Holy: Understandin the SAFEty of Each Definition

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

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Sound Method and Key Biblical Texts

I am willing to guess that you are visiting my blog to learn the meaning of holy.  I will not disappoint you.  The first question is how many (quantity) possible definitions are there and then of those which one is the right one?  The second question is how much (quality) is the support for each definition and can one gain all the support while the others lose their support?   My answer to the first question is three (out of twenty+) that deserve consideration: "set apart", "pure", or "whole".   The answer to the second question of how much (quality) is the support for each of these definitions is why I am writing posts for this blog.  The quality of support for one of these three definitions I believe can be higher.  I also am convinced that through a better exegetical method or word study or linguisic analysis, one definition can be presented with a higher quality of support rather than the worst case scenario of the wrong one, a little better option of still having three possibilities, or better still just two possibilities.  The one with high quality support is what I want.  This post will begin to answer the question of the definition of holy in the Bible at a higher level of quality by introducing the outline or arrangment of my method of exegeis or analysis that will increase the support for one of these three definitions. 

One of the five canons (rules) of rhetoric for public speaking is arrangment.  In grammar, the parallel rule for writing or journalism is outlining.  Mrs. Buchberger tired to teach me English grammar in junior high and Mr. Rass tried to straighten me out further on outlining in high school.  Today, I want to introduce a probable arrangment or outline for the thesis I am currently writing.

It is as follows:

Preface: The How Many and How Much

     The Scope of this Paper: Using One Method over All the Others

Part One: Method - The How and the Why

     Introduction

          Looking at the Total Picture: It is About More than Translation

               Nehemiah 8

     Unit One  

          Translation  and Semantic Analysis

     Unit Two
  
          Transfer and Structural Analysis

     Unit Three

          Total and Linguistic (or Grammatical) Analysis

     Unit Four

          Train and Syntactic Analysis

     Unit Five

          Teach and Lexical Analysis

     Conclusion: A Total Method is Superior to a Translation Method


Part Two:  Biblical Texts - The What and the Which: Testing Three Theories Not Just One

     Introduction: We Cannot Rely So Much on One Method

          Etymology is in the Bible?

          Introducing Complete Linguistic Analysis

     Unit One: The Linguistic Analysis of Isaiah 6 (and Revelation 4)

     Unit Two: The Linguistic Analysis of Genesis 2:1-3 (and Deuteronomy 5)

     Unit Three: The Linguistic Analysis of Leviticus 19 (and 1 Peter 1)

     Unit Four: The Linguistic Analysis of Exodus (?) (and Acts (?))

     Unit Five: The Linguistic Analysis of Deuteronomy (?)

    Conclusion:  One Definition from Multiple Possible Definitions for Holy


Part Three: The Significance and Implications - The Where and the When (Relevance)

     Introduction: The Defining of Significance and Implications
    
     Unit One: The Significance and Implications for Our Priorities

     Unit Two: The Significance and Implications for Relevance

     Unit Three: The Significance and  Implications for Yourself and Life

     Unit Four: The Significance and Implications for Work

     Unit Five: The Significance and Implications for Learning

     Conclusion: One Definition that is Biblical Can Change Many Things


Epilogue: The Who and the Whole

     Who is the Holy One (what is His name)? 

     Who are the Saints (the Holy Ones)? 




This I believe is the arrangement thats is growing within my thesis paper.  Throughout this blog you will be able to read preliminary parts and pieces of what eventually will be a complete mosaic or tapestry on the definition of holy.  Right now these bits and pieces do not have the advantage of full arrangement, but I am looking forward to the day to say that the above is complete.  In this blog, I am also trying to produce a better definition of holy in the sense of better support.  But part of that is keeping all the top possibilites on the table until my thesis paper is complete and reviewed by a committee.  May God grant me speed in this process!


In Christ,

Jon