing to test each view at a place and time, Elijah asks them for a test at a place and time - a here and now test (very shortly)
5) they have gotten comfortable with their uncertainty (wavering), Elijah wants them to rid themselves of their uncertainty (He wants them to say: "As for me and my house we will serve Yahweh".
6) apparently they have been putting the place of decision off for a long time, Elijah wants the time out to end so they can get back to action,
7) procrastination, urgency
8) traveling from place to place, finding their place
What Elijah asked for and what he got from the people was a test. That is all he needed from the witnesses. He needed one agreed upon place and time when they could all testify to the results. He alone as a witness was not enough. He wanted maximum testing or witnessing. They made a covenant or bond with Elijah that they would be witnesses to a test. It is no test to hear the testimony of only one witness. That is all that I am. He did not give them any guarantees except that he would be present, when Yahweh proved who he was. They agreed to the same place and time as Elijah and they did not require certainty from him in advance, but rather they sought certainty after the test where they were present to testify. Maybe their wavering was directly a result of their desire to have guarantees in advance, rather than waiting for til the time that they could testify to guarantee what was true and humble.
The difficulty in the present, especially regarding holy's definition is that the tests are quasi-tests. The are not tests that give you a great deal of certainty. In fact, as scholars have assessed the definition of holy more recently, the tests are coming back more uncertain than previously. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (the grandest work on the Hebrew language) casts serious doubt on the etymological argument for "set apart". It also made the courageous step of leaving out cognate (other language) material and relying primarily on the Hebrew language internally.
I am afraid that the one test of blessed and holy has not really been performed up to here and now standards. Since James Barr, no one has written a full blown test for the definition of holy after he successfully unseated the argument from etymology alone. (He did not say it has no value, but he does say its value is limited.) That is what I am trying to do otherwise in this blog and in an upcoming book. I want to set the stage for a grand test of definitions of blessed and holy. .
So what is complete? What is complete is playing by all the laws.
I think the laws for Elijah and the prophets might have been something like this:
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet
1) no stranger fire other than from heaven, no strange fire other than from heaven,
2) Prayers are permitted, prayers are permitted
3) We can play with up to 400 players against Elijah by himself, I will permit them to have 400 as long as I can play
4) bleeding and slashing is permitted, heckling is permitted without any need for physical violence
5) There is no requirement to use green or wet wood, wet wood will be used that goes beyond required
6) Baal gets to go first based on the "coin toss", Elijah will go second based on the same "coin toss"
7) The contest will continue until a side gets the result of a fire. Elijah continues until fire arrives
8) If Baal wins then everyone is to go with him, if Yahweh wins then everyone is to go with him
What is the action? What is the action is the experiment.
I think the rules for Elijah the prophets of Baal and the crowd of spectators were these:
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet
1) no matches were allowed (that is cheating), no matches were allowed (that is cheating)
2) each side was to set up their own altar, each side was to set up their own altar
3) each side was to ask their god to send fire from heaven, each side was to ask their god to send fire from heaven
4) the action of the people of Israel was to be witnesses, the action of the people was to be witnesses
5) neither side could sell money back guarantees in advance, neither side could sell money back guarantees
6) the guarantee came after the experiment, the guarantee came after the experiment
7) certainty would come from knowing the results following the experiment, certainty would come from knowing the results after the experiment,
8) prayers and blood-letting allowed, prayers allowed but no blood-letting except from animals
To sum it up, it is to set up an experiment and perform it. To be specific about the definitions of blessed an holy, I have only given a rough sketch of the experiment mainly for the definition of holy. I still have a lot of writing to do and a lot of writing that is not on my blog yet. I have thought it all through in my own mind and I already know the outcome for me personally. But that does not mean there are many testimonies to that definition.
I knew holy's definition with certainty and personally back in November 2013. Before that time, mainly the last 10 years, I knew through experimenting that there were lots of problems with the etymological argument arriving at "set apart" as the definition (one of three kinds of meaning). I also knew that in the last 500 years that the Christian church and even the Jewish synagogue are divided on its meaning. My question is a lot like Elijah's: "Why are satisfied with procrastinating between so many opinions?" So I have begun the experiment that people can give witness to on-line. I want witnesses. I am not doing this in the dark somewhere. I am doing it in the light of everywhere and at hyper-speed. These are the twin advantages of the internet.
Let me illustrate the importance of experimenting and not just guessing in our brains. This is how I used experimenting just this morning (5/19/14). .
So this morning, I did not know where my coffee or tea cup had disappeared to. Rather than waver too long as to where it might be, I started out by experimenting with where it might be. I had a few opinions in my mind. I experimented first with the location of the passenger's side seat in my car. I seemed to recall that the solution to this mystery had some connection with my car. Well, it wasn't there. Then I decided, let's re-check the kitchen looking in the open at the counter space and then in the cupboard. I didn't find it there either. Then I checked the other lower probability rooms.like the living room, etc. Still, no success. Then upon returning to the kitchen, I spotted where it was most likely hidden. I noticed that I had not emptied my lunch container from the day before. Than I recalled also that there was something I had placed in there the day before that was unusual for me. It was then that I opened the packet and there it was! I found in truth where my cup was located and I also have to admit humbly that I did not know were it was with certainty until that moment. No mental experiment was as good as finishing the experiment by opening the bag.
The problem is that too many people rely on their minds and not on their souls. They think of knowledge as something that is mind-based rather than relationship-based. I now realize for myself more than ever that knowledge in the Bible makes a lot more sense as a term of intimacy as one of my professors once called it. I think his idea leans in the right direction. Where and when will we be? That is where and when we shall know. No elsewhere and not any time before.
I also found my cup fairly fast, because I tested my theories rather than tried to just think my way into certainty in advance. This is, I think, a great mistake by many people. They don't just do it - experiment that is. Peter Drucker taught me, through one of his books many years ago, the superiority of this method of experimenting. People who are unsure need to experiment, to paraphrase his advice.
What is the thing? No longer wavering between two opinions as to which one is god. It is either Baal or it is Yahweh. Which one shows that he is God?
Let me stack up the things for you at last:
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet
1) fire from heaven will demonstrate that Baal is god, fire from heaven will demonstrate that Yahweh is god
2) we don't believe that any human being can command fire from heaven, we don't believe that any human being can command fire from heaven
3) the demonstration has to be something that we cannot do ourselves, the demonstration has to be something that we cannot do ourselves
4) the demonstration cannot be subject to coincidence (fire from heaven during a lightning storm), the demonstration cannot be subject to coincidence (it has not even rained for a long time and there are no clouds)
5) the demonstration can happen using wood that burns very easily, the demonstration can be with dry wood but let's make it more miraculous by adding water than no human being can overcome without trouble)
6) our god will answer us while the people are still there, my god will answer even after part of the day is lost and the people might be starting to want to go back home
7) our god surely knows he has a stake in this and hasn't been distracted, your god I think is distracted by the latreen while my god is still interested
8) we think by slashing ourselves greater attention will come from our god, my god needs no such attention getting measures
Some at least have heard who the winner in this experiment was in terms of demonstrating which god was the God. It was the god named Yahweh. Elijah now had not only his own testimony, he also now had the testimony of the people of Israel. No longer was it him alone while the crowds limped along. I know that later in the story Elijah starts to feel sorry for himself all over again. But notice that God reminds him that he is not the only prophet of Yahweh who did not bend the knee and he certainly too was no longer the only one to testify as to who is God among the people. There were now many witnesses.
That is where every reader of this blog can make their mark. They can become witnesses of the things they have seen. You can do it by leaving a comment to let others know you have witnessed what I have said. Others can then add their testimony to yours. I know that I am not alone. I don't have Elijah's problem today at least.
So I would like the testifiers of truth and humility, people who wait until after the experiment and have stopped procrastinating, to join with me and start using my tools under my "communication tools" tab and to start reading my prior experiments in this blog. You'll be surprised what you'll find once you kick procrastination to the back seat of the bus. It is an absolute necessity to understand your importance as fellow connection, witness, and testifier, who waits truthfully and humbly for certainty. Then you shall know and not before. Ah, isn't it fun to stop procrastinating and instead begin to get things done? Take care my fellow witnesses.
In Christ,
Jon
Instead, they test the meaning of each word from outside the text. They use etymology (in some instances when they claim they don't) or they use cognate languages (these are languages like French in relation to English). I don't think that either one of these tests is very valid or certain. If you want reasonable certainty on a very important set of topics, then a lexicon or reading another 100 scholars won't get you there. The way to know something for certain over another possibility is to test what is true and humble versus what is false and proud. But it has to be a complete test. So how do we get to a better place and time, where and when we know for certain the meaning of blessed and holy? I got an answer for that. Read on.
I think the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18 shows how to get past various the many opinions on the meanings of blessed and holy. I'm going to present the story in the following format of questions:
1) What are the numbers? (to form judgments) (i.e. must be)
2) What is the test? (to form testimonies) (i.e. will be)
3) What are complete guidelines? (to form laws) (i.e. wants to be)
4) What is the action? (to form commandments) (i.e. can be)
5) What is the thing? (to form statutes) (i.e. let be)
Before I continue let me present the major opinions I think are worth considering on the definition (one of three kinds of meaning) of holy:
1) "set apart" (by far the most popular in the last 100 years, but not previously)
2) "pure" (made popular in groups like the Puritans, but that is no surprise)
3) "moral wholeness" (the most popular of the last 500 years in Protestant theology)
I believe the latter wins after a thorough testing and experimentation. But for the testing to be successful there must be many testifiers, not just many experiments. Too many times we think of them as the same thing. Read on and see the difference.
What are the numbers? Let me stack up the numbers for you first. Do you remember the story of Elijah? He asks the people for a test. He asks for a time out. He says, "How long will you continue to waver between two opinions?" The people like his idea for ending their wavering. So here is how it went #s wise.
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet
1) 2 opinions, 1 opinion
2) 400 reps/prophets of Baal, 1 rep/prophet for Yahweh (Elijah)
3) 1 altar for Baal, 1 altar for Elijah
4) the whole community assembled as testers/witnesses, the whole community assembled as testers/witnesses
5) Only fire from heaven, only fire from heaven.
6) many slashings leading to bleeding, not even one slashing
7) 0 gallons of water, excess gallons of water
8) Very dry wood, very wet wood
I think you can tell that Elijah is not even worried about the odds being stacked against him in this test. He knows there are two options: 1) a guaranteed decline or failure, which is why he makes fun of them, and 2) an uncertain possibility, which he believes will test out just fine.
I likewise am not at all bothered by the numbers. The number of lexicons means little to nothing, if they all are just Xerox copies of each other. The answers that lexicons, dictionaries, word studies, newer scholarship, older scholarship, and church leaders give wavers between opinions.
So what is the test? Let me stack up the test for you. The test is what will be your opinion here and now. Notice that Elijah is not willing to deal with further procrastination on their part. Their desire to avoid the topic in the here and now is seen in his primary question: "How long will you waver between two opinions?"
Here is my breakdown on the place and time:
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet
1) at present they go to worship Baal and Yahweh, Elijah wants them to go to worship only Yahweh,
2) they have perhaps in even the same building worship to each, Elijah wants them to have separate worship,
3) they want to continue waiting, Elijah wants the waiting to stop,
4) they have put off agreeing to test each view at a place and time, Elijah asks them for a test at a place and time - a here and now test (very shortly)
5) they have gotten comfortable with their uncertainty (wavering), Elijah wants them to rid themselves of their uncertainty (He wants them to say: "As for me and my house we will serve Yahweh".
6) apparently they have been putting the place of decision off for a long time, Elijah wants the time out to end so they can get back to action,
7) procrastination, urgency
8) traveling from place to place, finding their place
What Elijah asked for and what he got from the people was a test. That is all he needed from the witnesses. He needed one agreed upon place and time when they could all testify to the results. He alone as a witness was not enough. He wanted maximum testing or witnessing. They made a covenant or bond with Elijah that they would be witnesses to a test. It is no test to hear the testimony of only one witness. That is all that I am. He did not give them any guarantees except that he would be present, when Yahweh proved who he was. They agreed to the same place and time as Elijah and they did not require certainty from him in advance, but rather they sought certainty after the test where they were present to testify. Maybe their wavering was directly a result of their desire to have guarantees in advance, rather than waiting for til the time that they could testify to guarantee what was true and humble.
The difficulty in the present, especially regarding holy's definition is that the tests are quasi-tests. The are not tests that give you a great deal of certainty. In fact, as scholars have assessed the definition of holy more recently, the tests are coming back more uncertain than previously. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (the grandest work on the Hebrew language) casts serious doubt on the etymological argument for "set apart". It also made the courageous step of leaving out cognate (other language) material and relying primarily on the Hebrew language internally.
I am afraid that the one test of blessed and holy has not really been performed up to here and now standards. Since James Barr, no one has written a full blown test for the definition of holy after he successfully unseated the argument from etymology alone. (He did not say it has no value, but he does say its value is limited.) That is what I am trying to do otherwise in this blog and in an upcoming book. I want to set the stage for a grand test of definitions of blessed and holy. .
So what is complete? What is complete is playing by all the laws.
I think the laws for Elijah and the prophets might have been something like this:
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet
1) no stranger fire other than from heaven, no strange fire other than from heaven,
2) Prayers are permitted, prayers are permitted
3) We can play with up to 400 players against Elijah by himself, I will permit them to have 400 as long as I can play
4) bleeding and slashing is permitted, heckling is permitted without any need for physical violence
5) There is no requirement to use green or wet wood, wet wood will be used that goes beyond required
6) Baal gets to go first based on the "coin toss", Elijah will go second based on the same "coin toss"
7) The contest will continue until a side gets the result of a fire. Elijah continues until fire arrives
8) If Baal wins then everyone is to go with him, if Yahweh wins then everyone is to go with him
What is the action? What is the action is the experiment.
I think the rules for Elijah the prophets of Baal and the crowd of spectators were these:
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet
1) no matches were allowed (that is cheating), no matches were allowed (that is cheating)
2) each side was to set up their own altar, each side was to set up their own altar
3) each side was to ask their god to send fire from heaven, each side was to ask their god to send fire from heaven
4) the action of the people of Israel was to be witnesses, the action of the people was to be witnesses
5) neither side could sell money back guarantees in advance, neither side could sell money back guarantees
6) the guarantee came after the experiment, the guarantee came after the experiment
7) certainty would come from knowing the results following the experiment, certainty would come from knowing the results after the experiment,
8) prayers and blood-letting allowed, prayers allowed but no blood-letting except from animals
To sum it up, it is to set up an experiment and perform it. To be specific about the definitions of blessed an holy, I have only given a rough sketch of the experiment mainly for the definition of holy. I still have a lot of writing to do and a lot of writing that is not on my blog yet. I have thought it all through in my own mind and I already know the outcome for me personally. But that does not mean there are many testimonies to that definition.
I knew holy's definition with certainty and personally back in November 2013. Before that time, mainly the last 10 years, I knew through experimenting that there were lots of problems with the etymological argument arriving at "set apart" as the definition (one of three kinds of meaning). I also knew that in the last 500 years that the Christian church and even the Jewish synagogue are divided on its meaning. My question is a lot like Elijah's: "Why are satisfied with procrastinating between so many opinions?" So I have begun the experiment that people can give witness to on-line. I want witnesses. I am not doing this in the dark somewhere. I am doing it in the light of everywhere and at hyper-speed. These are the twin advantages of the internet.
Let me illustrate the importance of experimenting and not just guessing in our brains. This is how I used experimenting just this morning (5/19/14). .
So this morning, I did not know where my coffee or tea cup had disappeared to. Rather than waver too long as to where it might be, I started out by experimenting with where it might be. I had a few opinions in my mind. I experimented first with the location of the passenger's side seat in my car. I seemed to recall that the solution to this mystery had some connection with my car. Well, it wasn't there. Then I decided, let's re-check the kitchen looking in the open at the counter space and then in the cupboard. I didn't find it there either. Then I checked the other lower probability rooms.like the living room, etc. Still, no success. Then upon returning to the kitchen, I spotted where it was most likely hidden. I noticed that I had not emptied my lunch container from the day before. Than I recalled also that there was something I had placed in there the day before that was unusual for me. It was then that I opened the packet and there it was! I found in truth where my cup was located and I also have to admit humbly that I did not know were it was with certainty until that moment. No mental experiment was as good as finishing the experiment by opening the bag.
The problem is that too many people rely on their minds and not on their souls. They think of knowledge as something that is mind-based rather than relationship-based. I now realize for myself more than ever that knowledge in the Bible makes a lot more sense as a term of intimacy as one of my professors once called it. I think his idea leans in the right direction. Where and when will we be? That is where and when we shall know. No elsewhere and not any time before.
I also found my cup fairly fast, because I tested my theories rather than tried to just think my way into certainty in advance. This is, I think, a great mistake by many people. They don't just do it - experiment that is. Peter Drucker taught me, through one of his books many years ago, the superiority of this method of experimenting. People who are unsure need to experiment, to paraphrase his advice.
What is the thing? No longer wavering between two opinions as to which one is god. It is either Baal or it is Yahweh. Which one shows that he is God?
Let me stack up the things for you at last:
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet
1) fire from heaven will demonstrate that Baal is god, fire from heaven will demonstrate that Yahweh is god
2) we don't believe that any human being can command fire from heaven, we don't believe that any human being can command fire from heaven
3) the demonstration has to be something that we cannot do ourselves, the demonstration has to be something that we cannot do ourselves
4) the demonstration cannot be subject to coincidence (fire from heaven during a lightning storm), the demonstration cannot be subject to coincidence (it has not even rained for a long time and there are no clouds)
5) the demonstration can happen using wood that burns very easily, the demonstration can be with dry wood but let's make it more miraculous by adding water than no human being can overcome without trouble)
6) our god will answer us while the people are still there, my god will answer even after part of the day is lost and the people might be starting to want to go back home
7) our god surely knows he has a stake in this and hasn't been distracted, your god I think is distracted by the latreen while my god is still interested
8) we think by slashing ourselves greater attention will come from our god, my god needs no such attention getting measures
Some at least have heard who the winner in this experiment was in terms of demonstrating which god was the God. It was the god named Yahweh. Elijah now had not only his own testimony, he also now had the testimony of the people of Israel. No longer was it him alone while the crowds limped along. I know that later in the story Elijah starts to feel sorry for himself all over again. But notice that God reminds him that he is not the only prophet of Yahweh who did not bend the knee and he certainly too was no longer the only one to testify as to who is God among the people. There were now many witnesses.
That is where every reader of this blog can make their mark. They can become witnesses of the things they have seen. You can do it by leaving a comment to let others know you have witnessed what I have said. Others can then add their testimony to yours. I know that I am not alone. I don't have Elijah's problem today at least.
So I would like the testifiers of truth and humility, people who wait until after the experiment and have stopped procrastinating, to join with me and start using my tools under my "communication tools" tab and to start reading my prior experiments in this blog. You'll be surprised what you'll find once you kick procrastination to the back seat of the bus. It is an absolute necessity to understand your importance as fellow connection, witness, and testifier, who waits truthfully and humbly for certainty. Then you shall know and not before. Ah, isn't it fun to stop procrastinating and instead begin to get things done? Take care my fellow witnesses.
In Christ,
Jon
Wednesday, May 07, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Exodus 19:1-8 (Credibility - Part 3 of 5)
In speaking to the issue of what is the definition of holy, as one part of what holy means, we should all agree that we need to engage our minds in the process. We should also all agree that it needs to be all of our mind or brain that is engaged. So let me engage your whole brain. Who is most credible in the use of their mind? Is it: 1) a person who is very smart and feels little, 2) a person who feels much and is not very smart, or a person who feels deeply and is very smart? I am convinced the most credible mind for deciding on a definition for holy is that person who both feels deeply and is deeply smart. This kind of person has a quiet ethical credibility,
Further, I do believe our emotional state does influence our decision making, so that it is best to bring it out into the open and handle it positively rather than hide it or try to subdue it. It is the person who ignores their emotions and/or the person who ignores their logic that gets in the most trouble.
I continue to be convinced from my devotional reading of Scripture that this is true, since emotions are found in many stories influencing decisions. From these biblical instances and other evidence, I believe that the person whose thinking is most credible is that person who considers both feeling and logic. Peter F. Drucker, the great management guru of the 20th century, lays out an obviously logical format for making decisions in his many books on management, but he also acknowledged the need to listen to that voice he called the "daemon" for a short time to make sure we heard its voice and not just the logical voice in decision making. Ironically, it seems that emotions could most effect those most unaware of them.
[This piece of writing is likely to be broken into 2 parts with one section staying in this post and the other going to my communication basics blog for a more full treatment.]
For a number of years, I have been studying the topic of emotional intelligence alongside of rational or logical intelligence. The pages in my notebook on emotional intelligence go back to at least 2006, but some of the things on the topic I may have been studying much longer. Personally, I have been "studying" emotions since I was pulled out of my 3rd grade class to see the principal and then the school psychologist. Today, I will limit my discussion to psychologists and philosophers, who are also authors, that have especially helped me with my emotional intelligence. They are: 1) Daniel Goleman, 2) Robert Plutchik, and 3) Aristotle (yes, that Greek philosopher). To sum up what I have learned, I would say four things directly related to each of them:
1) emotional intelligence is more important than logical intelligence based on biological factors (Goleman),
2) there are basic emotions from which the other combinations of emotions spring (Plutchik), and
3) psychology has been hindered by the notion that fight and flight are opposites and so are both anger and fear, which can easily be shown to be a false set of opposites by its inconsistency with other emotions and other approaches (Aristotle)
4) the important triad of ethos (ethical/credible), pathos (emotions), and logos (logical) have been overlooked to our detriment when it comes to appeals for our decisions (Aristotle).
I find that every one of these lessons is important, but especially the last one. I find that by ignoring the emotional component when it comes to people's minds being persuaded and by not recognizing that both emotional and logical appeals are necessary for a person to be considered ethical or credible are both critical to defining holy correctly.
Perhaps the biggest hurdle people need to get over is the negative view of their emotions. I think Daniel Goleman's work on emotional intelligence and his rooting his ideas in the biology of the brain are a big help in cutting edge science of the brain. But there is also an ancient tradition in rhetoric that shows that ancients like Aristotle also recognized its great role a long time before the latest science. Not all have taken a negative or dim view of emotions. In going through the educational system of the United States, whether private or public, we are tested on our IQ, but there is not an equivalent EQ test. Goleman's own test is nowhere near a type of compliment. But the picture below does show importance of the emotional part of our brain that interacts with the logical portion.
There are some helpful things written on emotions, but also some that are confusing or misleading.
On a personal level three people have helped me the most: 1) my mother, 2) my Great Aunt Lilly, and 3) Pastor B. Wayne Johnson.
Three professional people have helped me with my emotional intelligence perhaps the most: 1) Dottie Lideen (the schoool pychologist mentioned earlier), 2) Pastor Jim Learned, and Roger Buck, a Director of Christian Education and Stephens Ministry Coordinator.
In studying under Dr. John S. Piper, Tom Stellar, and Dr. Daniel P. Fuller, I learned to use my own brain more and other people's brains less to keep my own brain from becoming lazy. This does not mean other views are not important (they are!) for seeing options for biblical interpretation, but what it does mean is what Einstein discovered:
So let's look at the text now that we have a better sense of how our minds work overall.
[while this is still under construction, next week (5/11/14) is when I hope to add to it.]
Sincerely,
Jon
Further, I do believe our emotional state does influence our decision making, so that it is best to bring it out into the open and handle it positively rather than hide it or try to subdue it. It is the person who ignores their emotions and/or the person who ignores their logic that gets in the most trouble.
I continue to be convinced from my devotional reading of Scripture that this is true, since emotions are found in many stories influencing decisions. From these biblical instances and other evidence, I believe that the person whose thinking is most credible is that person who considers both feeling and logic. Peter F. Drucker, the great management guru of the 20th century, lays out an obviously logical format for making decisions in his many books on management, but he also acknowledged the need to listen to that voice he called the "daemon" for a short time to make sure we heard its voice and not just the logical voice in decision making. Ironically, it seems that emotions could most effect those most unaware of them.
[This piece of writing is likely to be broken into 2 parts with one section staying in this post and the other going to my communication basics blog for a more full treatment.]
For a number of years, I have been studying the topic of emotional intelligence alongside of rational or logical intelligence. The pages in my notebook on emotional intelligence go back to at least 2006, but some of the things on the topic I may have been studying much longer. Personally, I have been "studying" emotions since I was pulled out of my 3rd grade class to see the principal and then the school psychologist. Today, I will limit my discussion to psychologists and philosophers, who are also authors, that have especially helped me with my emotional intelligence. They are: 1) Daniel Goleman, 2) Robert Plutchik, and 3) Aristotle (yes, that Greek philosopher). To sum up what I have learned, I would say four things directly related to each of them:
1) emotional intelligence is more important than logical intelligence based on biological factors (Goleman),
2) there are basic emotions from which the other combinations of emotions spring (Plutchik), and
3) psychology has been hindered by the notion that fight and flight are opposites and so are both anger and fear, which can easily be shown to be a false set of opposites by its inconsistency with other emotions and other approaches (Aristotle)
4) the important triad of ethos (ethical/credible), pathos (emotions), and logos (logical) have been overlooked to our detriment when it comes to appeals for our decisions (Aristotle).
I find that every one of these lessons is important, but especially the last one. I find that by ignoring the emotional component when it comes to people's minds being persuaded and by not recognizing that both emotional and logical appeals are necessary for a person to be considered ethical or credible are both critical to defining holy correctly.
Perhaps the biggest hurdle people need to get over is the negative view of their emotions. I think Daniel Goleman's work on emotional intelligence and his rooting his ideas in the biology of the brain are a big help in cutting edge science of the brain. But there is also an ancient tradition in rhetoric that shows that ancients like Aristotle also recognized its great role a long time before the latest science. Not all have taken a negative or dim view of emotions. In going through the educational system of the United States, whether private or public, we are tested on our IQ, but there is not an equivalent EQ test. Goleman's own test is nowhere near a type of compliment. But the picture below does show importance of the emotional part of our brain that interacts with the logical portion.
There are some helpful things written on emotions, but also some that are confusing or misleading.
On a personal level three people have helped me the most: 1) my mother, 2) my Great Aunt Lilly, and 3) Pastor B. Wayne Johnson.
Three professional people have helped me with my emotional intelligence perhaps the most: 1) Dottie Lideen (the schoool pychologist mentioned earlier), 2) Pastor Jim Learned, and Roger Buck, a Director of Christian Education and Stephens Ministry Coordinator.
In studying under Dr. John S. Piper, Tom Stellar, and Dr. Daniel P. Fuller, I learned to use my own brain more and other people's brains less to keep my own brain from becoming lazy. This does not mean other views are not important (they are!) for seeing options for biblical interpretation, but what it does mean is what Einstein discovered:
So let's look at the text now that we have a better sense of how our minds work overall.
[while this is still under construction, next week (5/11/14) is when I hope to add to it.]
Sincerely,
Jon
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better through Luke 10:25-28 (Things - Part 5 of 5)
When it comes to the definition of holy it is important to understand the meaning of each option on a common sense level or slightly higher level at most. This has been largely overlooked in some of the quirky distinctions of definition on the part of some writers on the topic. The most comical in my mind is the distinction between whether one is separated from something or separated to something. I doubt very much that qadosh in Hebrew communicates such a subtle point. It shows the great lengths some will go to in trying to fix obvious problems with a definition. I find it much better to try to simplify definitions rather than complicate them.
For me, there are five fairly basic classes that words fall into. They are:
1) Amounts,
2) Relationships,
3) Wholes
4) Actions
5) Things
In following the idea of set apart, the distinction is usually that of relationships. Sometimes it is also seen as a separate thing from sin.
[Sorry the day has gotten late and it is time for me to conclude. I hope to be able to revisit this post next week based on a change in my writing schedule. My new goal is to now write on week for each of 5 days and then return the next week to tidy up any writing that was left incomplete.]
In Christ,
Jon
For me, there are five fairly basic classes that words fall into. They are:
1) Amounts,
2) Relationships,
3) Wholes
4) Actions
5) Things
In following the idea of set apart, the distinction is usually that of relationships. Sometimes it is also seen as a separate thing from sin.
[Sorry the day has gotten late and it is time for me to conclude. I hope to be able to revisit this post next week based on a change in my writing schedule. My new goal is to now write on week for each of 5 days and then return the next week to tidy up any writing that was left incomplete.]
