In my previous entry, I discussed an analogy for rating the possible biblical definitions of holy. The top three candidates (in alphabetical order to avoid bias) are: 1) pure, 2) set apart, and 3) whole. I now want to also discuss each definition from the standpoint of the SAFEty of each definition. I want to use safe in two senses. First, for its usual meaning as in safe versus dangerous option and then also as an acronym for how safety is produced in the case of definitions.
If I were to suggest that I could help you be healthy, then I would have four goals for your physical health. They are:
1) Stable
2) Aware
3) Flexible
4) Energetic
The first letter of each is where the acronym SAFE comes from as you can now easily see. In the case of a healthy body it is likely that no one would argue with the value of each of these outcomes. Well, let's see how that works out when comparing the 3 most likely candidates for the meaning of holiness or sanctification.
First, I want to re-arrange this list to point out how I see each of these on the most basic level of the kinds of different meanings. Those classes of meaning are: 1) whole (I will not comment on this, but assume it as a combination of the other four), 2) amount, 3) relationship, 4) action, and 5) thing. (If you want to understand each of these better, please see my communication basics blog or search on-line for the TEAR method made popular by the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), Dr. Eugene Albert Nida of the United Bible Societies, or by Wycliffe Bible Translators.)
1) Stable - I see this as related to amount. An ankle for example you want to have a certain range of motion, but also not too much or too little. The first suggests a sprain or tear and the second suggests an ankle that is now supported by a brace or by the presence of inflammation that holds an injured joint in a condition of rigidity. Neither a sprain nor rigidity is helpful.
2) Flexible - I see this as related to relationship. Every professional athlete understands the need for stretching. It is not just important that joints have a range of motion, but also that muscles not be bound too tight and that they maintain some flexibility. Now here again, flexibility can be overly pursued at the expense of muscle development or muscle development can be pursued with a lack of flexibility. For movement from one place to another and at all speeds that means the changing of one's relationship to other objects. Let's not over-pursue strength or flexibility, so we can move from one position to another in a way that is helpful.
3) Energetic - I see this as related to action. Professional athletes know the importance of healthy carbs for performance. Their bodies need fuel to play or compete at the highest level. We can overdo it with carbs and leave our body in a state of excess energy which goes to waste in the form of excess fat. The body also needs protein to energize the building of muscle. In an anabolic state muscle can grow effectively without robbing other muscles. In a catabolic state the body feeds on other muscle to get the muscle building capability it needs elsewhere (this is not good). We can also fall into a deficit state during competition, because of all the demands for energy that our body must meet. Let's not be guilty of excessive carbs or a lack of sugars to energize or power our bodies.
4) Aware - I see this as related to thing. My reasoning is this. The athlete at any level must know or be aware of the game they are playing. The rules of soccer and the rules of basketball are different. In one you use your hands primarily and in the other you use your feet primarily. That also means that being aware of how to kick a ball into a net may not be very helpful for sinking a ball through a hoop and net in basketball. But also there are fundamentals that are helpful. Working hard, playing as a teammate rather than a ball hog, etc. Let's not then assume that all of our awareness is helpful for a different kind of thing or on the other hand that none of it is helpful. Both of these views show a lack of awareness.
I've laid out each of these analogies, as I have, in order to now speak to the issue of the three major options for defining holy. Let's look at each in the same order
1) Stable as an amount - In our day, it is clear that the last 100 years have been predominately controlled by the idea that holy in the Bible means "set apart". It has been the one option! Please keep in mind that this is only the last 100 years and not for all time (it is found in parts of the Rabbinic tradition as well). Before that and for at least 400 years (I'm still researching the prior 1500 years), the predominate definition was "whole" and "set apart" was seen as the secondary definition of holy in Protestant and Christian circles. "Pure" was also in the same time period in Reformed, Presbyterian, or Puritan theology (but not always, including Calvin and Edwards), more than in any other denominational tradition. The amount of time and the amount of people who held these definitions teaches an interesting lesson. If we are to measure each in terms of their stability and hold on people's interpretations, the new order would be historically from most stable to least stable based on Protestant history): 1) whole, 2) set apart, and 3) pure. Remember this is only a measure of stability in terms of amount of adherents and staying power (both forms of stability). We cannot from this alone say that one definition is safer than another as far as likelihood of being the right or justified definition. What it does do is put our judgment into a right framework. Also we must avoid either too great of a range of motion (likely the case with set apart in liberal circles) or the rigidity of range of motion to protect a supposed sacred position (likely the case of conservatives since the late 1800s related to the infamous "Downgrade Controversy".)
