At times the biblical word for holy is defined by scholars and theologians by the word "perfect". This is a word many people have come to avoid, if not to also hate. They will recite perfectionism and the harm it did to them personally. The way we define it in English, it is something unattainable. But what if biblical perfection is something different from our definition and what if that can help us understand holy better? So what I want to do in this post is to define perfect and also relate it to holy.
Perfect means per-the-goal. Perfection is relative or absolute depending on the goal attached to it in a particular context. It is not always referring to a final goal. It can refer to other goals along the way to a final goal.
Perfect in this life
Perfect in the next life
Love and perfection
Perfect love
Perfect is related to Hebrew words translated as whole.
[This is still in process ... please check other entries in the meantime. ]
Showing posts with label perfection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label perfection. Show all posts
Monday, February 11, 2013
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to Its Difference from Perfection
The driving force in the argument between different Christian groups has been to solve the dilemma of what is possible now versus the impossible later. Of course, all is impossible for us in our fallen nature so that forgiveness, as a whole, and mercy, grace, compassion and longsuffering, as parts, must be essential to any discussion. But for now, because forgiveness is assumed by me, I want to work on the standards that God originally intended, which bring us to our knees, and what standards we can live by, after we are Christians.
Going from perfection to imperfection is one example of standard change that now allows the standard to be anything goes. I think we need to change things from a willy nilly standard of imperfection to something that has backbone. Imperfection while in a sense admirable has no stopping point as far as how far that imperfection can go. We usually stop at the more recognized sins, but that is not what Scripture does.
The major standards that need correction are being holy, being full, being perfect, being complete and being entire. These standards as they currently are understood have become rocks of stumbling, rather than stepping stones for Christians.
I love John Wesley. John Wesley was a great grammarian and realized that sanctification or being holy, perfection, completion and entire were all present tense. He was so great, he even wrote a grammar at one point. So for him perfect love was a present time standard. So was entire sanctification.
I love John Wesley still. Yet John Wesley was a poor lexiographer, at least on occasion. He never wrote a dictionary and nothing he wrote on definitions, to my knowledge, reflects the skill he had at grammar. So other Christians have objected for good reason to his ideas, but they usually just changed the standard by lowering it, rather than defining the standard correctly or biblically. So many just changed his perfection standard to imperfection, which has led to a host of other problems, even while avoiding the difficulties Wesley faced.
It is time to keep standards that are present tense and possible rather than future tense and impossible, and the best way to do this is to define Biblical words accurately rather than lowering standards. It is elementary, my dear friends. We have defined fundamental and nearly fundamental standards incorrectly.
Wesley did not define holy clearly, when he used the word sanctification. This Latin term carried over into English obscures the clear meaning connected with wholeness. I believe it is God's original intention for us to be whole, and I believe it is His present tense possible standard following repentance and forgiveness, for us to be whole.
The idea otherwise expressed in sanctification of being without sin exclusively or being pure reflects more of an impossible standard. Purity is a wonderful process that is ongoing in our lives, as shown in some of the suffering we experience that purifies us. I don't see our purity as a finished process in this life.
This raises another argument that I cannot handle in this space about our flesh that still battles with our inner self that is renewed. I assume this battle is real, yet Christians can win this warring in Christ. I assume this will be the case with all the standards, so this is all I will say on this topic, only due to the fact that I want to stick to my primary topic and not get too lengthy.
Wesley did not define perfection correctly. I think this is his biggest mistake in understanding the Bible. Having said this, he corrected much of his misunderstanding with understanding. I say this because I agree so much with his grammarian rule that perfection is present tense. "Be perfect" is present tense. The question is still what perfect is.
Pastor Jon
The benefits are always the place to begin before introducing the technical features of anything, I was taught a few years ago. One of the great benefits of holiness is wholeness is its effect on our fundamental standards. One of the problems for the church has been the argument over impossible standards. I think we have to introduce possible standards, but effective ones that still maintain a standard rather than the effect of anything goes.
The driving force in the argument between different Christian groups has been to solve the dilemma of what is possible now versus the impossible later. Of course, all is impossible for us in our fallen nature so that forgiveness, as a whole, and mercy, grace, compassion and longsuffering, as parts, must be essential to any discussion. But for now, because forgiveness is assumed by me, I want to work on the standards that God originally intended, which bring us to our knees, and what standards we can live by, after we are Christians.
Going from perfection to imperfection is one example of standard change that now allows the standard to be anything goes. I think we need to change things from a willy nilly standard of imperfection to something that has backbone. Imperfection while in a sense admirable has no stopping point as far as how far that imperfection can go. We usually stop at the more recognized sins, but that is not what Scripture does.
The major standards that need correction are being holy, being full, being perfect, being complete and being entire. These standards as they currently are understood have become rocks of stumbling, rather than stepping stones for Christians.
I love John Wesley. John Wesley was a great grammarian and realized that sanctification or being holy, perfection, completion and entire were all present tense. He was so great, he even wrote a grammar at one point. So for him perfect love was a present time standard. So was entire sanctification.
I love John Wesley still. Yet John Wesley was a poor lexiographer, at least on occasion. He never wrote a dictionary and nothing he wrote on definitions, to my knowledge, reflects the skill he had at grammar. So other Christians have objected for good reason to his ideas, but they usually just changed the standard by lowering it, rather than defining the standard correctly or biblically. So many just changed his perfection standard to imperfection, which has led to a host of other problems, even while avoiding the difficulties Wesley faced.
It is time to keep standards that are present tense and possible rather than future tense and impossible, and the best way to do this is to define Biblical words accurately rather than lowering standards. It is elementary, my dear friends. We have defined fundamental and nearly fundamental standards incorrectly.
Wesley did not define holy clearly, when he used the word sanctification. This Latin term carried over into English obscures the clear meaning connected with wholeness. I believe it is God's original intention for us to be whole, and I believe it is His present tense possible standard following repentance and forgiveness, for us to be whole.
The idea otherwise expressed in sanctification of being without sin exclusively or being pure reflects more of an impossible standard. Purity is a wonderful process that is ongoing in our lives, as shown in some of the suffering we experience that purifies us. I don't see our purity as a finished process in this life.
This raises another argument that I cannot handle in this space about our flesh that still battles with our inner self that is renewed. I assume this battle is real, yet Christians can win this warring in Christ. I assume this will be the case with all the standards, so this is all I will say on this topic, only due to the fact that I want to stick to my primary topic and not get too lengthy.
Wesley did not define perfection correctly. I think this is his biggest mistake in understanding the Bible. Having said this, he corrected much of his misunderstanding with understanding. I say this because I agree so much with his grammarian rule that perfection is present tense. "Be perfect" is present tense. The question is still what perfect is.
Richard Hooker, I think correctly defined the word in terms of achieving a goal that is set. This would be perfection. It is simply reached the spot that was set for us. It is the child who reaches adulthood in Greek thought. I think this is what Wesley missed when he combined together perfection, entire sanctification and perfect love.
Biblical perfection is relational. Entirety is an amount. Sanctification is a whole. Love is an action. Wesley just needed to distinguish these meanings as well as he distinguished the time of present versus the time of future. May God make you whole this day.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: The Purpose of My Work in this Blog
I ran across this quote that really struck my heart as I was working on something other than my chief passion of holiness.
"Keep about your work. Do not flinch because the lion roars; do not stop to stone the devil’s dogs; do not fool away your time chasing the devil’s rabbits. Do your work. Let liars lie, let sectarians quarrel, let critics malign, let enemies accuse, let the devil do his worst; but see to it nothing hinders you from fulfilling with joy the work God has given you. He has not commanded you to be admired or esteemed. He has not commanded you to get rich. He has never bidden you defend your character. He has not set you at work to contradict falsehood (about yourself) which Satan’s or God’s servants may start to peddle, or to track down every rumor that threatens your reputation. If you do these things, you will do nothing else; you will be at work for yourself and not for the Lord. Keep at your work. Let your aim be as steady as a star. You may be assaulted, wronged, insulted, slandered, wounded and rejected, misunderstood, or assigned impure motives; you may be abused by foes, forsaken by friends, and despised and rejected of men. But see to it with steadfast determination, with unfaltering zeal, that you pursue the great purpose of your life and object of your being until at last you can say, ‘I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do’." AUTHOR UNKNOWN
Add to this:
He [Thomas Cranmer, major contributor to Anglican and Episcopal churches] continually had to meet and overthrow error and he did not always have enough time or energy to adequately state and discuss the truth. If that is an exaggeration, perhaps we can put it this way. He could not state and discuss the truth in such a way that it is seen in its right perspective, as a positive thing and not merely in the defence against something else. And it cuts deeper than that. For even when he does state and discuss the truth, he is inhibited to some extent by the fear of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. The fear was not illusory, .... But it is not always a help to the free and positive expression of truth to have to keep a continual watch over the shoulder at possible misinterpreters. .... For after all, the best answer to error which is a perversion of the truth, is not a negative of the error, but a bold affirmation of the truth." G. W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian
And finally add to that:
"... means that we have to give it careful consideration, but it is no guarantee of validity." G. W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian.
I see three key purposes for people to understand in reading this blog about holiness is wholeness. They relate to each of the quotes above.
The first purpose of this blog is to publicly make available my work on holiness is wholeness. It is written to allow people to have access to that view. If I am to work on that subject, it is paramount that I not get sidetracked by being a storehouse for all the views out there. I am willing to guess with my education that you can find all of them on the internet!
The second purpose of this blog is to biblically support the view that holiness is wholeness. It is not to criticize the view that holiness is separation alone, or the view that holiness is separation with a secondary idea of wholeness or the view that holiness is wholeness with a secondary idea of separation. If the view that holiness is wholeness is good, then it will have plenty of positive examples from the Bible to support it.
The third purpose of this blog is to show that holiness is wholeness deserves careful consideration as a biblical stance before moving on to guarantee its validity as a biblical stance. My point is that holiness is wholeness is not a strange novelty bursting on the scene and made popular only because the lessons of the past are unknown. Instead it is itself a past lesson that has been that has been unknown only because it was forgotten. I want to bring holiness is wholeness back to memory for careful consideration and then I want people to look to the Scriptures as marching orders for whether it is a biblical stance. I am only asking for serious consideration of holiness is wholeness when I compile the quotes or create links to quotes from Christian leaders. Then I am asking for people to follow up this careful consideration with biblical examination.
Biblical examination is now my work that I must not be distracted from, it is my task to support it with postive evidence without trying to answer all negative criticisms and it is my focus to look at holiness is wholeness through biblical examination.
Please pray for me and help me stay accountable to this effort.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
I ran across this quote that really struck my heart as I was working on something other than my chief passion of holiness.
"Keep about your work. Do not flinch because the lion roars; do not stop to stone the devil’s dogs; do not fool away your time chasing the devil’s rabbits. Do your work. Let liars lie, let sectarians quarrel, let critics malign, let enemies accuse, let the devil do his worst; but see to it nothing hinders you from fulfilling with joy the work God has given you. He has not commanded you to be admired or esteemed. He has not commanded you to get rich. He has never bidden you defend your character. He has not set you at work to contradict falsehood (about yourself) which Satan’s or God’s servants may start to peddle, or to track down every rumor that threatens your reputation. If you do these things, you will do nothing else; you will be at work for yourself and not for the Lord. Keep at your work. Let your aim be as steady as a star. You may be assaulted, wronged, insulted, slandered, wounded and rejected, misunderstood, or assigned impure motives; you may be abused by foes, forsaken by friends, and despised and rejected of men. But see to it with steadfast determination, with unfaltering zeal, that you pursue the great purpose of your life and object of your being until at last you can say, ‘I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do’." AUTHOR UNKNOWN
Add to this:
He [Thomas Cranmer, major contributor to Anglican and Episcopal churches] continually had to meet and overthrow error and he did not always have enough time or energy to adequately state and discuss the truth. If that is an exaggeration, perhaps we can put it this way. He could not state and discuss the truth in such a way that it is seen in its right perspective, as a positive thing and not merely in the defence against something else. And it cuts deeper than that. For even when he does state and discuss the truth, he is inhibited to some extent by the fear of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. The fear was not illusory, .... But it is not always a help to the free and positive expression of truth to have to keep a continual watch over the shoulder at possible misinterpreters. .... For after all, the best answer to error which is a perversion of the truth, is not a negative of the error, but a bold affirmation of the truth." G. W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian
And finally add to that:
"... means that we have to give it careful consideration, but it is no guarantee of validity." G. W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian.