In Christ,
Jon
Friday, April 25, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Luke 10:25-28 (Action - Part 4 of 5)
OPENING OF ACTION
I love this quote that I heard from a friend of mine yesterday: "Where there is a why, there is a how". It sounds a lot like "Where there is a will, there is a way", doesn't it? The first quote fits extremely well with the training that I hope to accomplish today from Luke 10:25-28. Today the goal is to be immensely practical. From the Greatest Commandment, which includes the 1st and the 2nd, everyone can learn a great deal about the why and the how of action.
Amount of action
At the core of training are two aspects, both the level of focus and the level of effort required, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) How many? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) How much? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) one by four, b) two by self
What does one by four mean in this answer? It means that there is "one" God and that there are four parts of ourselves, "heart", "soul", "strength" and "mind", that are supposed to love Yahweh God. There is one God for all four parts of ourselves, rather than one god for each one of the four parts or some other combinations of one and four.
What does "two by self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both are selves. There is yourself and myself, making two.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
2) a) with whole, b) as much as
What does "with whole" mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the whole of each of four parts. Notice the same level or quality for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal in quality though somewhat distinct in order.
So how does this all translate to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be focused on one God, even if we ourselves have four parts. Likewise the quality from each part needs to be equal. This is the clarity and the meaningfulness that we need today.
In our day, that appears that a lack of favoritism is a big problem as denominations tend to favor their one part over the others. From both my personal experience (which is worth more) and my reading (which is worth less), I have noted that seldom do denominations notice their favoritism for one part over another part due to their historically different questions. To mention just one example, Luther asked as his primary question, "How much?" is enough to satisfy an angry God. He responded with justification being primary. Calvin, while not against Luther on his question, asked a different primary question, "When" as in who precedes the other. He responded with humility being primary, since humanity follows after divinity. It would seem that the danger for each is favoring the heart in the first case and the soul in the second. The rule of action here is that they are to be equal without favoritism. With the loss of their understanding of holiness, it appears that favoritism has gotten worse not better.
Relationship of action
At the core of training are two other aspects, both the location and the timing required, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) Where? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) When? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to question of location? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) Israel, b) neighbor (lit. "near wiling")
What does Israel mean in this answer? What does it say about location. It means that those in the location of a nation are being addressed and not just the location of one household. This would also explain the expanded location to all nations being discussed in passages where there is mention of the "Jew first and also the Gentiles (Nations). This rule is not limited to inside some narrow place. There is one God for all Israel and by implication then all other nations rather than one god for each narrow household. This God who ought to reign over one nation and goes beyond just narrow locations should also be the God of all locations.
What does neighbor mean in my answer? It means that there are people near us by their willing to be there. They as free people chose to live in the house next door. They have chosen to pass down the path we are passing also. There are many ways that people come near to us versus pass far from us. But by rule, when the come near to us, they are now our neighbors. There are ourselves and them in the same close proximity.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question of time? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
2) a) Moses' century BC, b) 1st century AD
What does Moses' century B.C." mean in this answer? It means that this rule that is greatest also has an historic past. It isn't just here and now, though it is that. It is also from the past, into the present, and so into the future a rule. Notice that the timing for this rule does not change with time. It perseveres with time. If it still applied in first century long after Moses, it would still apply now. There is no preference for either the the past, the present, or the future. All three times mean it is an acceptable time to live by the neighbor rule. These times are treated as equal in quality though very distinct in order.
So how does this all transfer to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be aimed at the there and before, the here and now, and the elsewhere and after. We cannot place everything into one place and time. Likewise the quality from place and time needs to be equal no matter where and when the rule is applied. This is the transfer of time and place we need today in our rules where time and place doesn't make the rule obsolete.
In our day, it appears that the elsewhere and future is all that matters over the there and past or here and present for others. For others it is all about the there and past to the neglect of the other two. For others it is all about living for the here and now. Rarely do you hear of the value of all three places and times as equal in their own place and time. Rather we here that here and now we are better or then and there they were better or here and now is better. Rarely is each seen as an acceptable place and time for its place and time. We try to put everything into our time limits of choice rather than each thing its rightful place and time. People forget that placement and timing are of the essence and that preference for one over the others is likely its own prejudice. Don't try to tell anyone that placement and timing isn't a problem. They will think you are nuts.
Whole of action
At the core of training are two aspects, both the issue of identity and the core issue of the wholeness required, when a person is taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) Who? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) Whole? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
At the core of training are two aspects, both the level of focus and the level of effort required, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) How many? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) How much? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) one by four, b) two by self
What does one by four mean in this answer? It means that there is "one" God and that there are four parts of ourselves, "heart", "soul", "strength" and "mind", that are supposed to love Yahweh God. There is one God for all four parts of ourselves, rather than one god for each one of the four parts or some other combinations of one and four.
What does "two by self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both are selves. There is yourself and myself, making two.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
2) a) with whole, b) as much as
What does "with whole" mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the whole of each of four parts. Notice the same level or quality for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal in quality though somewhat distinct in order.
So how does this all translate to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be focused on one God, even if we ourselves have four parts. Likewise the quality from each part needs to be equal. This is the clarity and the meaningfulness that we need today.
In our day, that appears that a lack of favoritism is a big problem as denominations tend to favor their one part over the others. From both my personal experience (which is worth more) and my reading (which is worth less), I have noted that seldom do denominations notice their favoritism for one part over another part due to their historically different questions. To mention just one example, Luther asked as his primary question, "How much?" is enough to satisfy an angry God. He responded with justification being primary. Calvin, while not against Luther on his question, asked a different primary question, "When" as in who precedes the other. He responded with humility being primary, since humanity follows after divinity. It would seem that the danger for each is favoring the heart in the first case and the soul in the second. The rule of action here is that they are to be equal without favoritism. With the loss of their understanding of holiness, it appears that favoritism has gotten worse not better.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) Yahweh & Israel, and 2) another & self
What does "Yahweh and Israel" mean in this answer? Yahweh means that here is God with a personal rather than impersonal name. It also means that Israel (the name given to Jacob by God) that later became the name for a nation is being addressed by Yahweh. That is the "you" being referred to in this case. So the entire address is personal.
What does "another and self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both can be referred to as a self or selves. There is another self and myself that are critical in this case for answering who is being referred to. This commandment leaves no person out in the sense that all of us are not an island all by ourselves. There is nowhere for a person to hide from responsibility for others as well as themselves.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
2) a) of heart, of soul, of strength, of mind (of yourself), b) of you (your)
What does "of heart, etc." mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the the four parts of ourselves. Each is undeniably part of who we are. Notice the same level for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) It isn't a heart of a soul , soul of strength, etc. where one is the part of the other. No each one is an equal part of who we are as a person. There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal parts though in a somewhat distinct order.
So how does this all total up for us in determining the how and the why? Actions like love need to be personal and regard the entire person rather than just one part of who people are. No training and all teaching means our strength gets weak while the mind prospers. All training and no teaching means the mind goes mindless. Likewise the treatment of each part needs to be equal. This personal and healthy touch we need in our actions. Impersonal and only a part of the job will not do.
Also in our day, it appears that a lack of being personal is growing with more and more focus on technology and its strength as a tool over the other parts that make up who we are. There also seems to be a kind of smugness coming over those who like the increased intelligence of the computer, but are ill-equipped to better train the brain. We could use some brain training equal to technological training.
Action of action
At the core of training are two aspects, both how to do something and why to do something. Without the how confidence wanes, without a why motivation wanes. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) How? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) Why? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) love, b) love
What does "love" mean in this answer? It means that love matters, because it is something that we do. If it is something that we do, then we need training in loving. We know to potty train a child, but do we know how to love train them and adults? Sure, we ought to love Yahweh God, but how do we love? How do we practice love? It is ironic that I have trained many athletes to do a wide assortment of skills, but I have never explicitly taught people how to love. Since the Bible points out a lot of hatred in this world (the failure to do for others), I would think love training is not optional.
What does the next "love" mean in my answer? Again, I think there are skilled lovers and then there are unskilled lovers (who are very close to haters). I think I need to start offering love workshops the more I reflect on love as the answer for the how. It like faith and hope is an action, but a different kind and the greatest action we can perform. So let's learn how to love to drive out any hatred that shows in us, when we ought to do the loving thing. .
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
2) a) with the whole of , b) as much as
What does "with the whole of" mean in this answer? It means what the measure of our love toward God ought to be from the whole of each of four parts. Notice again the same level or quality for each one. How might love look different if it were done "with the whole" of each part of ourselves? So why love with such passion? Perhaps it is because He first loved us! Remember also that "He so loved ... that He gave his only begotten son. Again, why? Because so great a love deserves so great a response in return. He is your God, so love Him in a way somewhat equal to His love.
So how does this all train us in determining the how and the why? Actions of love need to be both skilled and motivated to a high degree. We need passion for our trade and passion toward a high degree. Likewise the quality of love on our part needs to be equal to love for ourselves. This is the loving measure that we need to communicate more effectively.
What does "as much as" mean in this answer? The typical translation reads "love your neighbor as yourself". I put in "as much as" in place of "as" to make the degree or measure more explicit and meaningful without changing the meaning. It makes me think more about the "why" behind my love when I realize that my neighbor is in that sense my equal and so deserves that kind of love.
So how is training in love going? In our day, it seems that love has become almost hatred, since it is one area that is seldom practiced to make the activity perfect, but rather is left in the arms of spontaneity or blind luck. I would argue we need to work on it like we work on a jump shot, like we work on a recipe, like we work in accounting, etc. Let's get to work, practice, and then love rather that hate.
Thing of action
At the core of training are two aspects, both the definition of what is love and which kind is it
, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) What? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) Which? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) You , God, b) you and neighbor
What does "you and God" mean in this answer? It means you as in lawyer, disciples, and the people. It means the God for all as identified by the Jews for generations.
What does "two by self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both are selves. There is yourself and myself, making two.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
2) a) , b) as much as
What does "with whole" mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the whole of each of four parts. Notice the same level or quality for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal in quality though somewhat distinct in order.
So how does this all translate to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be focused on one God, even if we ourselves have four parts. Likewise the quality from each part needs to be equal. This is the clarity and the meaningfulness that we need today.
In our day, ....
what? lawyer, teacher, God, disciples, the people
which? 1st greater commandment, 2nd lesser commandment, greatest summary altogether
teach
CLOSING OF ACTION
[just a bit more to go]
In Christ,
Jon
I love this quote that I heard from a friend of mine yesterday: "Where there is a why, there is a how". It sounds a lot like "Where there is a will, there is a way", doesn't it? The first quote fits extremely well with the training that I hope to accomplish today from Luke 10:25-28. Today the goal is to be immensely practical. From the Greatest Commandment, which includes the 1st and the 2nd, everyone can learn a great deal about the why and the how of action.
Amount of action
At the core of training are two aspects, both the level of focus and the level of effort required, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) How many? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) How much? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) one by four, b) two by self
What does one by four mean in this answer? It means that there is "one" God and that there are four parts of ourselves, "heart", "soul", "strength" and "mind", that are supposed to love Yahweh God. There is one God for all four parts of ourselves, rather than one god for each one of the four parts or some other combinations of one and four.
What does "two by self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both are selves. There is yourself and myself, making two.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
What does "with whole" mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the whole of each of four parts. Notice the same level or quality for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal in quality though somewhat distinct in order.
So how does this all translate to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be focused on one God, even if we ourselves have four parts. Likewise the quality from each part needs to be equal. This is the clarity and the meaningfulness that we need today.
In our day, that appears that a lack of favoritism is a big problem as denominations tend to favor their one part over the others. From both my personal experience (which is worth more) and my reading (which is worth less), I have noted that seldom do denominations notice their favoritism for one part over another part due to their historically different questions. To mention just one example, Luther asked as his primary question, "How much?" is enough to satisfy an angry God. He responded with justification being primary. Calvin, while not against Luther on his question, asked a different primary question, "When" as in who precedes the other. He responded with humility being primary, since humanity follows after divinity. It would seem that the danger for each is favoring the heart in the first case and the soul in the second. The rule of action here is that they are to be equal without favoritism. With the loss of their understanding of holiness, it appears that favoritism has gotten worse not better.
Relationship of action
At the core of training are two other aspects, both the location and the timing required, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) Where? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) When? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to question of location? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) Israel, b) neighbor (lit. "near wiling")
What does Israel mean in this answer? What does it say about location. It means that those in the location of a nation are being addressed and not just the location of one household. This would also explain the expanded location to all nations being discussed in passages where there is mention of the "Jew first and also the Gentiles (Nations). This rule is not limited to inside some narrow place. There is one God for all Israel and by implication then all other nations rather than one god for each narrow household. This God who ought to reign over one nation and goes beyond just narrow locations should also be the God of all locations.
What does neighbor mean in my answer? It means that there are people near us by their willing to be there. They as free people chose to live in the house next door. They have chosen to pass down the path we are passing also. There are many ways that people come near to us versus pass far from us. But by rule, when the come near to us, they are now our neighbors. There are ourselves and them in the same close proximity.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question of time? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
What does Moses' century B.C." mean in this answer? It means that this rule that is greatest also has an historic past. It isn't just here and now, though it is that. It is also from the past, into the present, and so into the future a rule. Notice that the timing for this rule does not change with time. It perseveres with time. If it still applied in first century long after Moses, it would still apply now. There is no preference for either the the past, the present, or the future. All three times mean it is an acceptable time to live by the neighbor rule. These times are treated as equal in quality though very distinct in order.
So how does this all transfer to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be aimed at the there and before, the here and now, and the elsewhere and after. We cannot place everything into one place and time. Likewise the quality from place and time needs to be equal no matter where and when the rule is applied. This is the transfer of time and place we need today in our rules where time and place doesn't make the rule obsolete.
In our day, it appears that the elsewhere and future is all that matters over the there and past or here and present for others. For others it is all about the there and past to the neglect of the other two. For others it is all about living for the here and now. Rarely do you hear of the value of all three places and times as equal in their own place and time. Rather we here that here and now we are better or then and there they were better or here and now is better. Rarely is each seen as an acceptable place and time for its place and time. We try to put everything into our time limits of choice rather than each thing its rightful place and time. People forget that placement and timing are of the essence and that preference for one over the others is likely its own prejudice. Don't try to tell anyone that placement and timing isn't a problem. They will think you are nuts.
At the core of training are two aspects, both the issue of identity and the core issue of the wholeness required, when a person is taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) Who? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) Whole? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
At the core of training are two aspects, both the level of focus and the level of effort required, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) How many? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) How much? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) one by four, b) two by self
What does one by four mean in this answer? It means that there is "one" God and that there are four parts of ourselves, "heart", "soul", "strength" and "mind", that are supposed to love Yahweh God. There is one God for all four parts of ourselves, rather than one god for each one of the four parts or some other combinations of one and four.
What does "two by self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both are selves. There is yourself and myself, making two.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
What does "with whole" mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the whole of each of four parts. Notice the same level or quality for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal in quality though somewhat distinct in order.
So how does this all translate to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be focused on one God, even if we ourselves have four parts. Likewise the quality from each part needs to be equal. This is the clarity and the meaningfulness that we need today.
In our day, that appears that a lack of favoritism is a big problem as denominations tend to favor their one part over the others. From both my personal experience (which is worth more) and my reading (which is worth less), I have noted that seldom do denominations notice their favoritism for one part over another part due to their historically different questions. To mention just one example, Luther asked as his primary question, "How much?" is enough to satisfy an angry God. He responded with justification being primary. Calvin, while not against Luther on his question, asked a different primary question, "When" as in who precedes the other. He responded with humility being primary, since humanity follows after divinity. It would seem that the danger for each is favoring the heart in the first case and the soul in the second. The rule of action here is that they are to be equal without favoritism. With the loss of their understanding of holiness, it appears that favoritism has gotten worse not better.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) Yahweh & Israel, and 2) another & self
What does "Yahweh and Israel" mean in this answer? Yahweh means that here is God with a personal rather than impersonal name. It also means that Israel (the name given to Jacob by God) that later became the name for a nation is being addressed by Yahweh. That is the "you" being referred to in this case. So the entire address is personal.
What does "another and self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both can be referred to as a self or selves. There is another self and myself that are critical in this case for answering who is being referred to. This commandment leaves no person out in the sense that all of us are not an island all by ourselves. There is nowhere for a person to hide from responsibility for others as well as themselves.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
What does "of heart, etc." mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the the four parts of ourselves. Each is undeniably part of who we are. Notice the same level for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) It isn't a heart of a soul , soul of strength, etc. where one is the part of the other. No each one is an equal part of who we are as a person. There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal parts though in a somewhat distinct order.
So how does this all total up for us in determining the how and the why? Actions like love need to be personal and regard the entire person rather than just one part of who people are. No training and all teaching means our strength gets weak while the mind prospers. All training and no teaching means the mind goes mindless. Likewise the treatment of each part needs to be equal. This personal and healthy touch we need in our actions. Impersonal and only a part of the job will not do.
Also in our day, it appears that a lack of being personal is growing with more and more focus on technology and its strength as a tool over the other parts that make up who we are. There also seems to be a kind of smugness coming over those who like the increased intelligence of the computer, but are ill-equipped to better train the brain. We could use some brain training equal to technological training.
Action of action
At the core of training are two aspects, both how to do something and why to do something. Without the how confidence wanes, without a why motivation wanes. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) How? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) Why? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) love, b) love
What does "love" mean in this answer? It means that love matters, because it is something that we do. If it is something that we do, then we need training in loving. We know to potty train a child, but do we know how to love train them and adults? Sure, we ought to love Yahweh God, but how do we love? How do we practice love? It is ironic that I have trained many athletes to do a wide assortment of skills, but I have never explicitly taught people how to love. Since the Bible points out a lot of hatred in this world (the failure to do for others), I would think love training is not optional.
What does the next "love" mean in my answer? Again, I think there are skilled lovers and then there are unskilled lovers (who are very close to haters). I think I need to start offering love workshops the more I reflect on love as the answer for the how. It like faith and hope is an action, but a different kind and the greatest action we can perform. So let's learn how to love to drive out any hatred that shows in us, when we ought to do the loving thing. .
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
What does "with the whole of" mean in this answer? It means what the measure of our love toward God ought to be from the whole of each of four parts. Notice again the same level or quality for each one. How might love look different if it were done "with the whole" of each part of ourselves? So why love with such passion? Perhaps it is because He first loved us! Remember also that "He so loved ... that He gave his only begotten son. Again, why? Because so great a love deserves so great a response in return. He is your God, so love Him in a way somewhat equal to His love.
So how does this all train us in determining the how and the why? Actions of love need to be both skilled and motivated to a high degree. We need passion for our trade and passion toward a high degree. Likewise the quality of love on our part needs to be equal to love for ourselves. This is the loving measure that we need to communicate more effectively.
What does "as much as" mean in this answer? The typical translation reads "love your neighbor as yourself". I put in "as much as" in place of "as" to make the degree or measure more explicit and meaningful without changing the meaning. It makes me think more about the "why" behind my love when I realize that my neighbor is in that sense my equal and so deserves that kind of love.
So how is training in love going? In our day, it seems that love has become almost hatred, since it is one area that is seldom practiced to make the activity perfect, but rather is left in the arms of spontaneity or blind luck. I would argue we need to work on it like we work on a jump shot, like we work on a recipe, like we work in accounting, etc. Let's get to work, practice, and then love rather that hate.
Thing of action
At the core of training are two aspects, both the definition of what is love and which kind is it
, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) What? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) Which? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) You , God, b) you and neighbor
What does "you and God" mean in this answer? It means you as in lawyer, disciples, and the people. It means the God for all as identified by the Jews for generations.
What does "two by self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both are selves. There is yourself and myself, making two.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
What does "with whole" mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the whole of each of four parts. Notice the same level or quality for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal in quality though somewhat distinct in order.
So how does this all translate to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be focused on one God, even if we ourselves have four parts. Likewise the quality from each part needs to be equal. This is the clarity and the meaningfulness that we need today.
In our day, ....
what? lawyer, teacher, God, disciples, the people
which? 1st greater commandment, 2nd lesser commandment, greatest summary altogether
teach
CLOSING OF ACTION
[just a bit more to go]
In Christ,
Jon
Friday, April 11, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding it Better Through Exodus 34 (Train Actions - Part 4 of 5)
PREFACE
We hear people sing "take time to be holy" and "bless you". Does anyone know what those 2 actions mean? Christians say, "hallowed be your name" in the Lord's Prayer over and over. Does anyone really know how to hallow or how to make holy a name? Does anyone know why to hallow or make holy should happen? I think those, who can answer one or both of these questions, are rare people. If you can get me their addresses and phone #s, then please do so. I'd like to sign them up for my ministry team! Can anyone train me in how to be holy? What does sanctified as an action look like? So based on what I think are the answers out there, it looks like we do need some training.
As a former coach of 5 different sports (and later an athletic director, as well), I cannot possibly overlook the need for the skill of training alongside other skills like teaching. While great coaches can also be great teachers, the one thing that they absolutely must be is an effective trainer. They must teach their players skills or know-how as well as offer motivations for those actions. I cannot imagine being a successful coach without being able to do both. In Scripture, we find both methods and purposes for actions. One simple example, "We love [how] him, because [why] he first loved [how] us". We even learned our training in love from his love of us. But when have we offered love classes? I don't remember that training? When both methods and purposes are taught well, then you find people eager to be trained and to act.
That is what I discovered as a coach. But I also learned a set of criteria for eagerness that was expressed in a real estate training magazine that I found, while I was a part-time real estate agent. It was my way of earning money to pay for studying at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA.
The Entrance to One of the Buildings at Fuller
In the business world, like in the sports world, you get paid for results. The score is kept differently with the currency of money rather than the play money of points, but the goal was still to win. When I ran across the article, I knew the article was a difference maker. It was different from any other training that I had been trained in as either an athlete or as a coach. I'd never even heard this set of words grouped together before like they were in this convenient set. I'd obviously heard them separately many times. Since first hearing the set then, I have repeatedly improved what I learned from the article and I have organized it to be a more effective training tool. If anything, I wish I used it more often.
As a coach, you want players who are eager to play or better yet to work with you and not work against you. As a real estate agent, you want clients who are eager to buy or better yet to work with you and not work against you. In real estate, the criteria for a strong prospect is as follows:
1) ready,
2) willing, and
3) able.
What all Sales People Ought to Know
Back in the early 90s, they were likely in that neat order. I have the article still among my things somewhere. But also the list lacked a critical fourth element. I'd learned to look for that fourth element following my training with Tentmakers, Inc. in Hopkins, MN. There I learned a number of practical tools, but also how to identify complete ones.
The Logo for the Tentmakers organization I am referring to
It took me a long time, but eventually in the last few years, I have added that a strong prospect is someone who is also aware or seeing. They can't be blind to what they are looking for in the process. A real estate prospect, who cannot envision or point to the kind of house they are looking for, could turn out to be a weaker prospect, even if they are ready, willing, and able. In selling, agents are not given much time to train prospects, except by the very best prospects, so they usually get impatient with customers who are not strong ones or who are not able to become strong ones. So I now say that a strong prospect consists of someone who is:
1) ready,
2) willing,
3) able, and
4) seeing.
That kind of prospect is a prime one, just as that kind of player is a prime player for a coach. Both are eager to take action. They are not there to study something more, but to act using the strength that they already possess. That is why they are eager. Strong people by nature are eager people. Weak people by nature are not eager people.
The next closest to these kinds would be those who possess 3 out of 4 of the criteria and are eager to seek the last criteria, the next would possess 2 out of 4 with eagerness too seek the other 2, etc. You get the idea.
I think Scripture also takes those who are eager and frees them for action or it trains those who cannot yet act on their own to act and to also act with a sense of motivation. This is where a second tool (that again, I wish I used more frequently) becomes very useful. It is a chart of pre-effect and post-effect with their respective non-action and action steps.
In Exodus, which is a great action book, by the way, there are a number of actions that can be described in terms of pre-action, pre-effect, during action, developing effect, post-action, and post-effect. I actually got this tool from a computer geek, who noticed how helpful this scheme was for breaking down computer processes. I wish I knew it years ago as a coach. (Since that wish is not possible, maybe I should just go back to coaching and do it better since that is possible.)
EXODUS: DIRECT APPLICATION
[This is being worked out and I will eventually be able to cut and paste to this entry a chart that lists each pre-effect, pre-action, etc. I hope it is not too long before I get it up. Much of what I am writing now is in a draft state, as is this piece, but still needs a little tweaking to even be a first draft.]
Sincerely,
Jon
We hear people sing "take time to be holy" and "bless you". Does anyone know what those 2 actions mean? Christians say, "hallowed be your name" in the Lord's Prayer over and over. Does anyone really know how to hallow or how to make holy a name? Does anyone know why to hallow or make holy should happen? I think those, who can answer one or both of these questions, are rare people. If you can get me their addresses and phone #s, then please do so. I'd like to sign them up for my ministry team! Can anyone train me in how to be holy? What does sanctified as an action look like? So based on what I think are the answers out there, it looks like we do need some training.
As a former coach of 5 different sports (and later an athletic director, as well), I cannot possibly overlook the need for the skill of training alongside other skills like teaching. While great coaches can also be great teachers, the one thing that they absolutely must be is an effective trainer. They must teach their players skills or know-how as well as offer motivations for those actions. I cannot imagine being a successful coach without being able to do both. In Scripture, we find both methods and purposes for actions. One simple example, "We love [how] him, because [why] he first loved [how] us". We even learned our training in love from his love of us. But when have we offered love classes? I don't remember that training? When both methods and purposes are taught well, then you find people eager to be trained and to act.
That is what I discovered as a coach. But I also learned a set of criteria for eagerness that was expressed in a real estate training magazine that I found, while I was a part-time real estate agent. It was my way of earning money to pay for studying at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA.
The Entrance to One of the Buildings at Fuller
In the business world, like in the sports world, you get paid for results. The score is kept differently with the currency of money rather than the play money of points, but the goal was still to win. When I ran across the article, I knew the article was a difference maker. It was different from any other training that I had been trained in as either an athlete or as a coach. I'd never even heard this set of words grouped together before like they were in this convenient set. I'd obviously heard them separately many times. Since first hearing the set then, I have repeatedly improved what I learned from the article and I have organized it to be a more effective training tool. If anything, I wish I used it more often.
As a coach, you want players who are eager to play or better yet to work with you and not work against you. As a real estate agent, you want clients who are eager to buy or better yet to work with you and not work against you. In real estate, the criteria for a strong prospect is as follows:
1) ready,
2) willing, and
3) able.
What all Sales People Ought to Know
Back in the early 90s, they were likely in that neat order. I have the article still among my things somewhere. But also the list lacked a critical fourth element. I'd learned to look for that fourth element following my training with Tentmakers, Inc. in Hopkins, MN. There I learned a number of practical tools, but also how to identify complete ones.
The Logo for the Tentmakers organization I am referring to
It took me a long time, but eventually in the last few years, I have added that a strong prospect is someone who is also aware or seeing. They can't be blind to what they are looking for in the process. A real estate prospect, who cannot envision or point to the kind of house they are looking for, could turn out to be a weaker prospect, even if they are ready, willing, and able. In selling, agents are not given much time to train prospects, except by the very best prospects, so they usually get impatient with customers who are not strong ones or who are not able to become strong ones. So I now say that a strong prospect consists of someone who is:
1) ready,
2) willing,
3) able, and
4) seeing.
That kind of prospect is a prime one, just as that kind of player is a prime player for a coach. Both are eager to take action. They are not there to study something more, but to act using the strength that they already possess. That is why they are eager. Strong people by nature are eager people. Weak people by nature are not eager people.
The next closest to these kinds would be those who possess 3 out of 4 of the criteria and are eager to seek the last criteria, the next would possess 2 out of 4 with eagerness too seek the other 2, etc. You get the idea.
I think Scripture also takes those who are eager and frees them for action or it trains those who cannot yet act on their own to act and to also act with a sense of motivation. This is where a second tool (that again, I wish I used more frequently) becomes very useful. It is a chart of pre-effect and post-effect with their respective non-action and action steps.
In Exodus, which is a great action book, by the way, there are a number of actions that can be described in terms of pre-action, pre-effect, during action, developing effect, post-action, and post-effect. I actually got this tool from a computer geek, who noticed how helpful this scheme was for breaking down computer processes. I wish I knew it years ago as a coach. (Since that wish is not possible, maybe I should just go back to coaching and do it better since that is possible.)
EXODUS: DIRECT APPLICATION
[This is being worked out and I will eventually be able to cut and paste to this entry a chart that lists each pre-effect, pre-action, etc. I hope it is not too long before I get it up. Much of what I am writing now is in a draft state, as is this piece, but still needs a little tweaking to even be a first draft.]
Sincerely,
Jon
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Exodus 34 (Total Wholes - Part 3 of 5)
PREFACE
Many people want to know what the meaning of holy is, because they are told how important it is to "be holy". That desire to know or see something is invaluable. It creates the opportunity to see something that has not be seen before or to see again something that has been forgotten. Throughout the writing of my blog, I have tried to help people see something that they have not seen before, but also to help them remember something that has been forgotten.
My prime example of this is the theory that biblical holiness in its definition and at its core means "moral wholeness". For most people that is an idea that is new to them. To others, it is a reminder of what the 5 greatest church reformers of the last 500 years taught before the arrival of the 20th ct.. It is an idea that might shed light on what has been lost in the dark for the church and also might give salt to preserve what has not been preserved.
I would be nowhere today in either shedding light on what needs to be seen or in preserving what needs to be preserved without one very helpful tool in my toolbox. It is the total tool that is at the core of everything that is communicated to me and that I communicate to others. That tool I call the ARWAT (pronounced "Are What?") method. It is an acronym for the first letters of each of the greatest aspects of the method I use. I use it for everything now. I never let my mind work without it, because to turn back to any of the methods that I used before is to risk damage to my mind.
To work the mind without ARWAT is like the fictional Sherlock Holmes' comment that it is like an engine racing. Like the engine that eventually explodes, so the mind eventually explodes without it. The only other option for some is to simply turn off their mind. ARWAT is based on common sense, so its proof is universal in nature. But also it is capable of addressing the specialized sense needed for different kinds of work. It deals well with both the knowledge of the common person and with the knowledge of the specialists.
Part 3 of the 5 step process I use, is the most important step. What you need to know is how I arrived at the concept of total with the 4 parts that combine to make the total, because you may fail to look at other things I have written to find out who the 5 T's work.
Behind my 5 T's that focuses on relationships or transfers, is the ARWAT method that applies to persons and to being whole.
APPLICATION TO EXODUS 34
[ Still in construction due to an odd week of demands from my other work. I hope to catch up some later this week. Thank you for your patience.
In Christ,
Jon
Many people want to know what the meaning of holy is, because they are told how important it is to "be holy". That desire to know or see something is invaluable. It creates the opportunity to see something that has not be seen before or to see again something that has been forgotten. Throughout the writing of my blog, I have tried to help people see something that they have not seen before, but also to help them remember something that has been forgotten.
My prime example of this is the theory that biblical holiness in its definition and at its core means "moral wholeness". For most people that is an idea that is new to them. To others, it is a reminder of what the 5 greatest church reformers of the last 500 years taught before the arrival of the 20th ct.. It is an idea that might shed light on what has been lost in the dark for the church and also might give salt to preserve what has not been preserved.
I would be nowhere today in either shedding light on what needs to be seen or in preserving what needs to be preserved without one very helpful tool in my toolbox. It is the total tool that is at the core of everything that is communicated to me and that I communicate to others. That tool I call the ARWAT (pronounced "Are What?") method. It is an acronym for the first letters of each of the greatest aspects of the method I use. I use it for everything now. I never let my mind work without it, because to turn back to any of the methods that I used before is to risk damage to my mind.
To work the mind without ARWAT is like the fictional Sherlock Holmes' comment that it is like an engine racing. Like the engine that eventually explodes, so the mind eventually explodes without it. The only other option for some is to simply turn off their mind. ARWAT is based on common sense, so its proof is universal in nature. But also it is capable of addressing the specialized sense needed for different kinds of work. It deals well with both the knowledge of the common person and with the knowledge of the specialists.
Part 3 of the 5 step process I use, is the most important step. What you need to know is how I arrived at the concept of total with the 4 parts that combine to make the total, because you may fail to look at other things I have written to find out who the 5 T's work.
Behind my 5 T's that focuses on relationships or transfers, is the ARWAT method that applies to persons and to being whole.
APPLICATION TO EXODUS 34
[ Still in construction due to an odd week of demands from my other work. I hope to catch up some later this week. Thank you for your patience.
In Christ,
Jon
Monday, March 31, 2014
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Levitics 19 (Translate Amounts - Part 1 of 5)
Leviticus is one of the most overlooked books in the entire Hebrew Scriptures. To the Jews traditionally, this is the most important of the 5 Books of the Law. Yet in Christian circles today, it is the most forgotten book of all the 5 Books of the Law and maybe even of the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures. When was there a rush to the Christian bookstores to get the latest commentary on Leviticus? Did I miss it?
How is it that the most important Book of the Law of Moses can become the least? Pastor Ray Stedman, a number of years ago, tried to explain this in a commentary on Leviticus titled The Way to Wholeness (published posthumously). His explanation of the lack of interest in Christian circles had to do with the popular understanding of holy as set apart rather than as wholeness. While most scholars would disagree with his definition, most scholars agree with Stedman that holiness is a key concept in the book of Leviticus. So what does it mean?
Where there is a difference between Stedman and the majority of scholars is the translation of the Hebrew qadosh (holy in most translations). The current difficulty with holy is that it is amendable in English to either the idea of "set apart" or to the idea of "whole". There is a silly argument that the scholar James "Too Far" Barr once tried to present that holy in the Bible does not mean "whole", based on the English etymology where it clearly is connected to hale, healthy, and whole. First, in all of my reading on holiness (and it is extremely extensive), I have never read someone argue that because an English word means something in its etymology, therefore the Hebrew means the same.
I think it what we used to call a "wet paper sack" ("he can't even fight his way out of a wet paper sack") argument. Who would ever think that? It is absurd.
The logic does not go this way:
Holy is the translation for qadosh (the original in Hebrew) and hagios (the original in Greek),
therefore if holy means whole in English,
then therefore qadosh and hagios mean whole in their respective languages.
No, that logic does not work and none of those like Ray Stedman, Leonard Ravenhill, or Charles Haddon Spurgeon ever would have dreamed up such a notion. What they are trying to say is something that does make sense. Here is what I think they are trying to argue when the point out that holy means or is connected to whole. One of their major premises is being skipped over by Barr.
Their logic does go more like this:
The King James translators (and English translators before them) chose the word holy primarily to translate qadosh from Hebrew and hagios from Greek into our language.
The King James translators chose the word holy, because they believed that qadosh and hagios had connections to moral wholeness.
When we point out that holy means whole in its etymology, we mean to point out what was obvious to earlier translators when they chose holy as the word for their translation into English of qadosh and hagios.
Therefore, since I am not questioning their translation of qadosh and hagios from their respective languages by these earlier translators, then I am supporting their translation into my language that holy means moral wholeness.
What Barr does not make explicit in the other parties' argument is the highlighted line and also his own line that:
We, as Biblical scholars, do not take seriously earlier Biblical scholarship or translation work relying or dating back at least to the Middle Ages.
That is what the argument is really about with regard to the translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. It is about the reliability or quality of earlier translation work. Without really making it an explicit premise, there is an assumption than older scholarship is inferior.
I, as a translator, take a much more objective view now that it is possible to stand apart from the arguments about scholarship that were at their peak near the end of the 1800's and continued throughout the entire 20th century. I don't by default automatically consider an older viewpoint the inferior view. Rather I like to look at the evidence for both sides in arguments over a translation. I keep my choices open and then only by the evidence do I close doors to those choices.
I think that David J. A. Clines, the editor for the most up to date Hebrew dictionary called The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, possesses a keen mind when he says two things about the challenges for making an adequate Hebrew dictionary:
First, he says, regarding the challenges of constructing a Hebrew dictionary including Biblical Hebrew: "It takes a long time to make a Hebrew dictionary that is more than a recapitulation of dictionaries of the past" (p. 88). This is a critical point. The number of dictionaries that say the same thing about the meaning of Hebrew qadosh does not mean that each dictionary has evaluated the work of the previous dictionary. Instead, due to time constraints, it may only be "a recapitulation of the dictionaries of the past". This totally makes sense, since they are trying to cover some 300,000 words in Biblical Hebrew alone according to Cline (p. 90). That does not even consider the next 100,000 Non-Biblical Hebrew words that Cline also mentions. It would be a massive task to re-evaluate every word's meaning and translation.
Second, he says regarding one further challenges for more recent Hebrew dictionaries including Biblical Hebrew :
How to draw upon the rich resources of mediaeval Hebrew lexicographers [dictionary
makers], which are almost totally absent from all our contemporary lexica. I do not
mean to suggest that all philological [linguistic] observations by these mediaeval
authors deserve a place in a modern dictionary of Hebrew, but that some undoubtedly do.
The systematic evaluation of such proposals would be a highly technical undertaking, and
stands as a challenge to lexicographers of the future (p. 92).
Here I believe that Cline is much more objective than James "Too Far" Barr, who in all likelihood would see no value in the task that Cline has suggested. Notice too how careful Cline is to avoid two errors and not just one error as in the case of Barr. He avoids saying that "all [linguistic] observations by these mediaeval authors deserve a place in a modern dictionary of Hebrew". But he also thinks that "some undoubtedly do".
This leaves the door open then to considering the work of people like Johannes Reuchlin, the influential Hebrew scholar in the case of Martin Luther's and Phillip Melancthon's scholarship. It does not by default register an endorsement, but rather an evaluation. That is what I want to plead for in the case of trying to decide the meaning of holy. Too often older scholarship by default registers the opposite of an endorsement, a denial.
I also want to support Cline's statement that this "would be a highly technical undertaking", because I have tried to do this on the just the meaning of holy and knowledge of Latin is a major requirement, besides the fact that footnotes were not popular with the Reformers like Luther, who do not always point out whether it was Reuchlin, one of the Kimchi's, or Nicholas of Lyra who was his source. The difficulty of the job, however, does not mean it should not be undertaken, but rather undertaken with a due sense of qualifications for doing it well.
Having said all this about translation, you probably have guessed already that I will be focusing primarily on statement from Leviticus 19:2 New King James Version (NKJV):
2 “Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy."
The key words to look at in terms of translation in this passage are the following:
1) "all" - more properly translated as "the whole of" in this verse
2) "holy" - no surprise here: "What does it mean in the original text?"
3) the LORD - more properly translated as "Yahweh", the question is: "Why is it not transliterated as Yahweh as found in the original text?"
So my personal translation of this verse would read:
“Speak to the whole of the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘You shall be holy, for I Yahweh your God am holy."
The remaining question will be, during the 5 steps of 1)translation, 2)transfer, 3)total, 4)train, and 5)teach; whether holy should be understood as 1) morally whole, 2) pure, or 3) set apart. As I go through the series of steps, I hope at each step the issues will be clearer and clearer as to which definition the text supports. Remember to keep your choice of definition open long enough to evaluate the evidence. Also an additional word to watch for is the Hebrew word for blessed. I will be examining that also in the context of holy. May you have a great finish to the rest of your day.
In Christ,
Jon
How is it that the most important Book of the Law of Moses can become the least? Pastor Ray Stedman, a number of years ago, tried to explain this in a commentary on Leviticus titled The Way to Wholeness (published posthumously). His explanation of the lack of interest in Christian circles had to do with the popular understanding of holy as set apart rather than as wholeness. While most scholars would disagree with his definition, most scholars agree with Stedman that holiness is a key concept in the book of Leviticus. So what does it mean?
Where there is a difference between Stedman and the majority of scholars is the translation of the Hebrew qadosh (holy in most translations). The current difficulty with holy is that it is amendable in English to either the idea of "set apart" or to the idea of "whole". There is a silly argument that the scholar James "Too Far" Barr once tried to present that holy in the Bible does not mean "whole", based on the English etymology where it clearly is connected to hale, healthy, and whole. First, in all of my reading on holiness (and it is extremely extensive), I have never read someone argue that because an English word means something in its etymology, therefore the Hebrew means the same.
I think it what we used to call a "wet paper sack" ("he can't even fight his way out of a wet paper sack") argument. Who would ever think that? It is absurd.
The logic does not go this way:
Holy is the translation for qadosh (the original in Hebrew) and hagios (the original in Greek),
therefore if holy means whole in English,
then therefore qadosh and hagios mean whole in their respective languages.
No, that logic does not work and none of those like Ray Stedman, Leonard Ravenhill, or Charles Haddon Spurgeon ever would have dreamed up such a notion. What they are trying to say is something that does make sense. Here is what I think they are trying to argue when the point out that holy means or is connected to whole. One of their major premises is being skipped over by Barr.
Their logic does go more like this:
The King James translators (and English translators before them) chose the word holy primarily to translate qadosh from Hebrew and hagios from Greek into our language.
The King James translators chose the word holy, because they believed that qadosh and hagios had connections to moral wholeness.
When we point out that holy means whole in its etymology, we mean to point out what was obvious to earlier translators when they chose holy as the word for their translation into English of qadosh and hagios.
Therefore, since I am not questioning their translation of qadosh and hagios from their respective languages by these earlier translators, then I am supporting their translation into my language that holy means moral wholeness.
What Barr does not make explicit in the other parties' argument is the highlighted line and also his own line that:
We, as Biblical scholars, do not take seriously earlier Biblical scholarship or translation work relying or dating back at least to the Middle Ages.
That is what the argument is really about with regard to the translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. It is about the reliability or quality of earlier translation work. Without really making it an explicit premise, there is an assumption than older scholarship is inferior.
I, as a translator, take a much more objective view now that it is possible to stand apart from the arguments about scholarship that were at their peak near the end of the 1800's and continued throughout the entire 20th century. I don't by default automatically consider an older viewpoint the inferior view. Rather I like to look at the evidence for both sides in arguments over a translation. I keep my choices open and then only by the evidence do I close doors to those choices.
I keep my choices open
and then only by the evidence
do I close doors to those choices.
I think that David J. A. Clines, the editor for the most up to date Hebrew dictionary called The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, possesses a keen mind when he says two things about the challenges for making an adequate Hebrew dictionary:
First, he says, regarding the challenges of constructing a Hebrew dictionary including Biblical Hebrew: "It takes a long time to make a Hebrew dictionary that is more than a recapitulation of dictionaries of the past" (p. 88). This is a critical point. The number of dictionaries that say the same thing about the meaning of Hebrew qadosh does not mean that each dictionary has evaluated the work of the previous dictionary. Instead, due to time constraints, it may only be "a recapitulation of the dictionaries of the past". This totally makes sense, since they are trying to cover some 300,000 words in Biblical Hebrew alone according to Cline (p. 90). That does not even consider the next 100,000 Non-Biblical Hebrew words that Cline also mentions. It would be a massive task to re-evaluate every word's meaning and translation.
Second, he says regarding one further challenges for more recent Hebrew dictionaries including Biblical Hebrew :
How to draw upon the rich resources of mediaeval Hebrew lexicographers [dictionary
makers], which are almost totally absent from all our contemporary lexica. I do not
mean to suggest that all philological [linguistic] observations by these mediaeval
authors deserve a place in a modern dictionary of Hebrew, but that some undoubtedly do.
The systematic evaluation of such proposals would be a highly technical undertaking, and
stands as a challenge to lexicographers of the future (p. 92).
Here I believe that Cline is much more objective than James "Too Far" Barr, who in all likelihood would see no value in the task that Cline has suggested. Notice too how careful Cline is to avoid two errors and not just one error as in the case of Barr. He avoids saying that "all [linguistic] observations by these mediaeval authors deserve a place in a modern dictionary of Hebrew". But he also thinks that "some undoubtedly do".
This leaves the door open then to considering the work of people like Johannes Reuchlin, the influential Hebrew scholar in the case of Martin Luther's and Phillip Melancthon's scholarship. It does not by default register an endorsement, but rather an evaluation. That is what I want to plead for in the case of trying to decide the meaning of holy. Too often older scholarship by default registers the opposite of an endorsement, a denial.
I also want to support Cline's statement that this "would be a highly technical undertaking", because I have tried to do this on the just the meaning of holy and knowledge of Latin is a major requirement, besides the fact that footnotes were not popular with the Reformers like Luther, who do not always point out whether it was Reuchlin, one of the Kimchi's, or Nicholas of Lyra who was his source. The difficulty of the job, however, does not mean it should not be undertaken, but rather undertaken with a due sense of qualifications for doing it well.
Having said all this about translation, you probably have guessed already that I will be focusing primarily on statement from Leviticus 19:2 New King James Version (NKJV):
2 “Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy."
The key words to look at in terms of translation in this passage are the following:
1) "all" - more properly translated as "the whole of" in this verse
2) "holy" - no surprise here: "What does it mean in the original text?"
3) the LORD - more properly translated as "Yahweh", the question is: "Why is it not transliterated as Yahweh as found in the original text?"
So my personal translation of this verse would read:
“Speak to the whole of the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘You shall be holy, for I Yahweh your God am holy."
The remaining question will be, during the 5 steps of 1)translation, 2)transfer, 3)total, 4)train, and 5)teach; whether holy should be understood as 1) morally whole, 2) pure, or 3) set apart. As I go through the series of steps, I hope at each step the issues will be clearer and clearer as to which definition the text supports. Remember to keep your choice of definition open long enough to evaluate the evidence. Also an additional word to watch for is the Hebrew word for blessed. I will be examining that also in the context of holy. May you have a great finish to the rest of your day.
In Christ,
Jon
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Holy: Understanding It Better Through Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a (Teach Things - 5 of 5 parts/days)
This post may be the most important of the five posts for Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a. Despite or perhaps because of the level of education available in the United States, the more important part of education has been neglected. I like to call that part "common sense". Now note carefully my choice of "more important" and not most important. My reason is because the most important thing is common sense together with a specialized sense. The ideal education is both of these together. The creation story itself supports this distinction. What was really missing for me, as I came up through the educational system called school, is the more important part called common sense. That is where I want to begin to define three key words in the passage I am examining, but first let's examine the big picture in picture form.
[I had problems with the picture for this post. I think I have resolved it and will finish this post on Monday. I had to help out someone today which was a good thing, but I ran out of time today.]
Sincerely,
Jon
[I had problems with the picture for this post. I think I have resolved it and will finish this post on Monday. I had to help out someone today which was a good thing, but I ran out of time today.]
Sincerely,
Jon
Friday, February 28, 2014
Holy: Understanding It Better Through Understanding Persuasion Better
We can all be really gullible sometimes. The discussion surrounding the meaning of LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy all clearly demonstrate the danger. This danger is aggravated or heightened by the fact that each of these words are critical to understanding God's Word as a whole. When I ask people around me about how they discern an expert opinion from one that is not, they tell me they are very confused by all the different opinions. I personally know the feeling, but I also know a way out from all the different views and how to find a viable agreement among the experts.
Let me first remove some gullibility by explaining how you and I are persuaded by others. When you know how people persuade you, then it dramatically reduces your gullibility and makes you able to make your own decisions. How you are persuaded is not necessarily evil. It is like someone who knows any skill. It can be used or abused. It can be used for people's own selfish ends or for ends that advance not only selfish ends but the other's ends as well. Any skill can become something that conforms to love your neighbor as much as yourself. So persuasion as a skill does not always have to lead to love myself more than I love my neighbor. So what we need to know is when people are abusing persuasion skillfully and when they are using persuasion skillfully.
In The Complete Idiot's Guide to Persuasion, the author uses the analogy of a cascade to illustrate how persuasion works. He identifies this sequence to bring about a communication cascade toward persuasion. The steps are:
1) reception
2) processing
3) response, and
4) behavior.
So if these are the steps, let me give you the simplest explanation of each. I will get you a one sentence definition of each. Here is each one:
1) reception - it is the first dawn of awareness that there is something new out there and it needs to saturate communities with its message (ex. 2004 is when I first heard something new about holy - that it can mean moral wholeness and I found it in lots of communities of faith)
2) processing - it is discerning whether the light bulb in your receiver's mind is bright or dim and realizing that sometimes people are highly willing (the light bulb burns brightly) and other times not so much so (the light bulb burns dimly), so you have to move the dimmer switch to burn more brightly before there will be willing processing to maintain and make time for what is needed (ex. for the next 10 years, I processed the idea of moral wholeness and other ideas related to holy)
3) response - it is that point when the processing turns to action through demonstrating a favorable outcome through key motivators like easy, fun, and popular. The author here recognizes that we are adults, so the geek speak or adult equivalent for each of these is self-efficacy, attitude, and norms. The message has to create strong intentions or goals and strong motivators. (ex. it was easy [I could do it] using Eugene Nida's word classes to play around [attitude] with possible meanings for holy looking for the one that ought to be popular [fit the norm of biblical])
4) behavior - this is where a TACTful view is required according to this author by getting very specific about behavior, not just a generic response. Unfortunately, the author is not specific enough to satisfy a high school level mind, so I will add to their "TACTful view" a more "TACTFUL VIEW". Here it goes:
T) Target - who?
A) Action - how?
C) Context - where?
T) Time - when?
F) Fun - why?
U) Uncommon - which?
L) Label - what?
V) Vigorous - whole?
I) Intense - how many?
E) Enough - how much?
W) Way - all the way through all 10 of these or persuasion behavior will fail
Unfortunately, many people are persuaded even with huge gaps in answering these questions that the mind requires answers to before it finds what it is looking for ultimately. So if you want to avoid gullibility, then avoid persuasion that leaves you feeling these are not questions they answer, but questions they leave out. Even today, as I write, this one entry should not a case make. You need to read other of my entries too (read the newest first!). The only case I am making today that might be fully persuasive is that this is how persuasion works for the good (and unfortunately sometimes to the bad).
So each step of the persuasion cascade is how our words as persuaders cascade all the way into full blown behavior on every level - heart, soul, strength, and mind. So let me move from this common communication cascade of persuasion to one of the specifics of the meanings of LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy, It does no good, if nothing if I am not specific at this point about my behavior.
As I look at things, I sense right now (and I am gathering wise counsel at this point) the need to write a book and a paper on the topics of the three most important words in the Bible - LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy. The reason is because even though the internet is a wonderful way to gain reception in the world, it does not gain reception in some of the places that I would like my writing to gain reception. I would like scholars to hear what I have to say. I would like pastors to hear what I have to say. I would like lay people to hear what I have to say. Especially the last, since they are so numerous and I want heaven filled with people! Reception is a little harder to get than just writing on the internet alone. You also have to be persuasive!
A more popular book for pastors is where I think I should begin, since that type of speech communication comes easiest to me. The next would be the write to the scholarly community, because they are critical in a discussion of who really has expertise. And by expertise, I hope part of it is persuasive expertise. Finally, I want to speak anytime I can and write to the average person, because there is a lot more of them than the first two categories making them immensely important. But I think that they have the right to see me earn my wings of expertise too. It does no good if they see me ducking the tough (fun!) road of ministry professionals and seminary scholars. There may be other means, but so far it appears those two pieces are needed to be specific enough to get the job done.
In the meantime, keep in your mind the three major scholarly opinions for the biblical meaning of holy: 1) moral wholeness, 2) purity, and 3) set apart. Treasure all three and do not let anyone take any one of the three from your mind of discovery. Receive it don't let anyone steal any of them. I'll need something a little longer to make my case for the biblical understanding of holy (and the others), but Lord willing it is coming given time. May God bless your day.
In Christ,
Jon
Let me first remove some gullibility by explaining how you and I are persuaded by others. When you know how people persuade you, then it dramatically reduces your gullibility and makes you able to make your own decisions. How you are persuaded is not necessarily evil. It is like someone who knows any skill. It can be used or abused. It can be used for people's own selfish ends or for ends that advance not only selfish ends but the other's ends as well. Any skill can become something that conforms to love your neighbor as much as yourself. So persuasion as a skill does not always have to lead to love myself more than I love my neighbor. So what we need to know is when people are abusing persuasion skillfully and when they are using persuasion skillfully.
In The Complete Idiot's Guide to Persuasion, the author uses the analogy of a cascade to illustrate how persuasion works. He identifies this sequence to bring about a communication cascade toward persuasion. The steps are:
1) reception
2) processing
3) response, and
4) behavior.
So if these are the steps, let me give you the simplest explanation of each. I will get you a one sentence definition of each. Here is each one:
1) reception - it is the first dawn of awareness that there is something new out there and it needs to saturate communities with its message (ex. 2004 is when I first heard something new about holy - that it can mean moral wholeness and I found it in lots of communities of faith)
2) processing - it is discerning whether the light bulb in your receiver's mind is bright or dim and realizing that sometimes people are highly willing (the light bulb burns brightly) and other times not so much so (the light bulb burns dimly), so you have to move the dimmer switch to burn more brightly before there will be willing processing to maintain and make time for what is needed (ex. for the next 10 years, I processed the idea of moral wholeness and other ideas related to holy)
3) response - it is that point when the processing turns to action through demonstrating a favorable outcome through key motivators like easy, fun, and popular. The author here recognizes that we are adults, so the geek speak or adult equivalent for each of these is self-efficacy, attitude, and norms. The message has to create strong intentions or goals and strong motivators. (ex. it was easy [I could do it] using Eugene Nida's word classes to play around [attitude] with possible meanings for holy looking for the one that ought to be popular [fit the norm of biblical])
4) behavior - this is where a TACTful view is required according to this author by getting very specific about behavior, not just a generic response. Unfortunately, the author is not specific enough to satisfy a high school level mind, so I will add to their "TACTful view" a more "TACTFUL VIEW". Here it goes:
T) Target - who?
A) Action - how?
C) Context - where?
T) Time - when?
F) Fun - why?
U) Uncommon - which?
L) Label - what?
V) Vigorous - whole?
I) Intense - how many?
E) Enough - how much?
W) Way - all the way through all 10 of these or persuasion behavior will fail
Unfortunately, many people are persuaded even with huge gaps in answering these questions that the mind requires answers to before it finds what it is looking for ultimately. So if you want to avoid gullibility, then avoid persuasion that leaves you feeling these are not questions they answer, but questions they leave out. Even today, as I write, this one entry should not a case make. You need to read other of my entries too (read the newest first!). The only case I am making today that might be fully persuasive is that this is how persuasion works for the good (and unfortunately sometimes to the bad).
So each step of the persuasion cascade is how our words as persuaders cascade all the way into full blown behavior on every level - heart, soul, strength, and mind. So let me move from this common communication cascade of persuasion to one of the specifics of the meanings of LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy, It does no good, if nothing if I am not specific at this point about my behavior.
As I look at things, I sense right now (and I am gathering wise counsel at this point) the need to write a book and a paper on the topics of the three most important words in the Bible - LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy. The reason is because even though the internet is a wonderful way to gain reception in the world, it does not gain reception in some of the places that I would like my writing to gain reception. I would like scholars to hear what I have to say. I would like pastors to hear what I have to say. I would like lay people to hear what I have to say. Especially the last, since they are so numerous and I want heaven filled with people! Reception is a little harder to get than just writing on the internet alone. You also have to be persuasive!
A more popular book for pastors is where I think I should begin, since that type of speech communication comes easiest to me. The next would be the write to the scholarly community, because they are critical in a discussion of who really has expertise. And by expertise, I hope part of it is persuasive expertise. Finally, I want to speak anytime I can and write to the average person, because there is a lot more of them than the first two categories making them immensely important. But I think that they have the right to see me earn my wings of expertise too. It does no good if they see me ducking the tough (fun!) road of ministry professionals and seminary scholars. There may be other means, but so far it appears those two pieces are needed to be specific enough to get the job done.
In the meantime, keep in your mind the three major scholarly opinions for the biblical meaning of holy: 1) moral wholeness, 2) purity, and 3) set apart. Treasure all three and do not let anyone take any one of the three from your mind of discovery. Receive it don't let anyone steal any of them. I'll need something a little longer to make my case for the biblical understanding of holy (and the others), but Lord willing it is coming given time. May God bless your day.
In Christ,
Jon
Thursday, February 06, 2014
Holy: Celebrating Its Definition being Viewed 40,000 Times!
I believe it is a good time to celebrate the visiting of this blog 40,000 times plus. When I began this effort, I received a lot of help from a pastor friend, Jeremiah Fyffe. He allowed me to learn what Google and other search engines are looking for, so that my blog would not get lost in the search.
I am extremely grateful to him, because this blog has continued to be at or near the very top of the search engines entries, when people enter the words "definition of holy". I want to also celebrate the fact that this now means that 40,000 times people have taken time out of their day to read my humble thoughts. I feel very fortunate to see this even further benefit from one fellow pastor's sage comments.
