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
No comments:
Post a Comment