I see three key purposes for people to understand in reading this blog about holiness is wholeness. They relate to each of the quotes above.
The first purpose of this blog is to publicly make available my work on holiness is wholeness. It is written to allow people to have access to that view. If I am to work on that subject, it is paramount that I not get sidetracked by being a storehouse for all the views out there. I am willing to guess with my education that you can find all of them on the internet!
The second purpose of this blog is to biblically support the view that holiness is wholeness. It is not to criticize the view that holiness is separation alone, or the view that holiness is separation with a secondary idea of wholeness or the view that holiness is wholeness with a secondary idea of separation. If the view that holiness is wholeness is good, then it will have plenty of positive examples from the Bible to support it.
The third purpose of this blog is to show that holiness is wholeness deserves careful consideration as a biblical stance before moving on to guarantee its validity as a biblical stance. My point is that holiness is wholeness is not a strange novelty bursting on the scene and made popular only because the lessons of the past are unknown. Instead it is itself a past lesson that has been that has been unknown only because it was forgotten. I want to bring holiness is wholeness back to memory for careful consideration and then I want people to look to the Scriptures as marching orders for whether it is a biblical stance. I am only asking for serious consideration of holiness is wholeness when I compile the quotes or create links to quotes from Christian leaders. Then I am asking for people to follow up this careful consideration with biblical examination.
Biblical examination is now my work that I must not be distracted from, it is my task to support it with postive evidence without trying to answer all negative criticisms and it is my focus to look at holiness is wholeness through biblical examination.
Please pray for me and help me stay accountable to this effort.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to Protestantism's Soft Spot of Comprehensiveness
Former Miami Dolphins quarterback Bob Griese once said: "There's no great mystery to quarterbacking. You move personnel around in various formations looking for the defense's particular patsy and then you eat him alive." I am afraid that the enemies of God and his people have found our particular soft spot and are now eating us alive!
That weak spot is Anglican or Episcopal comprehensiveness. The reasons for this are many, but the main reason is because the meaning of comprehensiveness has been cut loose from its clear biblical origins. Another reason is that Anglicanism has never had a clear primary leader like has other Protestant traditions. It has Cranmer, Hooker, Jewel, Simeon, etc. as its chief leaders rather than one clear champion like Luther. Richard Hooker is the one who I understand to have defined holiness by the English word comprehensiveness. But knowledge of this and clarity on this seems to be lacking when I write or speak to contemporary Episcopalians. I cannot say that when I speak to a Lutheran about justification the same thing happens. Instead they are quite clear on its biblical origins.
J. I. Packer wrote an excellent little booklet titled: A Kind of Noah's Ark? The Anglican Commitment to Comprehensiveness. As an Anglican, he and C. S. Lewis represent what is right about Anglicanism. In this booklet he writes: "ONE ingredient in today's Anglicanism ... is ... its claim to be comprehensive in a way that other traditions are not, and its confidence that this comprehensiveness is a fine thing." But, not everyone agrees that it is a fine thing. Packer sees this problem and points out that comprehensivenss has been "paraded as an Anglican excellence from at least four points of view."
The four points of view are: 1) inclusiveness (or calculated inclusion), 2) integration ( or integrative practice), 3) tension (inner tension) and 4) relativism (inescapeable theological relativism). The problem as Packer sees it is that "there is no common mind on how the current breadth of doctrinal toleration should be regarded." For Packer, part of this is caused by all of these views parading themselves as excellent views of comprehensiveness. I agree.
Yet let's add to Packer's insight. I believe that these four views mainly emerged because Anglicanism has not been clear on its greatest strength which is holiness. Comprehensiveness was originally a definition for holiness. In the hands of the best Anglicans like Hooker it brought good things to the church like a more comprehensive or whole list of 5 solas in contrast to Luther's partial 3 solas: faith alone, grace alone, Scripture alone. It also saw the place for Scripture, tradition, reason and ... as informative parts of a whole schema for grasping the meaning of Scripture. These ideas were in fact more comprehensive in a way that fits with being more whole than other Protestant perspectives.
Holiness is the root of comprehensiveness is in contrast to the many meanings that Packer suggests that have been given to comprehensivness. Sadly, it seems that Anglican scholars like Wescott and Hort at the end of the 1800s may have been duped into some soft version of comprehensiveness in some of their perspectives that has led many to fall into a type of relativism in more recent church history.
Holiness is the root for comprehensiveness also means that Anglicans in particular should have been the first to grasp the wholeness of God's character in the major parts of what makes up holiness. I am surprised that someone following in the tradition of Richard Hooker did not grasp the character traits of righteousness, truth, love and goodness as chief parts of God's character in contrast to those who want to stress only his love. The same could be said for the chief parts of God's forgiveness in his mercy, grace, compassion and longsuffering in contrast to stressing only his grace or mercy.
Because comprehensiveness is Protestantism's soft spot, I believe it is the hill, or the valleys that connects the hills, we must retake. We must reform ourselves and realize that comprehensiveness is rooted in holiness or wholeness before we can enjoy the fruit of revival. William Tyndale realized that the Word of God needed to get to the people in their own language. He decided to take that hill or die doing it. We need to decide with the same level of conviction to retake the hill of holiness is wholeness. Comprehensiveness must originate again from holiness. Then Packer's confidence that comprehensiveness is a fine thing can be restored. May God keep reforming us and then may the reviving of us be the fruit of reform.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Former Miami Dolphins quarterback Bob Griese once said: "There's no great mystery to quarterbacking. You move personnel around in various formations looking for the defense's particular patsy and then you eat him alive." I am afraid that the enemies of God and his people have found our particular soft spot and are now eating us alive!
That weak spot is Anglican or Episcopal comprehensiveness. The reasons for this are many, but the main reason is because the meaning of comprehensiveness has been cut loose from its clear biblical origins. Another reason is that Anglicanism has never had a clear primary leader like has other Protestant traditions. It has Cranmer, Hooker, Jewel, Simeon, etc. as its chief leaders rather than one clear champion like Luther. Richard Hooker is the one who I understand to have defined holiness by the English word comprehensiveness. But knowledge of this and clarity on this seems to be lacking when I write or speak to contemporary Episcopalians. I cannot say that when I speak to a Lutheran about justification the same thing happens. Instead they are quite clear on its biblical origins.
J. I. Packer wrote an excellent little booklet titled: A Kind of Noah's Ark? The Anglican Commitment to Comprehensiveness. As an Anglican, he and C. S. Lewis represent what is right about Anglicanism. In this booklet he writes: "ONE ingredient in today's Anglicanism ... is ... its claim to be comprehensive in a way that other traditions are not, and its confidence that this comprehensiveness is a fine thing." But, not everyone agrees that it is a fine thing. Packer sees this problem and points out that comprehensivenss has been "paraded as an Anglican excellence from at least four points of view."
The four points of view are: 1) inclusiveness (or calculated inclusion), 2) integration ( or integrative practice), 3) tension (inner tension) and 4) relativism (inescapeable theological relativism). The problem as Packer sees it is that "there is no common mind on how the current breadth of doctrinal toleration should be regarded." For Packer, part of this is caused by all of these views parading themselves as excellent views of comprehensiveness. I agree.
Yet let's add to Packer's insight. I believe that these four views mainly emerged because Anglicanism has not been clear on its greatest strength which is holiness. Comprehensiveness was originally a definition for holiness. In the hands of the best Anglicans like Hooker it brought good things to the church like a more comprehensive or whole list of 5 solas in contrast to Luther's partial 3 solas: faith alone, grace alone, Scripture alone. It also saw the place for Scripture, tradition, reason and ... as informative parts of a whole schema for grasping the meaning of Scripture. These ideas were in fact more comprehensive in a way that fits with being more whole than other Protestant perspectives.
Holiness is the root of comprehensiveness is in contrast to the many meanings that Packer suggests that have been given to comprehensivness. Sadly, it seems that Anglican scholars like Wescott and Hort at the end of the 1800s may have been duped into some soft version of comprehensiveness in some of their perspectives that has led many to fall into a type of relativism in more recent church history.
Holiness is the root for comprehensiveness also means that Anglicans in particular should have been the first to grasp the wholeness of God's character in the major parts of what makes up holiness. I am surprised that someone following in the tradition of Richard Hooker did not grasp the character traits of righteousness, truth, love and goodness as chief parts of God's character in contrast to those who want to stress only his love. The same could be said for the chief parts of God's forgiveness in his mercy, grace, compassion and longsuffering in contrast to stressing only his grace or mercy.
Because comprehensiveness is Protestantism's soft spot, I believe it is the hill, or the valleys that connects the hills, we must retake. We must reform ourselves and realize that comprehensiveness is rooted in holiness or wholeness before we can enjoy the fruit of revival. William Tyndale realized that the Word of God needed to get to the people in their own language. He decided to take that hill or die doing it. We need to decide with the same level of conviction to retake the hill of holiness is wholeness. Comprehensiveness must originate again from holiness. Then Packer's confidence that comprehensiveness is a fine thing can be restored. May God keep reforming us and then may the reviving of us be the fruit of reform.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Monday, June 25, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to John Wycliffe
Name the two most famous translators in English Bible translation history? Two of the most famous, argueably, are William Tyndale and John Wycliffe. I found recently a very exciting piece of evidence that at least one of these translators was convinced that holiness is wholeness.
In the Wycliffe New Testament is a very wonderful example of how Wycliffe understood the word holiness in English. Underlying this example is not the typical Greek word translated as holy, but there is a footnote which shows his understanding of the word holiness in English, even if there is no evidence of his view of the Greek word for holiness.
In Titus 2: 7, we read this in the Wycliffe New Testament:
"In all things give thyself ensample of good works, in teaching in wholeness, in firmness." The footnote for this passage reads: "In all things give thyself example of good works, in teaching in holiness of living, in firmness of virtues." Notice the parallel, wholeness is in the main part of his text, and in the parallel footnote is holiness.
Like I said before, a wonderful example! God bless the translators who understand not just the original text, but their own language so well.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Name the two most famous translators in English Bible translation history? Two of the most famous, argueably, are William Tyndale and John Wycliffe. I found recently a very exciting piece of evidence that at least one of these translators was convinced that holiness is wholeness.
In the Wycliffe New Testament is a very wonderful example of how Wycliffe understood the word holiness in English. Underlying this example is not the typical Greek word translated as holy, but there is a footnote which shows his understanding of the word holiness in English, even if there is no evidence of his view of the Greek word for holiness.
In Titus 2: 7, we read this in the Wycliffe New Testament:
"In all things give thyself ensample of good works, in teaching in wholeness, in firmness." The footnote for this passage reads: "In all things give thyself example of good works, in teaching in holiness of living, in firmness of virtues." Notice the parallel, wholeness is in the main part of his text, and in the parallel footnote is holiness.
Like I said before, a wonderful example! God bless the translators who understand not just the original text, but their own language so well.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: How This Began for Me Personally
It has been said: "You can learn a line from a win and a book from a defeat" (Paul Brown). My line is this. It is no longer necessary to be weary or wear out. My short story is below. It is how I arrived at holiness is wholeness over time.
As a teacher of Christians, I was getting weary in late 2004. It is said that "a back and forth discussion without getting anywhere, wears you out." That was my feeling after reading many Christian books and teaching many times over many years. It was not really getting me anywhere. That was until I learned that holiness is wholeness, then discussions really started to go somewhere. I can honestly say that since that time, I have not been nearly so weary.