I also want to re-commit myself to continuing to writing much more and producing better quality entries to read. I know on one level that I am getting better, but I do wish I had more time to add diagrams and pictures to make my entries even clearer and more interesting.
A big "thank you" goes out to Jeremiah (and other helpers) and to all who have spent part of the their life reading what I have to say. Your time is precious, so hope you feel you have spent your time wisely.
In Christ,
Jon
P. S. I want you to know that the definition of holy that I propose is that it is "moral wholeness", but check out my other entries for what I do with "set apart" and "pure". You might find my treatment to be a new insight for you and very viable in terms of solid scholarship. Thank you again.
I am extremely grateful to him, because this blog has continued to be at or near the very top of the search engines entries, when people enter the words "definition of holy". I want to also celebrate the fact that this now means that 40,000 times people have taken time out of their day to read my humble thoughts. I feel very fortunate to see this even further benefit from one fellow pastor's sage comments.
I also want to re-commit myself to continuing to writing much more and producing better quality entries to read. I know on one level that I am getting better, but I do wish I had more time to add diagrams and pictures to make my entries even clearer and more interesting.
A big "thank you" goes out to Jeremiah (and other helpers) and to all who have spent part of the their life reading what I have to say. Your time is precious, so hope you feel you have spent your time wisely.
In Christ,
Jon
P. S. I want you to know that the definition of holy that I propose is that it is "moral wholeness", but check out my other entries for what I do with "set apart" and "pure". You might find my treatment to be a new insight for you and very viable in terms of solid scholarship. Thank you again.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Holy: Understanding it Better Despite the Hype or Conspiracy Theory
I was taught a great principle many years ago. It is that it is best approach to a would-be customer is to "under-promise and over-deliver" rather than the reverse. Despite this good advice, many people still make the same mistake - they over-promise. When you do that you open yourself to the charge of just offering a lot of hype along with broken promises. But hype is not the only danger. You also have to avoid the conspiracy theory - the idea that all promises are made to be broken. This is the fear of promises being there just to bring you aboard before you discover that the attitude of promises are made to be broken and that high expectations are meant to crumble. So how do you know if you have got a legitimate promise from a scholar or non-scholar as to what holy means in the Bible?
First, I know from experience the meaning of being over-promised. One thing that happens in Christian circles is that Christians over-promise what God's promises are for this life. Bad things never happen to good people. The truth is that this life includes the promise and guarantee of persecution. To say that your life in this life will be changed dramatically needs to be qualified. It is not an over-promise when it comes to eternity, but it is a dangerous promise for this life. We live in a day when manic-depression is becoming more and more common place. Could it be that people are becoming more manic though over-promises that they take seriously? They think everything will have a fairy tale ending. How much better if we promised people promises that can be kept?
Second, I also know from experience the meaning of every opportunity being seen as a conspiracy. Good things never happen to good people. We're always under attack from the persecutors. Good things happen only to those who compromise their principles and avoid persecution. I've heard my fair share of this kind of talk as well. I call it the radio talk show host syndrome. Drum up enough sentiment that the end is near and that all is going not well. Everyone knows the great conspiracy is winning without our seeing it. But is that a promise that is for sure? Do we really know the secret will of God? I thought so. We don't. And maybe depression could be lifted too if people did not experience so often the broken promises of fairy tales and conspiracy theories? Who knows.
So now let's look at the definition of holy. Scholars promise people that they will help people become consciously aware of what the Bible in the original languages is saying to us. If they are not, then they promise to be open about their uncertainty and be real with us. So far, so good it seems. But some Christian scholars even promise that in God's secret providence they know that on the major things in the Bible that the church cannot be wrong. As good evangelicals or otherwise, they know God would not let us down in this way. I find this over-promise very interesting, because if that is true, then God would never allow the church to not have the definition of holy wrong. The problem is that the church has contradicted itself over time as to what holy means in the Bible. So some Christians (those who call themselves by that name) must be wrong on a major topic.
I have proven many times before that at least since the Reformation, the primary definition of holy for the five major Protestant Reformers is that holy meant moral wholeness. The problem is that today many evangelical followers of these leaders have a different definition for holy. They say it means set apart. In between these two periods there were also some who claimed it meant pure. So if God keeps us always aware in His providence of the meaning of major words in Scripture, then how are these contradictions possible? There is another example of a major in Scripture having a problem the church is not sure how to solve. How can the Greatest Commandment (a major in the Bible), be quoted differently in Scripture? I thought we always know the majors? Returning again to holy, you can find the idea of set apart with moral wholeness in the older literature, but moral wholeness was the primary then unlike now. Up to this moment, you usually find set apart as the definition with little or no mention of moral wholeness. It is not even treated as secondary. It is treated as blatantly mistaken. I think we have an over-promise being made about God's providence in hat case. Majors in the Bible do not automatically mean that the church is not making any errors in its understanding through history. Not only that, but it flatly contradicts biblical history with its ebb and flow of God's people understanding God Himself correctly. That Biblical history to me is the real promise in history that should be promoted. Despite errors in understanding and elsewhere, the Jews survived. So can Christians today, based on God's providence for the Jews.
If biblical history was our guide for how much God really promises rather than our thinking we know the secret things of God in history, then I think we would not be so afraid of admitting our errors. Right now, to admit our errors is tantamount to saying God has let us down, because we have created a false promise or an over-promise that has people saying the church is all hype. That in turns can create a great deal of conspiracy theorists who realize that people are then disillusioned. The over-promise of understanding the Bible on major things all the time has got to get out of the way for God's real promises to be fulfilled.
Luther discovered a misunderstanding, Calvin a misunderstanding, Cranmer a misunderstanding, Wesley a misunderstanding, and Spurgeon a misunderstanding within the church's theology or teaching. Don't think that our generation of Christian's is automatically an exception to the rule of what God has done previously. He has let the church drift away through its own failure. He does not guarantee that we are right, because He is right. He guarantees to right us when we seek His face. Not on everything, not on the majors, not all the time, not to equal perfection, and not just because we think we are consciously aware of what God is secretly doing. He does it all according to His will including both what we know and what we don't know.
If I had to guess the #1 reason that few people today (who knows about tomorrow) take seriously the definition of moral wholeness, I would say it is because of all the false hype. The promises that have been promised that have not been kept. People everywhere are disillusioned by the over-promises of the past. Here is what I can promise. I will trust God that whatever level of understanding He gives me of his Word, He gives it to me in accordance with His promises and not according to some excessive hype nor due to some conspiracy that all churches are liars about God's promises and Christian understanding of Scripture.
Christians need to do the work. God never promised good fruit without a good tree. And a good tree comes from a good gardener who works his orchards. He does not just assume what the weather will be like. He trusts God through the wind and the rain as well as through the calm and the sunshine. Good Christians know that the question is not whether God is on our side, but whether we are on His side, because He does not guarantee that we always fight for what pleases Him. He only promises that He always fights for what is right and will give us light as He sees fit to give us light.
Please let go of over-promises and find the great promises of God as we come up on that season where God's Son rose from the dead even as He promised. Ah, a real promise that is kept. Now that's how we all ought to like it. God that time really over-delivered!
Sincerely,
Jon
First, I know from experience the meaning of being over-promised. One thing that happens in Christian circles is that Christians over-promise what God's promises are for this life. Bad things never happen to good people. The truth is that this life includes the promise and guarantee of persecution. To say that your life in this life will be changed dramatically needs to be qualified. It is not an over-promise when it comes to eternity, but it is a dangerous promise for this life. We live in a day when manic-depression is becoming more and more common place. Could it be that people are becoming more manic though over-promises that they take seriously? They think everything will have a fairy tale ending. How much better if we promised people promises that can be kept?
Second, I also know from experience the meaning of every opportunity being seen as a conspiracy. Good things never happen to good people. We're always under attack from the persecutors. Good things happen only to those who compromise their principles and avoid persecution. I've heard my fair share of this kind of talk as well. I call it the radio talk show host syndrome. Drum up enough sentiment that the end is near and that all is going not well. Everyone knows the great conspiracy is winning without our seeing it. But is that a promise that is for sure? Do we really know the secret will of God? I thought so. We don't. And maybe depression could be lifted too if people did not experience so often the broken promises of fairy tales and conspiracy theories? Who knows.
So now let's look at the definition of holy. Scholars promise people that they will help people become consciously aware of what the Bible in the original languages is saying to us. If they are not, then they promise to be open about their uncertainty and be real with us. So far, so good it seems. But some Christian scholars even promise that in God's secret providence they know that on the major things in the Bible that the church cannot be wrong. As good evangelicals or otherwise, they know God would not let us down in this way. I find this over-promise very interesting, because if that is true, then God would never allow the church to not have the definition of holy wrong. The problem is that the church has contradicted itself over time as to what holy means in the Bible. So some Christians (those who call themselves by that name) must be wrong on a major topic.
I have proven many times before that at least since the Reformation, the primary definition of holy for the five major Protestant Reformers is that holy meant moral wholeness. The problem is that today many evangelical followers of these leaders have a different definition for holy. They say it means set apart. In between these two periods there were also some who claimed it meant pure. So if God keeps us always aware in His providence of the meaning of major words in Scripture, then how are these contradictions possible? There is another example of a major in Scripture having a problem the church is not sure how to solve. How can the Greatest Commandment (a major in the Bible), be quoted differently in Scripture? I thought we always know the majors? Returning again to holy, you can find the idea of set apart with moral wholeness in the older literature, but moral wholeness was the primary then unlike now. Up to this moment, you usually find set apart as the definition with little or no mention of moral wholeness. It is not even treated as secondary. It is treated as blatantly mistaken. I think we have an over-promise being made about God's providence in hat case. Majors in the Bible do not automatically mean that the church is not making any errors in its understanding through history. Not only that, but it flatly contradicts biblical history with its ebb and flow of God's people understanding God Himself correctly. That Biblical history to me is the real promise in history that should be promoted. Despite errors in understanding and elsewhere, the Jews survived. So can Christians today, based on God's providence for the Jews.
If biblical history was our guide for how much God really promises rather than our thinking we know the secret things of God in history, then I think we would not be so afraid of admitting our errors. Right now, to admit our errors is tantamount to saying God has let us down, because we have created a false promise or an over-promise that has people saying the church is all hype. That in turns can create a great deal of conspiracy theorists who realize that people are then disillusioned. The over-promise of understanding the Bible on major things all the time has got to get out of the way for God's real promises to be fulfilled.
Luther discovered a misunderstanding, Calvin a misunderstanding, Cranmer a misunderstanding, Wesley a misunderstanding, and Spurgeon a misunderstanding within the church's theology or teaching. Don't think that our generation of Christian's is automatically an exception to the rule of what God has done previously. He has let the church drift away through its own failure. He does not guarantee that we are right, because He is right. He guarantees to right us when we seek His face. Not on everything, not on the majors, not all the time, not to equal perfection, and not just because we think we are consciously aware of what God is secretly doing. He does it all according to His will including both what we know and what we don't know.
If I had to guess the #1 reason that few people today (who knows about tomorrow) take seriously the definition of moral wholeness, I would say it is because of all the false hype. The promises that have been promised that have not been kept. People everywhere are disillusioned by the over-promises of the past. Here is what I can promise. I will trust God that whatever level of understanding He gives me of his Word, He gives it to me in accordance with His promises and not according to some excessive hype nor due to some conspiracy that all churches are liars about God's promises and Christian understanding of Scripture.
Christians need to do the work. God never promised good fruit without a good tree. And a good tree comes from a good gardener who works his orchards. He does not just assume what the weather will be like. He trusts God through the wind and the rain as well as through the calm and the sunshine. Good Christians know that the question is not whether God is on our side, but whether we are on His side, because He does not guarantee that we always fight for what pleases Him. He only promises that He always fights for what is right and will give us light as He sees fit to give us light.
Please let go of over-promises and find the great promises of God as we come up on that season where God's Son rose from the dead even as He promised. Ah, a real promise that is kept. Now that's how we all ought to like it. God that time really over-delivered!
Sincerely,
Jon
Friday, December 27, 2013
Holy: Understanding Better the Resistance to Changing Definitions
I love the following opening lines from Thomas Paine's Common Sense:
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable
to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial
appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But
tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
Perhaps the view that I have expressed that holy by definition means moral wholeness does not seem like much in relationship to the long history of people assuming it means set apart, but as Paine says custom and its outcry of defense will eventually subside. The need for time as well as reason is not an optional need. People do need soak time with new ideas before they will set aside old ideas.
I also agree that reason means something less than more time. The reason for my position on the definition of holy is solid in regard to reason, but time honored custom is very hard to break. So let's not be influenced so much by custom and by the superficial appearance of what is right. Let's consider other options and then give time for these options to prove themselves right in more than a superficial way.
John A. Lee's comments, as a biblical scholar on the status of Biblical lexicons, as sometimes preservers of tradition more than a producer of higher quality definitions is worthy of consideration. He too warns about the superficial appearance of authority by the sheer number of lexicons that say the same thing. But quantity is not the same as quality.
Perhaps in time, Lee's wisdom and that of Paine's common sense will be taken more seriously and what first appeared right as a definition might then also be considered wrong. That though will take time. I only hope not too much longer.
In Christ,
Jon
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable
to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial
appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But
tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
Perhaps the view that I have expressed that holy by definition means moral wholeness does not seem like much in relationship to the long history of people assuming it means set apart, but as Paine says custom and its outcry of defense will eventually subside. The need for time as well as reason is not an optional need. People do need soak time with new ideas before they will set aside old ideas.
I also agree that reason means something less than more time. The reason for my position on the definition of holy is solid in regard to reason, but time honored custom is very hard to break. So let's not be influenced so much by custom and by the superficial appearance of what is right. Let's consider other options and then give time for these options to prove themselves right in more than a superficial way.
John A. Lee's comments, as a biblical scholar on the status of Biblical lexicons, as sometimes preservers of tradition more than a producer of higher quality definitions is worthy of consideration. He too warns about the superficial appearance of authority by the sheer number of lexicons that say the same thing. But quantity is not the same as quality.
Perhaps in time, Lee's wisdom and that of Paine's common sense will be taken more seriously and what first appeared right as a definition might then also be considered wrong. That though will take time. I only hope not too much longer.