2) Flexibility as a relationship - In our day, set apart is usually the meaning giving to holy without much give as to a secondary meaning. Many other words are used also as words to define holy like consecrate, sanctify, separate, hallow, etc. depending on the context. Normally, there are 5 major contexts including holy persons (names), holy things (temple), holy actions (sanctify), holy places (sanctuary, holy of holies), holy amounts (holier). So this definition does show ample flexibility. Likewise holy defined as whole had flexibility, even to the point of a secondary definition depending on the context. There was a broad definition of holy that applied to contexts in which both sanctification and justification appeared (Lutherans primarily promoted this view). But there was also a narrow definition that applied when there was not a context of justification. I find this flexibility very awkward and it is likely a flaw in understanding, since it is hard to see how the core idea of whole is flexible enough based on context to mean set apart. A flexibility based on context would have to be constructed differently for whole to be a possible definition for holy. This can be improved. Purity has flexibility much like set apart, so I will not say too much on that. One thing about context though is very important. This definition relies heavily on the presence of the meaning of pure in other words in the context of the biblical words usually translated as holy. So I would conclude that whole as a definition has the most struggles with context in the older 500 year tradition, but this may be amendable, so that it can be considered along with the other 2 options as flexible in context. Remember we are looking for a core definition that can be flexible when needed, but only based on context (not on arbitrary ideas).
3) Energetic as an action - In our present time, set apart is a double-edged sword, when it comes to energy. There is no question that this definition has a lot of energy behind it in its research and in its proclamation both from the pulpit and from books in the last 100 years. For many evangelicals, this kind of holiness is needed for revival. The other side of that sword is that it has had ample time and investment (including money) to where it should have produced results by now. It by far dominates the lives of Christian believers around the globe as their paradigm and perception. The question arises:"W hat would happen on an energy level were the other options given the same resources and energy?" Let's say for example, that holy means moral wholeness. During past revivals from Luther to Spurgeon, this was the predominant definition (with set apart secondary) and we see revivals of historic and classical proportions. Purity on its side has set off smaller revivals like that among the Puritans in particular. It never had the larger scale effect, but in its narrow sphere it energized believers. The question is how much time will be committed to set apart to see a revival come again or rather should more time be dedicated to it? Should we be considering other options for an energetic revival or reformation?
4) Awareness as a thing - Maybe, it would be better to say awareness of things (or awareness of possible definitions). I grew up with almost no awareness of what holy meant as a young Christian. I do recall at least one instance of being bored as the pastor droned on and on about being holy and I had no idea what he meant. I wasn't usually bored in church, but when you have no idea what they are talking about, it is hard not to be bored. I also really had no awareness of moral wholeness as a definition (the combining of righteous and just, true and humble, love and perfect, and goodness and maturity). I also had no awareness of the idea that hesed (Hebrew for steadfast kindness) might also be a rich form of whole kindness (the combining of mercy, grace, compassion and slowness to anger - see Exodus 34, etc.). That awareness began for me in 2004 with my eyes opening to qadosh in Strong's dictionary and in finding many advocates on the internet (both past and present). Set apart I think was a given in my Christian experience, though the connection with holiness was not real clear. I grew up in an occasional fundamentalist atmosphere that certainly pursued being "set apart" from sinners. Some adults around me were among those who lived by the banner of "come out and be separate", which was the banner of the Downgrade Controversy in the late 1800s. This view is also supported in the older Jewish Rabbinic traditions supported by Rashi. I will not say that all Jews agreed with this definition, since some have protested and presented other views. Purity was in my awareness, once I hit college. It was then that I was introduced to the Puritan tradition and to theologians like Charles Hodge (his father by the way, believed holy meant moral wholeness while Charles thought it meant pure). One of the major reasons for my blog in the beginning was just to create awareness that there are two (later three) major options, not just one and also to diminish the excessive number of possible definitions and calm people's minds about the other 17 or more options (you can see all the other options I found in one of my entries in either 2011 or 2012).
So now that I have covered the SAFEty of each option, I hope you will consider the safety of your choice for the definition of holy. I have done my very best to try to be as fair as I could be to each one. I am currently working on a paper on the meaning of holy, beginning with ancient Hebrew all the way up to its translation of hagios in the Septuagint and in the New Testament. My goal is to make the choice of a definition among the top 3 options safer in both senses that I started with in the beginning of this blog entry. May you feel safer already and may God grant me success in making the choice for the meaning of holy even safer! Thank you so much for reading my humble views on the meaning of holy.
In Christ,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment