Holy: Understanding it Better By Matching the Method to the Issue

Yesterday, while working in my garage, I used a variety of tools depending on what I was trying to accomplish.  To remove most nails, I was able to use a standard finishing hanmer, but in some cases I had to use a heavier wrecking hammer to remove some of the more stubborn nails from the 2 x 4s..  In one case, I even had to switch to a long crow bar.  But besiders removing nails, I had to remove a few screws and for these I switched to a power drill.  To learn the meaning of words in the biblical text, it is also very important to match the method to the issue.  If I were to try to use the wrong tool, each of these projects would have resulted in wasted effort and time and maybe even failure.  This likewise can happen in biblical study.  One of the keys to understanding the meaning of holy is to use a method that fits the issue.  The issue is that there is uncertainty about the meaning of holy in the original language(s) of the Bible.

When striving to deal with uncertainty as to what holy means, it is a challenge to select the best method to use.  The method needs to address the issue of uncertainty directly or it won't be the very best.  There is not just the problem of people defining the word for holy differently.  The other is the difficulty that there are a number of exegetical (reading and interpreting) methods that different biblical scholars use.  But these difficulties are not a reason for despair.  The uncertainty can be addressed, just like the nails and the screws in my garage wall.  The only question is whether we have chosen the best tool for the project to be able to feel confident about success. 

As an undergrad, I was trained initially in two methods of biblical study: (1) inductive biblical study and (2) linguistic analysis.  My primary method today is a blend of both of these methods.  The inductive method that I learned initially was that of Dr. Daniel P. Fuller, who also was a mentor of Dr. John S. Piper and I had the good fortune of studying under Piper during my undergrad years and Fuller during my seminary years.  I found the inductive method to be very helpful for gathering fresh insights.  Yet I also found inconsistencies between it and the linguistic analysis that I learned from Dr. William A. Smalley during my undergraduate years and Dr. Daniel P. Shaw during my seminary years.  The advance for me today is that I now have brought both these methods full circle to where those inconsistencies are no longer present and the organization of my method is primarily responsible for removing any supposed inconsistencies.  This did not happen overnight!

So lets talk more about matching a method to the issue.   The first thing to realize is that there are not shortcuts you can take, but there is a very real path we can all take.  Besides the authors or teachers above, I have seven very valuable books (and some were also my teachers) on exegesis or Bible study on my shelf.  They are from easiest to most difficult:

1)  Rick Warren's Bible Study Methods:12 Ways You Can Unlock God's Word by Rick Warren, 2006
2)  How to Study Your Bible: The Lasting Rewards of the Inductive Approach by Kay Arthur, 1994
3) Living By the Book by Howard G Hendricks and William D. Hendricks, 1991
4) Methodical Bible Study by Robert. A. Trainia, 1980
5) A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules by Robert H. Stein, 1994
6) Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., 2009
7) Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers, Revised and Expanded Edition by Michael J. Gorman

(The only one that I am really not sure how to rank is Kay Arthur's book.  Somehow it is more complicated than it looks on the surface.)

 The method I am going to use to define holy in my post-graduate studies and for my post-graduate paper is clearly on the level of Gorman's book or should I say has to be on that level.  (In my blog and in this entry, I try to drop nuggets from more than one level.)  I find his method to be very well-organized and that might be his main advance over the others.  I do though think his method needs to be supplemented.

First, he needs to realize that while he outlines a very complete method for interpreting the text, he is not equally complete in his method of laying writing a paper or structuring a sermon.  He leaves that side to be supplemented by the materials written by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. who deals equally with "text" and with "sermon" sides or both sides of the bridge. 

Second, his main strength is in the "elements" of the process of exegesis, but he is not equally effective in putting together the whole.  Related to my last suggested supplement, his outline is not balanced, so that the whole picture gets obscured.  I mainly correct this also through my "Linguistic Analysis" tools that I learned and studied.  For this, I credit Dr. William A. Smalley (and Dr. Donald N. Larson, his colleague) and Dr. Daniel P. Shaw.  They are how I will be able to create a better outline of my exegetical (read and interpret) method. 