The first step in time to get there was doing what I used to do as a football scout. I began by looking for the strengths and weaknesses of the Christian Church. What I discovered was that the Christian Church had many strengths in its major themes. I realized that a strong adversary would not attack at points of strength like the major themes of the past. Where I found weakness was that while it had many strong parts on the table from differing traditions and from differing authors of Christian books, there was no whole to join together all the parts on the table. I saw this particularly when I studied the major themes of each of the major denominations within Protestantism. Luther's themes were righteousness (or justice) and sanctification. Calvin's themes were truth (or humility) and sanctification. Hooker's theme was holiness (or comprehensiveness). Wesley's themes were perfect love and entire sanctification (nearly synonymous for him). Spurgeon's themes were goodness and holiness. This inspired me to start looking for a word in the original text of Scripture that could unite all these major themes, so I could shore up the weak spot that the devil and the church's enemies would attack.
The second step in time was seeing in the providence of God that perhaps there was a reason in history for the succession of themes by the major Reformers in Protestant history. I could see a very exciting succession from righteousness to truth, to holiness, to love and to goodness. Overarching all of them was a connection always in some way with sanctification and holiness. Maybe in our time, the point was to re-address the question of comprehensiveness as a definition of holiness and define it more clearly? And could it be that historically, this weakest point in clarity could be become the strongest point in clarity by defining it as wholeness? Could it also be that the English contribution to things will only now reach full fruition even as this language spreads worldwide through many things like the internet and commerce? Translation has been called "a long and arduous process." I would call hundreds of years, long.
The third step in time was brought about because of my developing a reading method that would make it more easy to be biblical. In short story form, I used to struggle as a reader. In college, I finally became an acceptable reader, but still the process was nothing that any of my students got real excited about. Through this challenge, I was brought to the point of taking a very good translation method from Wycliffe Bible Translators and transforming it into a reading method. I also changed a few things they did based on hints from the traditional or classical method of reading. The parts of language became: 1)amounts, 2)relationships, 3)actions and 4)things. The whole of language became wholes and parts as seen especially in words like of, at in, to, etc. What I needed next was a Biblical term that would address wholeness in language. Only later would I realize that holiness could fill the gap.
The final step in time, which occured in November 2004, was the clue I found in Strong's concordance when I saw that one of the translations of the Hebrew word for holy was wholly. This had never occured to me before as a meaning for holy. The King James translators obviously saw something that all my education missed. I had been taught that the meaning of separation was questionable, but the substitute I felt was no better. Now I was looking for a word having to do with wholeness, so I had to seriously consider this old possibility from the KJV. Over time, I discovered, first through internet resources, that holiness means wholeness was by no means a crazy idea. Among my most trusted Christian preachers and writers of the past, I found very strong advocates of the meaning of wholeness. Over time, more scholarly materials also confirmed this meaning of the word, though I must say I got my best material from supposed critics of the idea.
So holiness is wholeness wins a lot of battles the others cannot. The result is that I am less weary from back and forth discussions that go nowhere. Now most of my discussions go somewhere. That is my other line from a win.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon Westlund
It has been said: "You can learn a line from a win and a book from a defeat" (Paul Brown). My line is this. It is no longer necessary to be weary or wear out. My short story is below. It is how I arrived at holiness is wholeness over time.
As a teacher of Christians, I was getting weary in late 2004. It is said that "a back and forth discussion without getting anywhere, wears you out." That was my feeling after reading many Christian books and teaching many times over many years. It was not really getting me anywhere. That was until I learned that holiness is wholeness, then discussions really started to go somewhere. I can honestly say that since that time, I have not been nearly so weary.
The first step in time to get there was doing what I used to do as a football scout. I began by looking for the strengths and weaknesses of the Christian Church. What I discovered was that the Christian Church had many strengths in its major themes. I realized that a strong adversary would not attack at points of strength like the major themes of the past. Where I found weakness was that while it had many strong parts on the table from differing traditions and from differing authors of Christian books, there was no whole to join together all the parts on the table. I saw this particularly when I studied the major themes of each of the major denominations within Protestantism. Luther's themes were righteousness (or justice) and sanctification. Calvin's themes were truth (or humility) and sanctification. Hooker's theme was holiness (or comprehensiveness). Wesley's themes were perfect love and entire sanctification (nearly synonymous for him). Spurgeon's themes were goodness and holiness. This inspired me to start looking for a word in the original text of Scripture that could unite all these major themes, so I could shore up the weak spot that the devil and the church's enemies would attack.
The second step in time was seeing in the providence of God that perhaps there was a reason in history for the succession of themes by the major Reformers in Protestant history. I could see a very exciting succession from righteousness to truth, to holiness, to love and to goodness. Overarching all of them was a connection always in some way with sanctification and holiness. Maybe in our time, the point was to re-address the question of comprehensiveness as a definition of holiness and define it more clearly? And could it be that historically, this weakest point in clarity could be become the strongest point in clarity by defining it as wholeness? Could it also be that the English contribution to things will only now reach full fruition even as this language spreads worldwide through many things like the internet and commerce? Translation has been called "a long and arduous process." I would call hundreds of years, long.
The third step in time was brought about because of my developing a reading method that would make it more easy to be biblical. In short story form, I used to struggle as a reader. In college, I finally became an acceptable reader, but still the process was nothing that any of my students got real excited about. Through this challenge, I was brought to the point of taking a very good translation method from Wycliffe Bible Translators and transforming it into a reading method. I also changed a few things they did based on hints from the traditional or classical method of reading. The parts of language became: 1)amounts, 2)relationships, 3)actions and 4)things. The whole of language became wholes and parts as seen especially in words like of, at in, to, etc. What I needed next was a Biblical term that would address wholeness in language. Only later would I realize that holiness could fill the gap.
The final step in time, which occured in November 2004, was the clue I found in Strong's concordance when I saw that one of the translations of the Hebrew word for holy was wholly. This had never occured to me before as a meaning for holy. The King James translators obviously saw something that all my education missed. I had been taught that the meaning of separation was questionable, but the substitute I felt was no better. Now I was looking for a word having to do with wholeness, so I had to seriously consider this old possibility from the KJV. Over time, I discovered, first through internet resources, that holiness means wholeness was by no means a crazy idea. Among my most trusted Christian preachers and writers of the past, I found very strong advocates of the meaning of wholeness. Over time, more scholarly materials also confirmed this meaning of the word, though I must say I got my best material from supposed critics of the idea.
So holiness is wholeness wins a lot of battles the others cannot. The result is that I am less weary from back and forth discussions that go nowhere. Now most of my discussions go somewhere. That is my other line from a win.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon Westlund
Friday, May 25, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to a Rather Long List of Greats
Here is a list of famous quotations by Christians and Jewish scholars which show that they were convinced that holiness is wholeness. It will be added to as often as I am able. Check back, at least every month, for new quotes that I have discovered. I will also try to provide reference material for those who want to research things further.
"What does this word holiness really mean? Is it a negative kind of piety from which so many people have shied away? No, of course not! Holiness in the Bible means moral wholeness -- a positive quality which actually includes kindness, mercy, purity, moral blamelessness and godliness." A. W. Tozer, I Call it Heresy, p. 63.
"As we have often said, holiness means wholeness of character in contradistinction to the cultivation of some few virtues and the neglect of others." C. H. Spurgeon, "Solomon's Plea," Sermon #1232. vol. 21 http://www.spurgeongems.org/.
Psa. 96:9. - "The beauty of holiness." Shall I call holiness an attribute? Is it not rather the glorious combination of all his attributes into one perfect whole? As all his attributes proceed from the absolute, so all again converge and meet in holiness. As from the insufferable white light of the Absolute they all seem to diverge and separate into prismatic lives, so they all seem again to coverge and meet and combine in the dazzling white radiance of his holiness. This, therefore, is rather the intense whiteness, purity, clearness, the infitnite lustre and splendour of his perfect nature - like a gem without flaw, without stain, and without colour. All of his attributes are glorious, but in this we have a combination of all into a still more glorious whole. It is for this reason that it is so frequently in Scripture assocaitaed with the Divine beauty. The poetic nature of the psalmist is exalted to ecstasy in contemplation of the "beauty of holines," the "beauty of the Lord." Beauty is a combination of elements according to the laws of harmony; the more beautiful the parts or elements, and the more perfect the harmonious combination, the higher the beauty. How high and glorious, therefore, must be the beauty of this attribute which is the perfect combination of all his infinite perfections!
You see, then, why this attribute is awful to us. In the ideal man all the faculties and powers, mental, moral, and bodily, work together in perfect harmony, making sweet music - the image of God is clear and pure in the human heart. But, alas! How far we are from the ideal! - Joseph Le Coute, Religion and Science, 1874.
Psa. 97:12 "And we give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness" - which is the harmony of all his attributes, the superlative wholeness of his character. C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David. Pilgrim Publications: Texas, p. 356.
Psa. 99:5 "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord god of Sabaoth!" Holiness is the harmony of all virtues. The Lord has not one glorious attribute alone, or in excess, but all glories are in him as a whole; this is the crown of his honour and the honour of his crown. His powe ris not his choicest jewel, nor his sovereignty, but his holiness. In this all comprehensive moral excellence he would have his creatures take delight, .... C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David. Pilgrim Publications: Texas, p. 387.
Ps. 103:1 .... It is instructive to note how the pslamist dwells upon the holy name of God, as if his holiness were dearest to him; or, perhaps, because the holiness or wholeness of God was to his mind the grandest motive for rendering to him the homage of his nature in its wholeness. C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David. Pilgrim Publications: Texas, p. 448.
"... holiness is not so much an attribute, but the `whole complex of that which we are wont to look at and represent singly in the individual attributes of God.' " Andrew Murray, Holy in Christ, Christian Focus Publications, Gennies House, Great Britain, 1998, p. 210.
"[Johann] Bengel looked upon holiness as the divine nature, in which all the attributes are contained." Andrew Murray, Holy in Christ, Christian Focus Publications, Gennies House, Great Britain, 1998, p. 210.
In God holiness can never improve in any sense, because his knowledge is already infinite. Holiness in man expresses the whole of moral excellence. So in God it may express the whole of his moral excellence, and is properly styled an attribute only in the largest sense of that term, or in the same sense in which benevolence may be styled an attribute of God. God is called light. His moral attributes viewed separately are like prismatic colors. When combined they are an ineffable blaze of holiness. In other words, the holiness of God when considered as embracing his whole moral perfection, is a moral light, so ineffably intense as that the highest intelligences in the universe are represented in the Bible as unable to behold it without veiling their faces.
That holiness is purity or moral perfection, is proved by the following facts:
1. That the Bible represents holiness as the contrast of defilement or pollution.
2. That whatever was to be set apart, or consecrated to God, and considered as sanctified, must be physically perfect. Any blemish or imperfection was inconsistent with its being sanctified.
3. The Bible represents holiness as the opposite of sin. Charles Finney, Lecture XV.
Moral Attributes---No. 6.
"... the whole complex of which we are wont to look at and represent singly in the individual attributes of God." Johann Bengel
"Holiness is intellectual beauty. Divine holiness is the most perfect beauty, and the measure of all other. The divine Holiness is the most perfect pluchritude, the ineffable and immortal pulchritude, that cannot be declared by words, or seen by eyes. This may therefore be called the transcendental attribute that, as it were, runs through the rest, and casts a glory upon every one. It is an attribute of attributes. " Rev. John Howe
"Holiness comprehends all the true moral excellence of intelligent beings. So the holiness of God is the same with the moral excellency of the divine nature, comprehending all his perfections, his righteousness, faithfulness, and goodness." Jonathan Edwards
Holiness is, however, not a distinctive attribute, but rather the combination of all the attributes. We may suppose a being in whom there may be love without justice, or truth, or any one of these to the exclusion of the other two; but no being can be holy, who does not combine in himself all of these , and all other moral perfections. Nor, when we have such a combination, is there anything to be added to constitute holy character. It is evident therefore, that holiness is the sum of all excellence and the combination of all the attributes which constitute perfection of character. James Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology, Chapter 10 http://www.founders.org/.
"... habitual, that holiness wherewith our souls are inwardly endued the same instant when first we begin to be temples of the Holy Spirit; [1 Cor. 3:16f; 6:19] actual, that holiness which afterward beautifieth all the parts and actions of our life, the holiness for which Enoch, Job, Zachary, Elizabeth, and other saints are in Scriptures so highly commended [see Gen. 5:24; Heb. 11:5; Job 1:8; Lk. 1:5f]." Richard Hooker, A Learned Discourse of Justification, A Sermon of Richard Hooker.
163. What is the work of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit sanctifies me, that is, He makes me holy, by bringing me to faith in Christ and by imparting to me the blessings of redemption. (Sanctification in the wider sense includes everything that the Holy Spirit does in me.) 419 But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor. 6:11 .... 169. What else has the Holy Spirit worked in you by the Gospel? The Holy Spirit has sanctified me in the true faith, that is, He has by faith in Christ renewed my heart, so that I can now overcome sin and do good works. (Sanctification in the narrower sense.) 439 This is the will of Gd, even your sanctification. 1 Thess. 4:3. Martin Luther, Luther's Small Catechism, p. 125-129.
"Our survey [of the best minds of the church] has led us to the place where we must define holiness as more than a mere attribute of God, and accept it as the sum of all His attribtues, the outshining of all that God is. It means that as the sun's rays, containing all the colours of the spectrum, come together in the sun's shining and blend into light, so all the attributes of God come together in His self-manifestation and blend into holiness." R. A. Finlayson, The Holiness of God (check this out on the web).
As I said, more will be added. But this last one by Finlayson is worth meditating on because it sums up so much said by great Christians and adds to it a direct illusion to the Hebrew root for holiness. He combines the intelligence of the church with the intelligence of our natural understanding of light. It will be hard to beat as a summary.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon Westlund
Here is a list of famous quotations by Christians and Jewish scholars which show that they were convinced that holiness is wholeness. It will be added to as often as I am able. Check back, at least every month, for new quotes that I have discovered. I will also try to provide reference material for those who want to research things further.
"What does this word holiness really mean? Is it a negative kind of piety from which so many people have shied away? No, of course not! Holiness in the Bible means moral wholeness -- a positive quality which actually includes kindness, mercy, purity, moral blamelessness and godliness." A. W. Tozer, I Call it Heresy, p. 63.
"As we have often said, holiness means wholeness of character in contradistinction to the cultivation of some few virtues and the neglect of others." C. H. Spurgeon, "Solomon's Plea," Sermon #1232. vol. 21 http://www.spurgeongems.org/.
Psa. 96:9. - "The beauty of holiness." Shall I call holiness an attribute? Is it not rather the glorious combination of all his attributes into one perfect whole? As all his attributes proceed from the absolute, so all again converge and meet in holiness. As from the insufferable white light of the Absolute they all seem to diverge and separate into prismatic lives, so they all seem again to coverge and meet and combine in the dazzling white radiance of his holiness. This, therefore, is rather the intense whiteness, purity, clearness, the infitnite lustre and splendour of his perfect nature - like a gem without flaw, without stain, and without colour. All of his attributes are glorious, but in this we have a combination of all into a still more glorious whole. It is for this reason that it is so frequently in Scripture assocaitaed with the Divine beauty. The poetic nature of the psalmist is exalted to ecstasy in contemplation of the "beauty of holines," the "beauty of the Lord." Beauty is a combination of elements according to the laws of harmony; the more beautiful the parts or elements, and the more perfect the harmonious combination, the higher the beauty. How high and glorious, therefore, must be the beauty of this attribute which is the perfect combination of all his infinite perfections!
You see, then, why this attribute is awful to us. In the ideal man all the faculties and powers, mental, moral, and bodily, work together in perfect harmony, making sweet music - the image of God is clear and pure in the human heart. But, alas! How far we are from the ideal! - Joseph Le Coute, Religion and Science, 1874.
Psa. 97:12 "And we give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness" - which is the harmony of all his attributes, the superlative wholeness of his character. C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David. Pilgrim Publications: Texas, p. 356.
Psa. 99:5 "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord god of Sabaoth!" Holiness is the harmony of all virtues. The Lord has not one glorious attribute alone, or in excess, but all glories are in him as a whole; this is the crown of his honour and the honour of his crown. His powe ris not his choicest jewel, nor his sovereignty, but his holiness. In this all comprehensive moral excellence he would have his creatures take delight, .... C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David. Pilgrim Publications: Texas, p. 387.
Ps. 103:1 .... It is instructive to note how the pslamist dwells upon the holy name of God, as if his holiness were dearest to him; or, perhaps, because the holiness or wholeness of God was to his mind the grandest motive for rendering to him the homage of his nature in its wholeness. C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David. Pilgrim Publications: Texas, p. 448.
"... holiness is not so much an attribute, but the `whole complex of that which we are wont to look at and represent singly in the individual attributes of God.' " Andrew Murray, Holy in Christ, Christian Focus Publications, Gennies House, Great Britain, 1998, p. 210.
"[Johann] Bengel looked upon holiness as the divine nature, in which all the attributes are contained." Andrew Murray, Holy in Christ, Christian Focus Publications, Gennies House, Great Britain, 1998, p. 210.
In God holiness can never improve in any sense, because his knowledge is already infinite. Holiness in man expresses the whole of moral excellence. So in God it may express the whole of his moral excellence, and is properly styled an attribute only in the largest sense of that term, or in the same sense in which benevolence may be styled an attribute of God. God is called light. His moral attributes viewed separately are like prismatic colors. When combined they are an ineffable blaze of holiness. In other words, the holiness of God when considered as embracing his whole moral perfection, is a moral light, so ineffably intense as that the highest intelligences in the universe are represented in the Bible as unable to behold it without veiling their faces.
That holiness is purity or moral perfection, is proved by the following facts:
1. That the Bible represents holiness as the contrast of defilement or pollution.
2. That whatever was to be set apart, or consecrated to God, and considered as sanctified, must be physically perfect. Any blemish or imperfection was inconsistent with its being sanctified.
3. The Bible represents holiness as the opposite of sin. Charles Finney, Lecture XV.
Moral Attributes---No. 6.
"... the whole complex of which we are wont to look at and represent singly in the individual attributes of God." Johann Bengel
"Holiness is intellectual beauty. Divine holiness is the most perfect beauty, and the measure of all other. The divine Holiness is the most perfect pluchritude, the ineffable and immortal pulchritude, that cannot be declared by words, or seen by eyes. This may therefore be called the transcendental attribute that, as it were, runs through the rest, and casts a glory upon every one. It is an attribute of attributes. " Rev. John Howe
"Holiness comprehends all the true moral excellence of intelligent beings. So the holiness of God is the same with the moral excellency of the divine nature, comprehending all his perfections, his righteousness, faithfulness, and goodness." Jonathan Edwards
Holiness is, however, not a distinctive attribute, but rather the combination of all the attributes. We may suppose a being in whom there may be love without justice, or truth, or any one of these to the exclusion of the other two; but no being can be holy, who does not combine in himself all of these , and all other moral perfections. Nor, when we have such a combination, is there anything to be added to constitute holy character. It is evident therefore, that holiness is the sum of all excellence and the combination of all the attributes which constitute perfection of character. James Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology, Chapter 10 http://www.founders.org/.
"... habitual, that holiness wherewith our souls are inwardly endued the same instant when first we begin to be temples of the Holy Spirit; [1 Cor. 3:16f; 6:19] actual, that holiness which afterward beautifieth all the parts and actions of our life, the holiness for which Enoch, Job, Zachary, Elizabeth, and other saints are in Scriptures so highly commended [see Gen. 5:24; Heb. 11:5; Job 1:8; Lk. 1:5f]." Richard Hooker, A Learned Discourse of Justification, A Sermon of Richard Hooker.
163. What is the work of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit sanctifies me, that is, He makes me holy, by bringing me to faith in Christ and by imparting to me the blessings of redemption. (Sanctification in the wider sense includes everything that the Holy Spirit does in me.) 419 But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor. 6:11 .... 169. What else has the Holy Spirit worked in you by the Gospel? The Holy Spirit has sanctified me in the true faith, that is, He has by faith in Christ renewed my heart, so that I can now overcome sin and do good works. (Sanctification in the narrower sense.) 439 This is the will of Gd, even your sanctification. 1 Thess. 4:3. Martin Luther, Luther's Small Catechism, p. 125-129.
"Our survey [of the best minds of the church] has led us to the place where we must define holiness as more than a mere attribute of God, and accept it as the sum of all His attribtues, the outshining of all that God is. It means that as the sun's rays, containing all the colours of the spectrum, come together in the sun's shining and blend into light, so all the attributes of God come together in His self-manifestation and blend into holiness." R. A. Finlayson, The Holiness of God (check this out on the web).
As I said, more will be added. But this last one by Finlayson is worth meditating on because it sums up so much said by great Christians and adds to it a direct illusion to the Hebrew root for holiness. He combines the intelligence of the church with the intelligence of our natural understanding of light. It will be hard to beat as a summary.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon Westlund
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to Holy's Hebrew Root in White Light
I want to say something about white light or bright being the basis for the idea of holiness is wholeness. This idea gains credibility, if we understand light itself better. The following ideas are taken from the World Book Encyclopedia, the 1990 edition, among other sources like an ordinary dictionary. The ideas are pieces of writing with only the relevant parts of writing included, to avoid including too much information that is not relevant to light and its connection with wholeness. So the way to read this section is realize that you are reading a collection of definitions to help you better understand light.
Light - 3. brightness, illumination, often of a special kind. 4. a source of light, as the sun, lamp, etc. 6. the light from the sun; daylight or dawn.
Light - Violet light has the shortest wavelength that is visible. Red light has the longest. Between them lie all the other colors of the spectrum, each with its own wavelength. Seen together at the same time, the colors appear as white light. Sun light is white because it has all the colors. However, when it passes through a prism, the different colors separate and can be seen. (purple, blue, green, yellow, red)
Sunlight spread into its different colors by a prism creates a continuous spectrum. From violent to red, the spectrum blends smoothly from one color to the next. Many other sources of light do not produce a continuous spectrum. For example, a street lamp may produce bright yellow, blue and a few dimmer colors, but it also has dark regions in its spectrum. (Sometimes a spectrum has gaps).
Light - In 1666, the English scientist, Sir Isaac Newton, discovered that white light is made up of all colors. Using a prism, he found that each color in a beam of light could be separated.
(Sir Isaac Newton is by all accounts a Christian.)
Other sources to consult:
Alder, Irving. The Story of Light. Rev. ed. Harvey House, 1971.
Sight Light and Color. Simon & Schuster, 1984.
Waldman, Gary. Introduction to Light: The Physics of Light, Vision and Color. Simon and Schuster, 1983.
To me, the idea of white light makes sense in explaining the concept of whole. Notice in one piece of writing above that a prism can demonstrate that other forms of light are not whole, because they do not create a full spectrum when the prism is used. Parts, the opposite of whole, are well explained by either of two ways. First, the use of a prism to demonstrate parts through the separation of light into its spectrum. Or second, the use of sand to demonstrate parts, because it naturally breaks into particles without any assistance, like white light naturally is whole without assistance. The use of sand is significant because the Hebrew word for profane extends from a Hebrew word that means sand.
Nature seems to support the key concepts of whole in sunlight and parts in sand. These are the physical roots for what we translate as holy and profane. And these physical things of sun and sand are very clear things to most people without having to be an Isaac Newton. Likewise to the Hebrews, who would have been very acquainted with sun and sand as people well acquainted with deserts.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
I want to say something about white light or bright being the basis for the idea of holiness is wholeness. This idea gains credibility, if we understand light itself better. The following ideas are taken from the World Book Encyclopedia, the 1990 edition, among other sources like an ordinary dictionary. The ideas are pieces of writing with only the relevant parts of writing included, to avoid including too much information that is not relevant to light and its connection with wholeness. So the way to read this section is realize that you are reading a collection of definitions to help you better understand light.
Light - 3. brightness, illumination, often of a special kind. 4. a source of light, as the sun, lamp, etc. 6. the light from the sun; daylight or dawn.