In Christ,
Jon
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better through Undersatnding it Follows a Horizontal Axis like Justice
When we see a pair of words in the Bible joined by "and", it is very common for some scholars or non-scholars to interpret them as a kind of synonymous parallelism. There needs to be another option as well. Not everything joined by "and" is connected in the same way. To illustrate, in carpentry it is understood that there is a plumb line and a level line. These are not synonymous and yet they still are similar in that they are both measurements performed by a tool called a "level(er)" . What if this perpendicular connection also happens in the world of words and not just in the world of carpentry?
In reading Martin Luther years ago I ran across the idea of a broad definition and a narrow definition for word. This was a bit confusing for me at first, but gradually I was able to grasp what he meant by such a distinction.
It is more like perpendicular parallelism.
[under construction]
Jon
In reading Martin Luther years ago I ran across the idea of a broad definition and a narrow definition for word. This was a bit confusing for me at first, but gradually I was able to grasp what he meant by such a distinction.
It is more like perpendicular parallelism.
[under construction]
Jon
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through the Cart Before Horse and the Level without Plumb
Conceal and Carry
I can no longer support "conceal and carry" by committing two different mistakes. First, by"putting the cart in front of the horse" and second, by "measuring level without measuring plumb". Here is what I mean. It is not helpful for us to conceal the meanings of the top three most important words in the Bible and then carry that Bible with its incorrect definitions to others.
Both mistakes conceal the meanings of holy, blessed,Yahweh and to some extent the top 20-25 words in the Bible in terms of importance. So what do I mean?
The Cart Before the Horse
The cart before the horse picture should be pretty clear. There are lots of humorous photos on-line illustrating its absurdity. I tried to find a picture of a trailer in front of a truck to modernize the analogy, but it seems we are all too smart to make that mistake in our day. So why is this allowed in studying the meaning of words and by the people called lexicographers who put together lexicons?
[photo insert]
Here is what I have observed. Scholars when they have read some of the older writings on the meaning of words have not been careful to separate: 1) meanings, 2) implications, and 3) significance. This is a rule in Dr. Robert H. Stein's A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible. He was one of my best teachers during my college and seminary education. Stein's "meanings" is what people like the translator Eugene Nida mean by "definition". The other two are not definitions. The reason I am concerned about holy and the other two words is because of their significance to the meaning of the whole text of the Bible, but that does not indicate their definitions. Likewise neither does their implications define the word.
For example, we separate people in a hospital because of the danger of the well becoming ill through at least some of the sick. We do not separate people due to an arbitrary rule of separation, but rather we separate the unhealthy from the healthy in some cases to keep the healthy from also becoming unhealthy. The central point and definition that needs to be known is the difference between healthy and unhealthy. The definition of healthy is not separate and yet it seems to me that we have defined holy through the same error. When Rashi (a early Jewish teacher) says that holy means separate, does he mean it implies separate or that it is defined by separate. Second, has he himself switched an implication into the role of definition. You see the horse is the meaning, the implication is the cart, and the farmer or whoever is driving operating this machinery is the one who can explain the significance of what the horse and cart are for.
The Level without the Plumb
When a carpenter measures, they measure both vertically the walls to see if they are straight (plumb) and also the floors to insure they are straight (level). They would never consider it adequate to operate in building a structure without both vertical and horizontal measurements combining for a convergence of perspective. It simply makes no sense, because these meanings have been concealed by not seeing the difference between a horse and its cart.
[insert photo]
What I have discovered is that the meaning of 1)Yahweh, 2) blessed, and 3) holy have been concealed by the mistaken move of substituting the implications of a word for the definition of a word. Holy just happens to be one of the most important (#3).
[A work in process as I have time. Thank you for your patience.]
Jon
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Holy: Understanding It Better Through Understanding Another Biblical Concept
[Please note that due to time constraints this piece needs lots of editing with citing sources and it is likely to be divided into parts, but I think this first half of part one is valuable, as it stands alone. I will eventually be adding more source references, citing them and Scripture, and I will finish the part on meaningful. I expect it to be very helpful when complete. Thank you for your patience. Glean what you can for now.]
There are only three primary possible meanings for holy as
the English translation of qadosh (Hebrew), qad …. (Aramaic), and hagios
(Greek) in the Biblical text. They are:
1) set apart, 2) pure, and 3) (moral) wholeness. I find that those who have resolved it down
to one definition are a bit premature at this moment in time (we still have to
wait for a better resolution) and that those who keep coming up with more definitions
outside the main three (twenty plus) are a bit post-mature (I hope the
resolution to the meaning of qadosh, etc. is not as far off as they make it
appear). But before we define a biblical
term by any of these English words, we need to also make sure we understand
these popular English ideas in their Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek biblical
context. In this blog entry, I am going
to start with looking into the meaning of wholeness, because it is such a hot
topic in popular education and in the realm of worldview discussions among
philosophers, anthropologists, futurists, theologians, and church planters. So
here is the opening question: “How is the concept of being whole viewed in the
wider biblical context outside of the words qadosh, qad …, and hagios?”
The first thing to note is that wholeness or the whole in
English translation appears to be quite infrequent in the biblical text, when
viewed through an English translation. This
is despite the fact that current worldviews like that of Integral theory, or an
integrative vision, or a spokesperson like popular philosopher Ken Wilber
indicate that it is a very important aspect of worldview. Wilber in particular is expressing a form of
holism or wholism as opposed to atomism or reductionism in his “theory of
everything”. It is also surprising that
it does not show up in the biblical text more frequently, because of the views
of Christian writers like Pastor Rick Warren, who see healthy as the theme for
the next Great Awakening of Christianity.
I see a little influence on the central theme from his mentor, Peter
Drucker, who was a pretty good futurist besides being a management guru. So does the Bible not address the issue of
wholeness as a significant part of worldview or is it not as central as some holists
or wholists think?
I think this is a great question. I was troubled by this question myself. If wholeness is important and I believe that Yahweh
God is the Bible’s primary author, then God would not miss its importance. So what is going on in the biblical text and
in our understanding of the world? Are
they out of sync with each other or not?
Is here a problem with the worldview or the Bible in relation to reality? Is there yet another place where the
deficiency in addressing the issue of wholeness might arise?
Since I know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek well enough to at
least spot check the major words in translations, as I read them; I elected years
ago to go to an interlinear bible for reading the Bible in my devotions. This helped me begin to notice that the
Hebrew word kol that properly means “whole” according to Strong and others, is
not translated as such into English, except infrequently. So the question arises as to why is it not
translated as “whole”, except infrequently when that is its proper meaning? This also holds true to some extent also for
the Greek word holos that means primarily whole. You might also note that holism or holistic
are derived from this Greek word holos.
So why is “whole” found infrequently in English translations
of the Bible? The answer I found to this
question is very intriguing for two reasons.
First, it begins with an historical difference between Eastern and
Western languages. I am not sure this
can be placed on a worldview level, but there does appear to be a difference of
some kind in speech with regard to tendencies or starting points. In language or speaking at least, the West
seems to begin from the parts making the word “all” as in” all of the parts”
central, while the East, in the Hebrew language at least, seems to begin from
the whole as in the “whole of the congregation”. We must, however, be careful and stick to
language and not make broader conclusions on worldview quite yet. Second, the Hebrew word kol (especially) and
the Greek word holos are not infrequent words in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
biblical text and in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, so
the implications for translation could be significant for addressing worldview
concerns. So the biblical text and the
worldviews that say holism or wholism is important may not be deficient except
in translation, but not in the original languages. The problem with not finding texts dealing
with the whole in an English translation might have to do more with the loss of
total communication, beginning with various English translations.
The first clue for me on a translation level that something
might be amiss came from Gesenius’ Hebrew and English Lexicon. In it, he points out: “In Western languages
it [kol] has to be rendered by adjectives”.
He is also implying by this that in Eastern languages, that this is not
the case, and that Hebrew would be included as part of the list of Eastern
languages. Note especially his choice
of the words “has to be”. That is significant, because he is suggesting
it is a rule of Western languages including English. He explains this further in terms of when it
is used for one continuous thing and of English in particular: “… in English
this has to be expressed either by the
whole preceded by the article or by all
followed by it; when the noun is made definite by a pronoun suffixed, it must
be rendered in English by all without
the article, or else by the whole of….”. This quote is a bit technical, but it caught
my attention, because I had begun to substitute “of the whole” in place of
“all” in my devotions based on the Hebrew word kol. I started to do this substitution, because I
knew that kol properly meant the” whole,
totality” according to Gesenius and not just James Strong. This substituting process of “the whole of”, worked
seamlessly hundreds of times with occasional exceptions due to change in context.
Now I want to go beyond just this first clue and just the
process of translation and look at the total communication involved. I believe translation gets its prominence
from the fact that it is the starting point for total communication. But I also believe that one of my mentors,
Dr. William A. Smalley, who was a brilliant translator and teacher, saw that
translation of the Bible and the church go hand in hand in the case of
communication. So I want to organize what
I refer to as total communication around the following steps, as related to the
biblical concepts of the Hebrew word kol,
the Aramaic … or the Greek word holos.
They are the 5 T’s: 1) translation, 2)transfer, 3) total, 4)train, and
5)teach. We need all five of these for
total communication! Anything less on a
fundamental level is less than adequate.
Just think of this process as “Mr. T”, as a memory tool. He after all regarded himself as the total
package. The five T’s are the total
package for communication. As an aside,
I found all five of these in Nehemiah 8, the chief text in the Jewish tradition
for the Ezra school of exegetical method.
So looking at wholeness from a translation standpoint. The very best way to translate it is to produce clear meaningful communication. There are two parts to this. The first is addressed through quantity and
the second through quality.
We arrive at the goal of clear communication through
minimizing the quantity of options. Let
me illustrate. Imagine you enter a room
filled with one third of the people shouting “yes”, another thirds saying “no”,
and another third saying “maybe”. Is it
likely to be clear what they are saying assuming all voices equal? The simple answer is “no”. Now imagine walking into a room filled with
all of the people saying “yes”. Is it
likely to be clear that what they are saying assuming all voices equal? The simple answer is “yes”.
So now let’s approach the biblical text with the
question: How many?
In the Hebrew context there is one
word used in many contexts. It is clear to
the original audience that it means properly “whole” unless some of the many
contexts are clear it is otherwise. That
is how kol can have more than one meaning.
It borrows the clarity of another word or other words in the
context. So the “one” remains clear
even with more than one definition in a supposed dictionary, because some other
word makes things clear. That is how I
speak to others everyday with near effortlessness and the majority of times my
communication is clear.
In the Greek context of the
Septuagint and the Hebrew Scriptures in a synagogue, things get less clear in
one sense. Kol , one Hebrew word, is now
translated by two Greek words, pas and holos.
This is where the beginning of clarity can become less clear. Without the knowledge that Gesenius possessed
about the rules of Western languages, some begin to assume that pas is the
primary meaning of kol and then say that kol means primarily “all”. Eugene Nida rightly points out that one
language’s glosses (ways of translating a word) are not themselves definitions
within the primary or other language. A
word must be defined in its own language system and not in the context of the
language it is translated into. Gesenius
and Nida, though separated by time are largely agreeing with each other. The other key here is to realize that Moses
and so the Hebrew was still present in the synagogues to correct any
misunderstandings due to translation.
The original continued to keep things clearer.
In English translation things get
less clear and so a little more complicated.
Kol, one Hebrew word , is now translated by three or more. Kol in the Hebrew is translated by “all”
(majority) or “whole” mainly depending on the Septuagint’s Greek translation
influence. In the New Testament the Greek pas and the
Greek holos are both used where kol would appear in Hebrew. Pas is mainly translated as “all” while holos
is translated by “whole” or “all” adding another layer of complexity and lack
of clarity. It is now as though kol
primarily means “all” and holos means primarily “whole”, but this meaning is
further diminished in English translation.
A concession must be made here so
that no one understands me to think that a wooden (without context) literalism
(proper meaning) is in order. The
statements above apply to primary contexts mostly. As the
contexts become more marginalized then the use of “holos” or “whole” in
English, etc. becomes less acceptable. In
English, “any, every, etc. are very appropriate in the more marginal cases of
meaning or definition.
I hinted at this earlier, but one
of the main things translators should consider is the bilingual or even
trilingual context of the 1st century. There are advantages here because the
original has more explicit influence than it does in a context today in which
most only access an English translation based on their monolingual status. The proper meaning of “whole” for kol would
have had an easier way of sticking around and the people could have known about
the difference in rules or tendencies as Gesenius suggests. Translators or commentators today frequently
quote “all” as the first or proper meaning of Hebrew kol. This betrays their monolingual
spectacles. So how should the word kol
be translated now for clarity?
I personally think clarity would be
enhanced by adjusting to two contexts.
The context of the 1st century and the 21st
century. First the two are not the same,
kol’s presence would have kept the proper meaning of whole more in focus. So now I think we must translate kol and even
pas and holos with the English word “whole” where appropriate to the Hebrew context
and our own. There is no bilingualism in
churches to balance both “whole and “all the parts”. We might as well realize that Hebrew is not
likely to be read out loud at church. It
might still be read at synagogue, but not many (basically none!) Christians
know that! For clarity’s sake, we do not
need to follow the wooden rules of Western languages of old. English is now adaptable to either and
“whole” would give greater clarity. This
whole discussion matters because of the goal of clarity. So what about being meaningful?
Change
information load
From
three languages to one language
Explicit
when bilingual and even implicit.
Unknown
to monolingual.
Kol – poor quality (transliteration) for an English speaker
Holos/holistic/holism – holistic carries a great deal of extra meaning beyond whole. So this option may have to be tempered.
All – while necessary in a Western language only context (Greek, Latin, English), in a wider one context of both West and East, it may no longer be the best. In the latter, it may be more paramount to address wholeness directly in translation following the hippie movement especially.
Whole – the best understood by English speakers in the context of a debate between wholism (wary of holism overstatement) and atomism, reductionism and fragmentism. It is also possible because it is not necessary any longer to only speak from the tendency or angle of “all the parts” as opposed to the “the whole of it”. I think the rules equally allow the latter and to better understand the biblical text it is now superior.
Why it matters? Meaningfulness! From meaningless (“all [of the parts of the] of the congregation”= the whole congregation) to meaningful “the whole of the congregation”). The latter is better understood in terms of making everything explicit and of addressing current issues that people understand due to the topic of wholeness being a hot topic of debate.
In Christ,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