The main point I want to make for people on all ewvery levels is that the method that is chosen is not just a matter of ease or difficulty, it is also a matter of directly addressing the issues involved.  A very easy method like Rick Warren's might address the issues or a very difficult one like Michael Gorman's might as well, but the question remains: "Do they address the central issue?"  The central issue is that there is a measure of uncertainty even among top scholars as to what holy means.  (I'll explain later (again) the interim method to follow while the uncertainty exists).

Warren's book could deal with this topic through his section on character qualities.  Uncertainty would likely fall under his banner of negative character qualities.  This would be a great place for the simplest person to begin to understand the issues.  Gorman's more complex book also does address uncertainty, but I am not real happy with his discusion, because in the end he does not aim to reduce uncertainty, but to accept it as somewhat natural or positive (Gorman, p. 131-137).   I think he overstates his case and I think people like Walter C. Kaiser Jr. from my list above would also be troubled by his overstated view. 

To deal with this same issue on the same level as Gorman (no offense to Warren), I have found a supplement in the writings of David G. Ullman who has written a number of articles and books on the subject of "Robust Decisions".  He has this to say about robust decisions:

Robust decision making extends ... to general decision making with uncertainty considered from the beginning: controlling what uncertainty you can and finding the best possible solution that is insensitive as possible to the remaining uncertainty.  A robust decision is the best possible choice, found by eliminating all the uncertainty possible within available resources, and chosen with known and acceptable satisfaction and risk.  www.realinnovation.com/content/c070122a.asp

What I like is that Ullman sees nothing wrong with the effort to "minimize uncertainty" (while Gorman might) and at the same time he is not ignoring uncertainty from the beginning of a process as though a negative trait does not exist, but rather he faces into it like a robust sailor facing into the wind.  There has been a dual problem in dealing with the meaning of holy: 1) one side assumes the postive quality of certainty and 2) another side assumes the negative quality of uncertainty.  Many biblical exegetical (reading and interpreting) methods assume certainty rather than buidlling it through a process that seeks to minimize posssible uncertainty.  . 

I think uncertainty can be reduced to a very satisfactory level, but it is good to know how this is done.  It is also important to realize the different types of uncertainty.  Ullman outlines four types of possible conditions with information.  It can be: 1) uncertain, 2) incomplete, 3) evolving (I prefer "changing", because it lacks scientific baggage), and 4) conflicting.  If all these conditions are present without any reductions in them, it means the situation is quite risky.

The reason why these types of conditions are important is precisely because we don't want to be taking excessive risks with who it is we worship and whether we have eternal life or not.  We want an alternative with "known and acceptable satisfaction and risk".  This goes beyond Michael Gorman's satisfaction point.  So I will be using a method that addresses the issue: the issue of uncertainty.  I cannot side-step it by simply reading a popular lexicon (foreign language dictionary).  

Finally, the big task in front of me is to finish my thesis or dissertation paper for seminary, because by using that method (largely outlined in Gorman), I can successfully reduce the amount of uncertainty about the three most probable definitions of holy: 1) set apart or separate, 2) pure or 3) whole. 

In the meantime (until I or someone else finishes our scholarly work), as I say elsewhere, do as the ancient Jews did when facing uncertainty as a reality with the precious ancient biblical Hebrew (and Aramaic) manuscripts.  They recorded the most likely alternative in the body of the text and any variants in the margin, until some later time in which new information might later eliminate alternatives. 

That is what I am doing now in order to keep me from prematurely latching on to one alternative without giving the others their just opportunity.  This is one of the great blunders in decision making or in interpreting the meaning of a word.  It is the premature acceptance of an alternative without the testing of others. 

So when working in the garage, you might be able to get the job done using a regular finishing hammer while I may need a heavier wrecking hammer.  It does not matter as long as the tool fits the issue.  So make sure whether you use a simple method like Warren's or a tougher one like Gorman's method that you don't avoid the negative quality of uncertainty, but rather you deal with it.  Method needs to fit the issue(s).  May God grant the entire human world greater certainty on what holy means!  And may we also use the best methods available to us to face the issues! 