Light - Violet light has the shortest wavelength that is visible. Red light has the longest. Between them lie all the other colors of the spectrum, each with its own wavelength. Seen together at the same time, the colors appear as white light. Sun light is white because it has all the colors. However, when it passes through a prism, the different colors separate and can be seen. (purple, blue, green, yellow, red)
Sunlight spread into its different colors by a prism creates a continuous spectrum. From violent to red, the spectrum blends smoothly from one color to the next. Many other sources of light do not produce a continuous spectrum. For example, a street lamp may produce bright yellow, blue and a few dimmer colors, but it also has dark regions in its spectrum. (Sometimes a spectrum has gaps).
Light - In 1666, the English scientist, Sir Isaac Newton, discovered that white light is made up of all colors. Using a prism, he found that each color in a beam of light could be separated.
(Sir Isaac Newton is by all accounts a Christian.)
Other sources to consult:
Alder, Irving. The Story of Light. Rev. ed. Harvey House, 1971.
Sight Light and Color. Simon & Schuster, 1984.
Waldman, Gary. Introduction to Light: The Physics of Light, Vision and Color. Simon and Schuster, 1983.
To me, the idea of white light makes sense in explaining the concept of whole. Notice in one piece of writing above that a prism can demonstrate that other forms of light are not whole, because they do not create a full spectrum when the prism is used. Parts, the opposite of whole, are well explained by either of two ways. First, the use of a prism to demonstrate parts through the separation of light into its spectrum. Or second, the use of sand to demonstrate parts, because it naturally breaks into particles without any assistance, like white light naturally is whole without assistance. The use of sand is significant because the Hebrew word for profane extends from a Hebrew word that means sand.
Nature seems to support the key concepts of whole in sunlight and parts in sand. These are the physical roots for what we translate as holy and profane. And these physical things of sun and sand are very clear things to most people without having to be an Isaac Newton. Likewise to the Hebrews, who would have been very acquainted with sun and sand as people well acquainted with deserts.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Holiness Is Wholeness: According to Many Angles of Proof
While I confess that the idea that holiness is wholeness remains somewhat controversial at the present, that does not mean there is not a lot of support for that view. Like a wasp's nest, its support is not from just one angle, but many angles. Right now I would like to present the kinds of proof that I have found. These proofs go beyond just learning from examining the history of holy as a word and how it was understood.
The relevance of holy. The first proof, if you can call it that, is in my original quest to discover what solution from Scripture could possibly solve the problems of myself and the church. As a former scout in sports where it was my job to find the weaknesses in opponents, I thought it would be interesting to find the primary weakness in the church. The more I probed, the more I realized that the reason some solutions were succeeding while other solutions were failing is because some solutions were complete and others were incomplete. Wholeness provides the glue that holds the parts together that are all part of the solution for myself and the church. As I taught from the Word of God, I found I had to use each of the major lessons that I grew up with in the church, and not just any one of them, to solve problems in my life and in the life of the church. And this solution also seems to be related to the recognition that church health is the primary issue for the church in the 21st century.
The words of holy. While the proof goes beyond this point, its authority starts here. My first clue that holy meant whole was in Strong's Concordance where one of the words listed for the original word in Hebrew was wholly. This struck me as odd at first, since I was looking for the words in Scripture that had to do with whole, and I had never considered holy as an option until then. The words for holy also include: sanctification and hallow in our modern translations and in the KJV. Adding wholly to the list began my quest which you can examine more thoroughly in the previous blog (minus this first step of wholly). There I go into details about the words of holy. There is more than one word with it all coming down to the main meaning the word is meant to communicate to us.
The context of holy. While proof begins with the word holy itself, the context in which holy is found is also important. The context says that "holy, holy, holy" is the Lord God Almighty. No other word gets this exalted status of being repeated three times like this, not just in Isaiah, but also in Revelation. Not love, not relationships, not truth, not goodness and not even humility get this status in the context! I also found this out the hard way in real life! The text is written for our instruction, etc. So the context of holy is very important because it helps us test the language of holy or the word holy against the words that surround it to see that it rings true with the context and the text of Scripture. So from this context we can see not only its meaning but its meaning as to importance. Another context that gets more at its meaning is that of the Sabbath commandment that we keep the Sabbath day holy. This is usually interpreted to mean that we keep it separate from the other six days. That is certainly there in the context because by description "the" means only one and the name "Sabbath" is only applied to the one day of the week which would make it separate from the others. The problem in the context then is that holy when interpreted as separate becomes simply redundant or at best there for emphasis. We don't know for certain that is its purpose from the context. So there remains the door open for an exciting possibility. It is that the context could allow that the idea is that you keep the whole Sabbath day of rest, a day of rest, and not just part of the day. It would mean not only in the evening you do no work, not only in the night you do no work, not only in the morning you do no work, but also through the afternoon you do no work. That means the whole day you do no work and then to profane it would be to allow ourselves to work during any part of that day which is defined by the word Sabbath as rest. I think this better fits the context, because it avoids the problem of being potentially vain repetition of a point already made that the day is separate from the other six. Please consider this in your hearts. It is exciting isn't it?
The history of holy. While the proof begins with understanding holy itself, it is always important to understand that we do not learn a word without other smart people before us and after us to assist us in understanding. So I take very seriously that five major people in the Protestant tradition, from which I am an heir, understood holiness as wholeness. While the clarity differs from one tradition to the other and while their is not clear consistency, mostly because of the word sanctification, still all had some sense of wholeness. Their names in historical order are: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Richard Hooker, John Wesley and Charles Spurgeon. A longer list can be found in more than one previous blog.
The theology of holy. While proofs do not all have the same weight, theology provided the earliest indications that there was going to be a problem later in the life of the church that has now reached a major threshold of burden and frustration. When someone has a medical problem like a cut finger, it is important to care for it early on rather than wait until infection has spread to an entire arm or limb. The difficulty in putting together a comprehensive systematic theology was one of the earliest indicators of a problem. And the biggest problem was usually trying to find what the major theme would be that would unite all theology. Ironically, I think it was close to the surface in each effort, yet never got all the attention it deserved. Lutheran theology focused on righteousness and sanctification, Calvinism focused on humility (a part of truth) and sanctification, Anglicanism focused on comprehensiveness or sanctification (as synonymous), Methodism focused on perfect love and entire sanctification (as near synonyms), and Baptists focused on goodness (and from it maturity) and holiness. In each case holiness or wholeness was a major theme alongside another theme whether you use sanctification or holiness as the word to express it. Our studies themselves should have told us long ago that all this disagreement on where to begin and what is the major theme points to a future problem of greater magnitude, if we do not clear it up. Pushing theology aside it not working but only letting the infection grow.
The major parts of holy. The Bible is the ultimate standard of authority. Holy is not the only description of who God is in the Bible, so we need to make sense of that fact. In it we read that God is righteous (Ps. 7:11). We also read that He is true (John 3:33). We read again that he is holy (Ps. 99:9). Then we read that God is love (1 John 4:8). And finally, but not exhaustively, we read that God is good (Ps. 73:1). Which one is He? Why not say He is all of these. These are some incredible verses about who God is and what His character is. Many have argued that one or another of these characteristics are most important. The Bible teaches that all of these are very important because all of them are very frequently mentioned and sometimes we are explicitly told they are more important than other characteristics. I would never leave out God's love in any basic description of who He is (1 Cor. 13). Yet the Bible itself, in two places, puts holy above even love. It says in Isaiah 6:3 that God is "holy, holy holy." It says again in Revelation 4:8 that He is "holy, holy holy." No where else do any of the descriptions of God get repeated three times for emphasis of importance. I believe that each of these parts is a special or major part of holy. All of them are biblically the most important character traits of God demonstrated by the number of times they are repeated versus the other ways that God is described. They are all very important. Only one is most important, because it includes all the others in it, holy.
The language of holy. While language is specific to holy itself, there are also general rules of language that also apply. For a long time there has been a fascination with the number 8 in Western Culture as though it has some mythical qualities in discovering the parts to something. Witness the 8 parts of speech for Greek, the 8 parts of speech for Latin and the 8 parts of speech for English as instances. By the way, all of the systems recognize a different set of 8. I am convinced that language studies now recognize that there is the whole of language and there are the parts of language, but that the 8 parts are not it. I learned a different system from Wycliffe Bible translators that recognizes 4 parts or 4 classes as they called them which I think replaces the 8 parts and happens to work in more than just 1 language. With some modifications from their words, I recognize language that expresses wholes and parts including of, to, in, etc. and then I recognize the parts as being: (1)amounts, (2)relationships, (3)actions, (4)things. Holiness in context goes beyond any one of the part even that of relationships or things in the idea of separation and I think in context functions as a direct expression of the whole. This would make it very important in language as well as in the text of Scripture when we say: Holy, holy, holy.
The science of holy. In science their is an increasing call beginning with Albert Einstein for an "explanation of everything." I believe holiness or wholeness can match that call and prove to science and scientists that the Bible is the book of God and not of mere mortals who err.
The philosoply of holy. In philosophy there is a strong leaning toward a system that is not reductionistic but holistic (or wholistic). Holiness is not reductionistic but wholistic in the right sense of the term. To be reductionistic is to think that you can reduce everything to the same thing that does not apply to all those things. Holiness allows for diversity among the parts that make up wholeness. So you do not reduce each part to being all the same part. On a bike their are different parts like the handle bars or chain. They cannot replace each other because they are distinct parts and cannot be reduced to the same thing.
So with varying degrees each of these supports the meaning that holiness is wholeness. Again, like the wasp's nest built by nature's God, the angles of support are numerous. I love to think that this also proves that God is a lot smarter than all of us. I know it does more than humbles me, it makes me want to shout His praises!
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
While I confess that the idea that holiness is wholeness remains somewhat controversial at the present, that does not mean there is not a lot of support for that view. Like a wasp's nest, its support is not from just one angle, but many angles. Right now I would like to present the kinds of proof that I have found. These proofs go beyond just learning from examining the history of holy as a word and how it was understood.
The relevance of holy. The first proof, if you can call it that, is in my original quest to discover what solution from Scripture could possibly solve the problems of myself and the church. As a former scout in sports where it was my job to find the weaknesses in opponents, I thought it would be interesting to find the primary weakness in the church. The more I probed, the more I realized that the reason some solutions were succeeding while other solutions were failing is because some solutions were complete and others were incomplete. Wholeness provides the glue that holds the parts together that are all part of the solution for myself and the church. As I taught from the Word of God, I found I had to use each of the major lessons that I grew up with in the church, and not just any one of them, to solve problems in my life and in the life of the church. And this solution also seems to be related to the recognition that church health is the primary issue for the church in the 21st century.
The words of holy. While the proof goes beyond this point, its authority starts here. My first clue that holy meant whole was in Strong's Concordance where one of the words listed for the original word in Hebrew was wholly. This struck me as odd at first, since I was looking for the words in Scripture that had to do with whole, and I had never considered holy as an option until then. The words for holy also include: sanctification and hallow in our modern translations and in the KJV. Adding wholly to the list began my quest which you can examine more thoroughly in the previous blog (minus this first step of wholly). There I go into details about the words of holy. There is more than one word with it all coming down to the main meaning the word is meant to communicate to us.
The context of holy. While proof begins with the word holy itself, the context in which holy is found is also important. The context says that "holy, holy, holy" is the Lord God Almighty. No other word gets this exalted status of being repeated three times like this, not just in Isaiah, but also in Revelation. Not love, not relationships, not truth, not goodness and not even humility get this status in the context! I also found this out the hard way in real life! The text is written for our instruction, etc. So the context of holy is very important because it helps us test the language of holy or the word holy against the words that surround it to see that it rings true with the context and the text of Scripture. So from this context we can see not only its meaning but its meaning as to importance. Another context that gets more at its meaning is that of the Sabbath commandment that we keep the Sabbath day holy. This is usually interpreted to mean that we keep it separate from the other six days. That is certainly there in the context because by description "the" means only one and the name "Sabbath" is only applied to the one day of the week which would make it separate from the others. The problem in the context then is that holy when interpreted as separate becomes simply redundant or at best there for emphasis. We don't know for certain that is its purpose from the context. So there remains the door open for an exciting possibility. It is that the context could allow that the idea is that you keep the whole Sabbath day of rest, a day of rest, and not just part of the day. It would mean not only in the evening you do no work, not only in the night you do no work, not only in the morning you do no work, but also through the afternoon you do no work. That means the whole day you do no work and then to profane it would be to allow ourselves to work during any part of that day which is defined by the word Sabbath as rest. I think this better fits the context, because it avoids the problem of being potentially vain repetition of a point already made that the day is separate from the other six. Please consider this in your hearts. It is exciting isn't it?
The history of holy. While the proof begins with understanding holy itself, it is always important to understand that we do not learn a word without other smart people before us and after us to assist us in understanding. So I take very seriously that five major people in the Protestant tradition, from which I am an heir, understood holiness as wholeness. While the clarity differs from one tradition to the other and while their is not clear consistency, mostly because of the word sanctification, still all had some sense of wholeness. Their names in historical order are: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Richard Hooker, John Wesley and Charles Spurgeon. A longer list can be found in more than one previous blog.
The theology of holy. While proofs do not all have the same weight, theology provided the earliest indications that there was going to be a problem later in the life of the church that has now reached a major threshold of burden and frustration. When someone has a medical problem like a cut finger, it is important to care for it early on rather than wait until infection has spread to an entire arm or limb. The difficulty in putting together a comprehensive systematic theology was one of the earliest indicators of a problem. And the biggest problem was usually trying to find what the major theme would be that would unite all theology. Ironically, I think it was close to the surface in each effort, yet never got all the attention it deserved. Lutheran theology focused on righteousness and sanctification, Calvinism focused on humility (a part of truth) and sanctification, Anglicanism focused on comprehensiveness or sanctification (as synonymous), Methodism focused on perfect love and entire sanctification (as near synonyms), and Baptists focused on goodness (and from it maturity) and holiness. In each case holiness or wholeness was a major theme alongside another theme whether you use sanctification or holiness as the word to express it. Our studies themselves should have told us long ago that all this disagreement on where to begin and what is the major theme points to a future problem of greater magnitude, if we do not clear it up. Pushing theology aside it not working but only letting the infection grow.
The major parts of holy. The Bible is the ultimate standard of authority. Holy is not the only description of who God is in the Bible, so we need to make sense of that fact. In it we read that God is righteous (Ps. 7:11). We also read that He is true (John 3:33). We read again that he is holy (Ps. 99:9). Then we read that God is love (1 John 4:8). And finally, but not exhaustively, we read that God is good (Ps. 73:1). Which one is He? Why not say He is all of these. These are some incredible verses about who God is and what His character is. Many have argued that one or another of these characteristics are most important. The Bible teaches that all of these are very important because all of them are very frequently mentioned and sometimes we are explicitly told they are more important than other characteristics. I would never leave out God's love in any basic description of who He is (1 Cor. 13). Yet the Bible itself, in two places, puts holy above even love. It says in Isaiah 6:3 that God is "holy, holy holy." It says again in Revelation 4:8 that He is "holy, holy holy." No where else do any of the descriptions of God get repeated three times for emphasis of importance. I believe that each of these parts is a special or major part of holy. All of them are biblically the most important character traits of God demonstrated by the number of times they are repeated versus the other ways that God is described. They are all very important. Only one is most important, because it includes all the others in it, holy.
The language of holy. While language is specific to holy itself, there are also general rules of language that also apply. For a long time there has been a fascination with the number 8 in Western Culture as though it has some mythical qualities in discovering the parts to something. Witness the 8 parts of speech for Greek, the 8 parts of speech for Latin and the 8 parts of speech for English as instances. By the way, all of the systems recognize a different set of 8. I am convinced that language studies now recognize that there is the whole of language and there are the parts of language, but that the 8 parts are not it. I learned a different system from Wycliffe Bible translators that recognizes 4 parts or 4 classes as they called them which I think replaces the 8 parts and happens to work in more than just 1 language. With some modifications from their words, I recognize language that expresses wholes and parts including of, to, in, etc. and then I recognize the parts as being: (1)amounts, (2)relationships, (3)actions, (4)things. Holiness in context goes beyond any one of the part even that of relationships or things in the idea of separation and I think in context functions as a direct expression of the whole. This would make it very important in language as well as in the text of Scripture when we say: Holy, holy, holy.
The science of holy. In science their is an increasing call beginning with Albert Einstein for an "explanation of everything." I believe holiness or wholeness can match that call and prove to science and scientists that the Bible is the book of God and not of mere mortals who err.
The philosoply of holy. In philosophy there is a strong leaning toward a system that is not reductionistic but holistic (or wholistic). Holiness is not reductionistic but wholistic in the right sense of the term. To be reductionistic is to think that you can reduce everything to the same thing that does not apply to all those things. Holiness allows for diversity among the parts that make up wholeness. So you do not reduce each part to being all the same part. On a bike their are different parts like the handle bars or chain. They cannot replace each other because they are distinct parts and cannot be reduced to the same thing.
So with varying degrees each of these supports the meaning that holiness is wholeness. Again, like the wasp's nest built by nature's God, the angles of support are numerous. I love to think that this also proves that God is a lot smarter than all of us. I know it does more than humbles me, it makes me want to shout His praises!
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Friday, April 06, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to English, Greek, Hebrew, Babylonian and Sumerian
I want to say something about the history of the roots of the word holiness that we use often in English, but so seldom understand. What I will do is trace its history in English, in Latin, in Greek, in Hebrew, in Babylonian and in Sumerian. I will leave out the history or roots for the competing view only for reasons that I think most people want me to get to the point as fast as I can. It is also true that the competing view has gotten most of the publicity anyway and does not need me to add to it.
In English, much is made of the roots for holy. On the one hand, people like the scholar James Barr are too critical in comments about the root of the word being connected to wholeness. On the other hand, people are too positive that it has a direct link to wholeness. Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I am thinking of whole in contrast to parts.
Wholeness itself is not directly linked to hale, halig, hallow, etc as some claim. That might be the reason for scholar James Barr's criticism. But I do think it fits the category in translation of being a regional substitute for halig. This means that the translators were convinced that both are connected to the ideas of whole, health and sound. What might be worthy of investigation is whether holiness has its deepest roots extending to holos in Greek and halig to hagios in Greek. Holos in Greek is connected to the idea of entire versus portion. Hagios is the Greek word that we translate with holiness versus profane. What is significant is that halig may have been a combination or compromise between hale and hagios, combining sounds or letters from both much like we maybe see in the Germain heilig.
In Latin, much is made of sanctification which has come over into English as being rooted in sacre. Let me only say this, that I think the use of sanctification in English translations is a very loaded term since many are not aware of the root words in Latin that go with it. But it does seem that part of the confusion of what holiness means comes from the Latin language. It might be that hail in Latin as in "hail Caesar" is closer to holiness than is sanctification. I will only say this in concluding. The root meanings here are only historically significant in their effects, they are not significant in proving the correct understanding of holiness or holy. The fact that Saint Jerome chose this for the Latin Vulgate translation does not mean that he got the meaning correct.
In Greek, as I did above, I will Englishize the word to read hagios. Its roots are unclear since much is made of the idea that you can connect it to other words with the hag root making it have a connection with words having to do with piety, religious, etc. I think this is dangerous since this is based on later scholarly opinion rather than based on actual historical definitions by contemporary users of the language. The use of roots is helpful, but it also is not full proof. I think we have to go elsewhere to gain more certainty than its possible connection with hagnos. I would love to see a scholar test hagios itself for meaning in its own contexts rather than see a probable connection decide the issue.
In Hebrew, I will Englishize the word to read Qadosh. It could also be Englishized to Kadosh. It also has other forms that have to do with action like Qadesh, Qadish, Kadesh, Kadish, etc. This is the ultimate Biblical root for the word we translate holy. I think it should carry the most weight in its usage in the Bible. Jews will give you two possible meanings historically. They will tell you it has connections to separate or that it has connections to perfection. The separate idea is linked to either older chadash in Babylonian or to a form in Arabic. The idea of perfection, in the sense of wholeness, is linked to another Hebrew word meaning sun or bright.
I think the link for separate is weak because you can see even in English that if you are to take the root idea seriously, then a change from q to ch or k to ch might be significant enough to say there is no link.
The link with the other Hebrew word is not as problematic in terms of the letters used. The way to think of sun or bright could be in the sense of what science now terms white light. This would then also connect it with the idea of the sun. The implications might work out in that white light is the whole in comparison to any of the parts like the color red or green. The way to demonstrate any of these parts would be to use a prism or to note the colors of a rainbow which is water breaking apart white light into its component colors.
Another important link is that of the word profane which in the Hebrew is a word that is derived from a root word for sand. Sun and sand are the common fare of a desert people as I learned in the video series "Walking the Bible" shown on PBS. Sand would afford a beautiful illustration of the opposite of white light. It tends to fall apart into parts or particles without outside interference while white light tends to hold together without outside interference. These words would both been easy to understand while holiness and profane seem to allude us in English.
Finally, the roots in Babylonian and Sumerian go back to quddushu. In ancient writings it is tied to ellu which is given the meaning of bright. If we recognize the meaning of white light as being the equivalent of bright, then it makes good sense in some ancient texts that may otherwise seem confusing. Since we know that Abraham emerged from this area of the world, this link could be very significant. Even if all you know is English, you can see the words in Hebrew and in Babylonian or Sumerian in Englishized form look very much alike. It is very likely the Hebrew would have Babylonian roots.
So I think the meaning of wholeness can stand up to the test of studying the roots of these words. Just think of the sun's light and the sand under your toes as the roots for both whole and parts. Then you can physically sense the difference between whole and parts.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
I want to say something about the history of the roots of the word holiness that we use often in English, but so seldom understand. What I will do is trace its history in English, in Latin, in Greek, in Hebrew, in Babylonian and in Sumerian. I will leave out the history or roots for the competing view only for reasons that I think most people want me to get to the point as fast as I can. It is also true that the competing view has gotten most of the publicity anyway and does not need me to add to it.
In English, much is made of the roots for holy. On the one hand, people like the scholar James Barr are too critical in comments about the root of the word being connected to wholeness. On the other hand, people are too positive that it has a direct link to wholeness. Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I am thinking of whole in contrast to parts.
Wholeness itself is not directly linked to hale, halig, hallow, etc as some claim. That might be the reason for scholar James Barr's criticism. But I do think it fits the category in translation of being a regional substitute for halig. This means that the translators were convinced that both are connected to the ideas of whole, health and sound. What might be worthy of investigation is whether holiness has its deepest roots extending to holos in Greek and halig to hagios in Greek. Holos in Greek is connected to the idea of entire versus portion. Hagios is the Greek word that we translate with holiness versus profane. What is significant is that halig may have been a combination or compromise between hale and hagios, combining sounds or letters from both much like we maybe see in the Germain heilig.
In Latin, much is made of sanctification which has come over into English as being rooted in sacre. Let me only say this, that I think the use of sanctification in English translations is a very loaded term since many are not aware of the root words in Latin that go with it. But it does seem that part of the confusion of what holiness means comes from the Latin language. It might be that hail in Latin as in "hail Caesar" is closer to holiness than is sanctification. I will only say this in concluding. The root meanings here are only historically significant in their effects, they are not significant in proving the correct understanding of holiness or holy. The fact that Saint Jerome chose this for the Latin Vulgate translation does not mean that he got the meaning correct.
In Greek, as I did above, I will Englishize the word to read hagios. Its roots are unclear since much is made of the idea that you can connect it to other words with the hag root making it have a connection with words having to do with piety, religious, etc. I think this is dangerous since this is based on later scholarly opinion rather than based on actual historical definitions by contemporary users of the language. The use of roots is helpful, but it also is not full proof. I think we have to go elsewhere to gain more certainty than its possible connection with hagnos. I would love to see a scholar test hagios itself for meaning in its own contexts rather than see a probable connection decide the issue.