Sincerely,

Jon





 

Holy: Understanding It Better Through Territory and Map

You may have heard the saying, "The map is not the same thing as the territory".   You also may have heard someone else say: "This sure would be a lot easier, if only we had a map".   Life can be a lot easier, if we maintain the distinction between territory and map on the one hand and if we have a map to use on the other.  We don't want to live like the pre-reformer Martin Luther did for a long time, having to always learn things the hard way, due to his misunderstanding of the Bible as his map.  That is the way he describes his learning until his breakthrough in understanding the map of the Bible and that after having traveled down so many real life dead ends.  We also don't want to live a life of dead orthodoxy that came about after Luther's death, where the map came to mean more than the territory.  The same goes for understanding that key biblical word that is translated as holy.   It is supposed to be a word map that helps us understanding real life territory.   The question is whether the current popular definition of holy as a part of the map does that or not.   Does "set apart" fit the map and the territory?

 

The picture above is a world map and one of the most incredible things in history is all the changes that have been made to maps and how useful maps are in our smaller much-travelled world,   We have even changed some of the terminology.  If you went to Google Maps you would see different optional boxes in the upper right corner.  For our purposes the two names closest to territory and map would be earth and map.  You could explore the earth using a satellite or you could examine it using a map!

Using the analogy of earth and map (or territory and map) the meaning of holy can be explored in two ways: 1) by using the territory and 2) by  using a map.  You could make the terminology even more comtemporary by using the words from Google Maps: Earth and Map.  Through satellite, you can view the territory or terrain of the earth.  Through its maps, you can use the line drawings of map experts.  The best way to do the exploration of its meaning is to test the possible definitions for holy through both means and not just one or the other.  You could call it a hybrid method.  I am speaking here of testing: 1) the meaning of set apart, 2) the meaning of whole and 3) the meaning of pure.  These are the top 3 meanings scholars, teachers, pastors and lay people suggest for the central idea of qadosh (Hebrew transliteration) or hagios (Greek transliteration), both of which are transalated as holy (or sanctified or hallowed) in an English Bible. 

The first test for our knowledge is the test of the territory.  How do each of these meanings fit with real life territory?   First, we have a consensus that whatever meaning this word carries, it should be a high priority thing in reality.  "Holy, holy, holy" is not said repreatedly for no particular reason.  Rather it is said like that to point to the pinnacle of God's character.  Not many scholars should disagree with that indication in the map of the Bible. 

So then, does "set apart/separate", "whole", or "pure" rise to the highest place in the reality of God's character?   One thing is certain, they all are ideas that fit reality.  What is an unique test is whether these ideas are more significant than others in the face of reality. 

Before we answer the question, let's expand each idea a little bit.  First, some believe that the main thing missing in addressing reality is that there is not enough separation between Christians and sin or Christians and the world.  They believe that is the missing reality.  Second, others believe that what is missing is moral wholeness as opposed to moral reductionism.  They believe that what would change reality is to recognize the importance of seeing the whole of God's character rather tthan reducing it to one trait like for the example of reducing God's character to just love.  Third and finally, some believe that the reality that is missing is that Christians are not pure like they need to be.  They are too intermixed with the sins of the world.  They believe that the introduction of a new level of purity would change the church. 

My loose ends -

exploring the territory with wholeness
knower learner

exploring the map with wholeness
tearher studier

tremendously effective in territory
through streets versus dead ends


tremendously effective in map
through streets versus dead ends
remaining issues only with the map


exploring the territory with set apart (separate)
exploring the map with set apart (separate)

somewhat effective in territory (plausible)
somewhat effective in territory (plausible)

exploring the territory with purity
exploring the map with purity
dead ends versus through streets

somewhat less effective in territory
somewhat less effective in map


Closing illustration since paper maps are becoming more and more obsolete though mapping itself (someone has explored this area before) has not. 

Global positioning devices (mapping)
Tom Tom (territory match due to sufficient updates) vs. Dumb Dumb (not a territory match due to lack of updates)

{This will be completed fairly quickly with some time available hopefully next week - but you can already see some of my direction in these loose pieces}.

Sincerely,

Jon