In Hebrew, I will Englishize the word to read Qadosh. It could also be Englishized to Kadosh. It also has other forms that have to do with action like Qadesh, Qadish, Kadesh, Kadish, etc. This is the ultimate Biblical root for the word we translate holy. I think it should carry the most weight in its usage in the Bible. Jews will give you two possible meanings historically. They will tell you it has connections to separate or that it has connections to perfection. The separate idea is linked to either older chadash in Babylonian or to a form in Arabic. The idea of perfection, in the sense of wholeness, is linked to another Hebrew word meaning sun or bright.
I think the link for separate is weak because you can see even in English that if you are to take the root idea seriously, then a change from q to ch or k to ch might be significant enough to say there is no link.
The link with the other Hebrew word is not as problematic in terms of the letters used. The way to think of sun or bright could be in the sense of what science now terms white light. This would then also connect it with the idea of the sun. The implications might work out in that white light is the whole in comparison to any of the parts like the color red or green. The way to demonstrate any of these parts would be to use a prism or to note the colors of a rainbow which is water breaking apart white light into its component colors.
Another important link is that of the word profane which in the Hebrew is a word that is derived from a root word for sand. Sun and sand are the common fare of a desert people as I learned in the video series "Walking the Bible" shown on PBS. Sand would afford a beautiful illustration of the opposite of white light. It tends to fall apart into parts or particles without outside interference while white light tends to hold together without outside interference. These words would both been easy to understand while holiness and profane seem to allude us in English.
Finally, the roots in Babylonian and Sumerian go back to quddushu. In ancient writings it is tied to ellu which is given the meaning of bright. If we recognize the meaning of white light as being the equivalent of bright, then it makes good sense in some ancient texts that may otherwise seem confusing. Since we know that Abraham emerged from this area of the world, this link could be very significant. Even if all you know is English, you can see the words in Hebrew and in Babylonian or Sumerian in Englishized form look very much alike. It is very likely the Hebrew would have Babylonian roots.
So I think the meaning of wholeness can stand up to the test of studying the roots of these words. Just think of the sun's light and the sand under your toes as the roots for both whole and parts. Then you can physically sense the difference between whole and parts.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to the History of Christian Intelligence
I am hoping you are one of those people who wants to be sure of the meaning of the words in the Bible. I am also hoping you are hungry for God's Word because you are seeking Him for answers. That is the real drive behind my desire to know the meaning of holiness. It is nothing else, whatever may appear from what I write. So what is most disturbing for me ultimately is that time is passing in which people are not aware of the great advantages of knowing that holiness is wholeness.
One of the reasons people do not know that holiness means wholeness is because not everyone who claims to be an authority agrees on that point. Among those who disagree are some with a disrespect for the intelligence of the past. Among those with intelligence in the past are the five largest names in Protestant history: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Richard Hooker (perhaps arguable), John Wesley and Charles Spurgeon. These are major giants for: Lutheranism, Presybterianism (not to exlude the other Calvinist churches), Anglicanism (Episcopalians), Methodism and Baptists. I think that the intelligence of the past deserves respect that it has not received. And you do not have to show a level of respect that lapses into respect that only Scripture deserves to do this.
Let me explain further what I mean by not lapsing into respect that only the Bible or Scripture deserves. Intelligence is simply the ability to know what something is. For example, you tell a child, "This is a dog" while pointing to one. You tell them, "That is not a dog" while pointing to a cat. I am saying "This is wholeness" while I am pointing at the word holiness in the English Bible you read. Wholeness is also the point for a few others words connected to holiness like sanctification and hallowed.
I believe that these Reformers from the past were pointing out that holiness or sanctification had to do with wholeness, even if not always with equal clarity. We need to remember something about the Reformers. To be intelligent you do not have to be in portion equal to Scripture. You just need to reflect it, rather than oppose it. Its important to realize that they did not confuse dogs and cats like some assume in their criticism of the idea that holiness means wholeness.
Albert Einstein, in The World As I See It, had this to say: "The harmony of natural law ... reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." The Scripture says that we see in a glass dimly (1 Cor. 13). So did the Reformers, yet their systematic thinking was a reflection of the Word of God, not an utterly worthless misguided effort. A reflection is a help toward face to face clarity. I think Scripture reflects a harmony that reveals an intelligence of incredible superiority, because all Scripture is God-breathed (1 Timothy). But I think we hinder recognition of that intelligence when we say that holiness is separation rather than holiness is wholeness.
Some recent Bible translators or scholars show no respect for past translations which recognized that holiness is wholeness. We also can also diminish respect for the Reformers of the past and exalt ourselves to some high place we do not deserve. We need to respect others according to Scripture, especially people who are our spiritual fathers in that they led us to Christ (1 Cor. 3). My heritage is something I really treasure for bringing me to Christ and knowing firmly I do not save myself.
I really want to stress caution because generally people are in too big of a rush on topics that are not clear. Slow down when you study this issue. It's not all real clear. Those that say holiness means separation admit in their more cautious moments that things are not clear. Don't let your mind be puffed up like an animal when threatened which puffs up its size beyond its true measure. Instead humble yourself (James 2) and persevere in the process of discovering what is a good definition in everyday language for holiness.
Scripture is the final arbitrator, and I know that as well as anyone. When I was growing up in my family, if I wanted to put forward my perspective, I also needed to know "chapter and verse," or I got no respect. So saying Spurgeon said it was not enough. Yet I also know something else from my family and teachers. I'm not the only one with intelligence nor the new one who possesses intelligence while those older ones had none. If I really possess intelligence, then I will not be the only one, but I will share it in common with everyone in a group of intelligent people.
The topic of holiness (or sanctification) was a major theme for everyone of the Reformers. They studied this topic. Everyone of them recognized this theme as right up there with whatever other theme they had, whether it be God's righteousness in Christ or God's goodness. Holiness was always there, shared by everyone one of them, while all the other themes were slightly different.
Holiness is wholeness could answer the cry of our age. Our world is crying out for wholeness, not just directly in those words, but practically and relevantly in day to day struggles. I hear the cry loud and clear! I've used it effectively in organizing many problems or concerns. I've first used it to make sense of all the things God has taught me as parts of my salvation. Check out the topic of wholenesss on the internet. Just be careful of some crys. They are not as healthy as others. You must know the difference between good and bad, not just dogs and cats.
In Christ,
Jon
I am hoping you are one of those people who wants to be sure of the meaning of the words in the Bible. I am also hoping you are hungry for God's Word because you are seeking Him for answers. That is the real drive behind my desire to know the meaning of holiness. It is nothing else, whatever may appear from what I write. So what is most disturbing for me ultimately is that time is passing in which people are not aware of the great advantages of knowing that holiness is wholeness.
One of the reasons people do not know that holiness means wholeness is because not everyone who claims to be an authority agrees on that point. Among those who disagree are some with a disrespect for the intelligence of the past. Among those with intelligence in the past are the five largest names in Protestant history: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Richard Hooker (perhaps arguable), John Wesley and Charles Spurgeon. These are major giants for: Lutheranism, Presybterianism (not to exlude the other Calvinist churches), Anglicanism (Episcopalians), Methodism and Baptists. I think that the intelligence of the past deserves respect that it has not received. And you do not have to show a level of respect that lapses into respect that only Scripture deserves to do this.
Let me explain further what I mean by not lapsing into respect that only the Bible or Scripture deserves. Intelligence is simply the ability to know what something is. For example, you tell a child, "This is a dog" while pointing to one. You tell them, "That is not a dog" while pointing to a cat. I am saying "This is wholeness" while I am pointing at the word holiness in the English Bible you read. Wholeness is also the point for a few others words connected to holiness like sanctification and hallowed.
I believe that these Reformers from the past were pointing out that holiness or sanctification had to do with wholeness, even if not always with equal clarity. We need to remember something about the Reformers. To be intelligent you do not have to be in portion equal to Scripture. You just need to reflect it, rather than oppose it. Its important to realize that they did not confuse dogs and cats like some assume in their criticism of the idea that holiness means wholeness.
Albert Einstein, in The World As I See It, had this to say: "The harmony of natural law ... reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." The Scripture says that we see in a glass dimly (1 Cor. 13). So did the Reformers, yet their systematic thinking was a reflection of the Word of God, not an utterly worthless misguided effort. A reflection is a help toward face to face clarity. I think Scripture reflects a harmony that reveals an intelligence of incredible superiority, because all Scripture is God-breathed (1 Timothy). But I think we hinder recognition of that intelligence when we say that holiness is separation rather than holiness is wholeness.
Some recent Bible translators or scholars show no respect for past translations which recognized that holiness is wholeness. We also can also diminish respect for the Reformers of the past and exalt ourselves to some high place we do not deserve. We need to respect others according to Scripture, especially people who are our spiritual fathers in that they led us to Christ (1 Cor. 3). My heritage is something I really treasure for bringing me to Christ and knowing firmly I do not save myself.
I really want to stress caution because generally people are in too big of a rush on topics that are not clear. Slow down when you study this issue. It's not all real clear. Those that say holiness means separation admit in their more cautious moments that things are not clear. Don't let your mind be puffed up like an animal when threatened which puffs up its size beyond its true measure. Instead humble yourself (James 2) and persevere in the process of discovering what is a good definition in everyday language for holiness.
Scripture is the final arbitrator, and I know that as well as anyone. When I was growing up in my family, if I wanted to put forward my perspective, I also needed to know "chapter and verse," or I got no respect. So saying Spurgeon said it was not enough. Yet I also know something else from my family and teachers. I'm not the only one with intelligence nor the new one who possesses intelligence while those older ones had none. If I really possess intelligence, then I will not be the only one, but I will share it in common with everyone in a group of intelligent people.
The topic of holiness (or sanctification) was a major theme for everyone of the Reformers. They studied this topic. Everyone of them recognized this theme as right up there with whatever other theme they had, whether it be God's righteousness in Christ or God's goodness. Holiness was always there, shared by everyone one of them, while all the other themes were slightly different.
Holiness is wholeness could answer the cry of our age. Our world is crying out for wholeness, not just directly in those words, but practically and relevantly in day to day struggles. I hear the cry loud and clear! I've used it effectively in organizing many problems or concerns. I've first used it to make sense of all the things God has taught me as parts of my salvation. Check out the topic of wholenesss on the internet. Just be careful of some crys. They are not as healthy as others. You must know the difference between good and bad, not just dogs and cats.
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to Many Witnesses
I have been researching for quite some time the topic of holiness and the lack of clarity on this topic is clear. One problem is researching the history of its meaning in Hebrew and Greek. Another problem is researching its history in English or Latin. Yet one thing is very clear and that is that holiness is not clear to many people when they hear it. I want people to be aware of something though that is very clear, yet seldom presented about the meaning of holiness. It is that many prominent witnesses in the past regarded the meaning of holiness as in some sense meaning wholeness.
I am not saying this solves all the problems with regard to clarity, but it is itself clear. These witnesses might use entire, complete, perfect or comprehensive, but the basic idea is the same when you read further. The idea of wholeness is simply that all the parts are present. I would like to list the names of those great teachers of the Bible from whom I have found evidence that they believed that holiness is wholeness, in at least some contexts.
The names include the following:
Martin Luther, John Calvin, Richard Hooker, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Finney, Jonathan Edwards, John Wycliffe, Johann Bengel, the KJV translators, John Howe, Alexander Whyte, Archibald Alexander Hodge, John Dick, John L. Dagg, Albert C. Knudsen, James Petigru Boyce, P. T. Forsyth, Andrew Murray, Charles Henry Brent, S. R. Driver, A. W. Pink, Mary Douglas (anthropologist), Hebert Lockyer (in an editorial role), R. A. Finlayson, J. H. Hertz (Jewish), George C. Bonnell (continuation of Calvin), David S. Shapiro (Jewish), Ray Stedman, Walter Kaiser, Jack Hayford, and Lambert Dolphin (continuation of Stedman), etc. I must also mention Noah Webster (Dictionary) and the Online Etymological Dictionary (Dictionary) as other sources for the view that holiness is wholeness.
What is very clear to me from all these prominent or slightly less prominent names is that the idea that holiness is wholeness is not some "Johnny Come Lately" idea. Many others could be added to this list that are lesser known or whom I have not had time to research since 2006. Yet all five major Protestant groups are shown with their primary leaders in some measure showing this was their definition.
What is very clear to me is that it makes no sense to simply throw out this definition in favor of the idea that holiness is separation, when others of less character may have started the latter idea. I have in mind people like Fredrich Schlieremacher, who I do not regard as a good student of the Bible. Why is it that it is not clear to people that God's providence ought to mean something? I know that not all of history for the church is clear on this definition, yet it is clear that all five major Protestant leaders used words that point in that direction. Is it clear why all five would be wrong?
So again while this does not solve every issue, one thing ought to be clear. If you do not believe that holiness is wholeness, then proceed with caution against such a great cloud of witnesses. You are cutting against the grain of some wonderful human beings, who possessed the character of holiness and wholeness that I wish I could emulate.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
I have been researching for quite some time the topic of holiness and the lack of clarity on this topic is clear. One problem is researching the history of its meaning in Hebrew and Greek. Another problem is researching its history in English or Latin. Yet one thing is very clear and that is that holiness is not clear to many people when they hear it. I want people to be aware of something though that is very clear, yet seldom presented about the meaning of holiness. It is that many prominent witnesses in the past regarded the meaning of holiness as in some sense meaning wholeness.
I am not saying this solves all the problems with regard to clarity, but it is itself clear. These witnesses might use entire, complete, perfect or comprehensive, but the basic idea is the same when you read further. The idea of wholeness is simply that all the parts are present. I would like to list the names of those great teachers of the Bible from whom I have found evidence that they believed that holiness is wholeness, in at least some contexts.
The names include the following:
Martin Luther, John Calvin, Richard Hooker, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Finney, Jonathan Edwards, John Wycliffe, Johann Bengel, the KJV translators, John Howe, Alexander Whyte, Archibald Alexander Hodge, John Dick, John L. Dagg, Albert C. Knudsen, James Petigru Boyce, P. T. Forsyth, Andrew Murray, Charles Henry Brent, S. R. Driver, A. W. Pink, Mary Douglas (anthropologist), Hebert Lockyer (in an editorial role), R. A. Finlayson, J. H. Hertz (Jewish), George C. Bonnell (continuation of Calvin), David S. Shapiro (Jewish), Ray Stedman, Walter Kaiser, Jack Hayford, and Lambert Dolphin (continuation of Stedman), etc. I must also mention Noah Webster (Dictionary) and the Online Etymological Dictionary (Dictionary) as other sources for the view that holiness is wholeness.
What is very clear to me from all these prominent or slightly less prominent names is that the idea that holiness is wholeness is not some "Johnny Come Lately" idea. Many others could be added to this list that are lesser known or whom I have not had time to research since 2006. Yet all five major Protestant groups are shown with their primary leaders in some measure showing this was their definition.
What is very clear to me is that it makes no sense to simply throw out this definition in favor of the idea that holiness is separation, when others of less character may have started the latter idea. I have in mind people like Fredrich Schlieremacher, who I do not regard as a good student of the Bible. Why is it that it is not clear to people that God's providence ought to mean something? I know that not all of history for the church is clear on this definition, yet it is clear that all five major Protestant leaders used words that point in that direction. Is it clear why all five would be wrong?
So again while this does not solve every issue, one thing ought to be clear. If you do not believe that holiness is wholeness, then proceed with caution against such a great cloud of witnesses. You are cutting against the grain of some wonderful human beings, who possessed the character of holiness and wholeness that I wish I could emulate.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Monday, October 09, 2006
Holiness is Wholeness: Did You Know that Before?
Did you know that holiness is wholeness? Neither did I until late 2004. Neither did I realize until 2005 that holiness was the most important character trait to God and for ourselves. And finally, neither did I realize that this is also the thing that matters the most to turning the tide for the Christian Church and its struggles at present. Since 2004, I have discovered that from at least the 1300s through the late 1800s, the great majority of Christians, from whom I would trace my Christian faith, knew that holiness is wholeness. The bottom line is this: Our heritage was that holiness is wholeness. For reasons unknown to most, our heritage was not passed on to us in the 20th century.
However, don't take my word alone on what our heritage was supposed to be. The most important denominations within Protestant circles have been the Lutherans, the Reformed (Presbyterians), the Anglicans (Episcopalians), the Methodists and the Baptists. Evangelical groups in general just added an evangelical emphasis or Methodist emphasis without really changing Protestant views significantly. So our heritage can be traced back to the head of Scripture through the hands of Luther, Calvin, Hooker,Wesley and Spurgeon.
Luther defined holiness as wholeness or entirety, as shown in his catechism in speaking about the Holy Spirit, and in at least one other place that I have found. For Calvin, he seems to have spoken about it in the sense of Scripture addressing the whole man. And later in his line of heritage both Jonathan Edwards and Andrew Murray certainly believed that holiness is wholeness. For Richard Hooker, the definitive Anglican, holiness is wholeness in the sense of comprehensiveness, perhaps the major issue for Episcopalians and Anglicans today. For Wesley, we see it in his formula combining entire and sanctification. And before him, his favorite commentator, John Bengel, definitely saw that holiness meant wholeness. For Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the greatest direct proof is in his Treasury of David commentary where he makes holiness and wholeness synonymous. So our heritage should have been loaded with this advantage and knowledge. I can only say that this advantage did not reach me until my 43rd year.
Let me add to this summary a few details you can easily access through the internet. I have found many great resources that are available via the internet. I will try to add some periodically. Here are some of them:
First is Charles Finney, Evangelist (mid 1800s):
http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Finney/Theology/hot15.htm
Second is Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Preacher (late 1800s):
http://www.spurgeon.org/treasury/treasury.htm (see Ps. 87:1(Andrew Gray), 89:9 (Spurgeon), 96:9 (Le Coute), 99 (Entire chapter), 99:5 (Spurgeon), 103:1(Spurgeon)
Third is Alexander Whyte, Preacher, in his Commentary on Westminster Shorter Catechism (late 1800s): http://bpc.org/resources/whyte/wsc_whyte_004.html
Fourth is Andrew Murray, Pastor, in his Holy in Christ (1887):
http://www.smarter.com/path_to_holiness---pd--ch-1--pi-1278522.html?source=inktomi_books1278522 (a great book to buy under 2 different titles- also Path to Holiness)
Fifth is Rev. James Petigru Boyce, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (1887):
http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/toc.html (see chapter 10)
Sixth is Charles Henry Brent, The Mount of Vision (1918):
http://anglicanhistory.org/asia/brent/mount/07.html
Seventh is Aaron Merritt (A.M.) Hills, Pastor & Professor, Pastoral Theology (1928):
http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Hills/PastTheol.htm (see beginning of "The Minister's Health" )
Eighth is Professor F. A. Finlayson, Free Church of Scotland (1955):
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_holiness_finlayson.html (a little too complex)
Ninth is Pastor Ray Stedman, a mentor of Chuck Swindol, author of The Way to Wholeness:Lessons from Leviticus (2005, publ. posthumously by his wife, Elaine Stedman):
http://www.raystedman.org/leviticus/0501.html
Overall, I think you can now see some of the proof of what I am saying. As to how it happened that I and maybe yourself never heard this before, some texts in a church that my wife and I attended were very relevant. The way our legitimate heritage can be lost is too much trust in human nature by itself. As it says among the verses of Isaiah 55: 6-11, with God speaking, "My ways are not your ways." As for the future, I think things can be bright, even if right now holiness does not seem to loom large. Be careful of how you judge the size of holiness is wholeness. Among the parables in Mark 4:26-34 is the parable of the mustard seed which is very small, but grows into something very big. Keep your eyes open the for future. May God bless you as you watch the power of His words, not ours, grow to a very large influence in our day.
In Christ,
Jon Westlund
Did you know that holiness is wholeness? Neither did I until late 2004. Neither did I realize until 2005 that holiness was the most important character trait to God and for ourselves. And finally, neither did I realize that this is also the thing that matters the most to turning the tide for the Christian Church and its struggles at present. Since 2004, I have discovered that from at least the 1300s through the late 1800s, the great majority of Christians, from whom I would trace my Christian faith, knew that holiness is wholeness. The bottom line is this: Our heritage was that holiness is wholeness. For reasons unknown to most, our heritage was not passed on to us in the 20th century.
However, don't take my word alone on what our heritage was supposed to be. The most important denominations within Protestant circles have been the Lutherans, the Reformed (Presbyterians), the Anglicans (Episcopalians), the Methodists and the Baptists. Evangelical groups in general just added an evangelical emphasis or Methodist emphasis without really changing Protestant views significantly. So our heritage can be traced back to the head of Scripture through the hands of Luther, Calvin, Hooker,Wesley and Spurgeon.
Luther defined holiness as wholeness or entirety, as shown in his catechism in speaking about the Holy Spirit, and in at least one other place that I have found. For Calvin, he seems to have spoken about it in the sense of Scripture addressing the whole man. And later in his line of heritage both Jonathan Edwards and Andrew Murray certainly believed that holiness is wholeness. For Richard Hooker, the definitive Anglican, holiness is wholeness in the sense of comprehensiveness, perhaps the major issue for Episcopalians and Anglicans today. For Wesley, we see it in his formula combining entire and sanctification. And before him, his favorite commentator, John Bengel, definitely saw that holiness meant wholeness. For Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the greatest direct proof is in his Treasury of David commentary where he makes holiness and wholeness synonymous. So our heritage should have been loaded with this advantage and knowledge. I can only say that this advantage did not reach me until my 43rd year.
Let me add to this summary a few details you can easily access through the internet. I have found many great resources that are available via the internet. I will try to add some periodically. Here are some of them:
First is Charles Finney, Evangelist (mid 1800s):
http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Finney/Theology/hot15.htm
Second is Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Preacher (late 1800s):
http://www.spurgeon.org/treasury/treasury.htm (see Ps. 87:1(Andrew Gray), 89:9 (Spurgeon), 96:9 (Le Coute), 99 (Entire chapter), 99:5 (Spurgeon), 103:1(Spurgeon)
Third is Alexander Whyte, Preacher, in his Commentary on Westminster Shorter Catechism (late 1800s): http://bpc.org/resources/whyte/wsc_whyte_004.html
Fourth is Andrew Murray, Pastor, in his Holy in Christ (1887):
http://www.smarter.com/path_to_holiness---pd--ch-1--pi-1278522.html?source=inktomi_books1278522 (a great book to buy under 2 different titles- also Path to Holiness)
Fifth is Rev. James Petigru Boyce, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (1887):
http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/toc.html (see chapter 10)
Sixth is Charles Henry Brent, The Mount of Vision (1918):
http://anglicanhistory.org/asia/brent/mount/07.html
Seventh is Aaron Merritt (A.M.) Hills, Pastor & Professor, Pastoral Theology (1928):
http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Hills/PastTheol.htm (see beginning of "The Minister's Health" )
Eighth is Professor F. A. Finlayson, Free Church of Scotland (1955):
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_holiness_finlayson.html (a little too complex)
Ninth is Pastor Ray Stedman, a mentor of Chuck Swindol, author of The Way to Wholeness:Lessons from Leviticus (2005, publ. posthumously by his wife, Elaine Stedman):
http://www.raystedman.org/leviticus/0501.html
Overall, I think you can now see some of the proof of what I am saying. As to how it happened that I and maybe yourself never heard this before, some texts in a church that my wife and I attended were very relevant. The way our legitimate heritage can be lost is too much trust in human nature by itself. As it says among the verses of Isaiah 55: 6-11, with God speaking, "My ways are not your ways." As for the future, I think things can be bright, even if right now holiness does not seem to loom large. Be careful of how you judge the size of holiness is wholeness. Among the parables in Mark 4:26-34 is the parable of the mustard seed which is very small, but grows into something very big. Keep your eyes open the for future. May God bless you as you watch the power of His words, not ours, grow to a very large influence in our day.
In Christ,
Jon Westlund
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
