What is the significance of our emotions, when it comes to defining either blessed or holy? Let's be more specific. Are you feeling that the definitions you have been given deserve acceptance? Or are you rather feeling that they are shameful attempts to define a key word in the Bible? Emotional intelligence, while it has received some really excellent attention in recent years, is also shackled to outmoded ideas from the 1800's and it lacks a real clear test like that used for logical intelligence. While testing for the Intelligence Quotient, IQ, is elaborately developed, there is no equivalent test for a person's Emotional Quotient, EQ. Worse yet is that the combination of both together, a person's Credibility Quotient,CQ, is even less developed. The reason that I began my discussion with questions of acceptance and shame is that these are the basic questions of emotion that relate to the logical question of amount like a test score of say, 90 out of 100.. In school, if I take a test and receive an acceptable score like 90 out of 100, then I feel the pleasure of acceptance. If I take a test and receive an unacceptable score of 50 out of 100, then I will feel the pain of shame. So what should be our emotional state?
So what ought we to feel about test scores relating to understanding blessed and holy? In speaking to Christians in particular, what do the test scores say about the definition of each of these words. It make shock you to learn that recent scores are lower rather than higher. The emotional diagnosis is one moving toward shame rather than acceptance. If John A. Lee is correct, most of what scholars labeled as a definition in a lexicon is simply a good copy of an earlier tradition of definition. Most of it has not been re-tested. But in the case of holy, there have been some important (acceptable) advances in scholarship.
First, Jo Bailey Wells, author of God's Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology, points out in her excellent summary of recent scholarship on the definition of holy, that the "old consensus that the original etymology was `separation' ... has now been abandoned" (p. 17-18, see footnote 10).
When I speak of outmoded ideas in the 1800s, I am referring to the continuing development of fight versus flight, or the idea that anger and fear are opposites. Worse yet is the idea that anger is simply another form of fear. I guess you could call that an update of an odd idea whose time to die has come.
When I speak of a test, I am referring to the need to test emotional intelligence (EQ) in schools just like logical intelligence (IQ)
[I actually wrote a great deal today, but I found the material fits better with part 4 of 5)
In Christ,
Jon
Showing posts with label Yahweh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yahweh. Show all posts
Monday, May 05, 2014
Thursday, April 03, 2014
Holy: Understanding It Better through Leviticus 19 (Total Wholes - part 3 of 5)
Totaling up the parts of the process for interpreting a passage of Scripture is very important. It is always important to keep all the parts in mind, even as you work on individual parts. The individual parts that go into the total in this case are: 1) translate, 2) transfer, 3) train, and 4) teach.
As each of these is brought together the goal is to form a single fabric that points to things like the themes of Leviticus and how the parts of the book are arranged together.
What is a bit disappointing when you read the literature regarding Leviticus is how quickly nearly everyone sees the singular theme of holiness as primary. (I myself did the same following their lead in the past.) There is a sense in which much of commentary is commentary on commentary and not original research, listening, or digging.
I find one part of a sentence in Leviticus 19 to be very telling because a part of this sentence is repeated over and over in the chapter without repeating the holiness part. In Leviticus 19:2d, we read: "For I Yahweh your God am holy". Then one of my best professors at outlining a passage, dr. Allen P. Ross, points out that there are four sets of four built throughout the chapter around "I am Yahweh" or "I am Yahweh your God". So with this repeating structure in the chapter what does it tell us about the theme of Leviticus? Could there be something more important than holiness?
Notice I say "could there be?" not that "there is" at least quite yet. Now that there is a proposal of another possible theme (along the lines of worship as a theme), I would like to clarify a possible idea.
For many years (both unconsciously and consciously), I have treasured the theme in a book titled, Who Am I? I have, for many years, considered the basic question, "Who?" to be possibly the greatest question that can be asked in a variety of forms whether it be: "Who are you [God, etc.]?" or "Who am I?" or "Who are they?". God's personal name would seem to address the question of "Who?" on the most basic level. It is how we often times introduce ourselves to another or what we first ask them about themselves.
The name "Yahweh" is unique. It is called, "the name about all names". That raises the question of "Why is it the name above all names (if it is not only because it is the name of God)?" So asking in another way, what lies behind its exalted status?
I would like to make another proposal, but again not necessarily a definite answer at this point. It is something to meditate on rather than something to swallow on first bite. It is this idea. What if the Israelites on hearing God's name regularly recalled God's words to Moses, when Moses asks who he should say sent him, "I am who I am". In answering the question, "Who are you?", there could not be a better answer. It even includes "who" in the response!
In that case, God's exalted name (or the integrity of his name) could be even more of a theme in Leviticus than holy. I will only suggest here, as well as my other suggestions, that blessing might first get its meaning from integrity. The question that remains is whether on further testing these possibilities hold up or whether they fail to show any possibility.
You may in the end, if you are a Christian, find yourself singing:
but, of course,
May God bless you in your meditations on the possibilities of these proposals. And may you also not be too limited by only the ideas you have heard many times before.
In Christ,
Jon
As each of these is brought together the goal is to form a single fabric that points to things like the themes of Leviticus and how the parts of the book are arranged together.
What is a bit disappointing when you read the literature regarding Leviticus is how quickly nearly everyone sees the singular theme of holiness as primary. (I myself did the same following their lead in the past.) There is a sense in which much of commentary is commentary on commentary and not original research, listening, or digging.
I find one part of a sentence in Leviticus 19 to be very telling because a part of this sentence is repeated over and over in the chapter without repeating the holiness part. In Leviticus 19:2d, we read: "For I Yahweh your God am holy". Then one of my best professors at outlining a passage, dr. Allen P. Ross, points out that there are four sets of four built throughout the chapter around "I am Yahweh" or "I am Yahweh your God". So with this repeating structure in the chapter what does it tell us about the theme of Leviticus? Could there be something more important than holiness?
Notice I say "could there be?" not that "there is" at least quite yet. Now that there is a proposal of another possible theme (along the lines of worship as a theme), I would like to clarify a possible idea.
For many years (both unconsciously and consciously), I have treasured the theme in a book titled, Who Am I? I have, for many years, considered the basic question, "Who?" to be possibly the greatest question that can be asked in a variety of forms whether it be: "Who are you [God, etc.]?" or "Who am I?" or "Who are they?". God's personal name would seem to address the question of "Who?" on the most basic level. It is how we often times introduce ourselves to another or what we first ask them about themselves.
The name "Yahweh" is unique. It is called, "the name about all names". That raises the question of "Why is it the name above all names (if it is not only because it is the name of God)?" So asking in another way, what lies behind its exalted status?
I would like to make another proposal, but again not necessarily a definite answer at this point. It is something to meditate on rather than something to swallow on first bite. It is this idea. What if the Israelites on hearing God's name regularly recalled God's words to Moses, when Moses asks who he should say sent him, "I am who I am". In answering the question, "Who are you?", there could not be a better answer. It even includes "who" in the response!
In that case, God's exalted name (or the integrity of his name) could be even more of a theme in Leviticus than holy. I will only suggest here, as well as my other suggestions, that blessing might first get its meaning from integrity. The question that remains is whether on further testing these possibilities hold up or whether they fail to show any possibility.
You may in the end, if you are a Christian, find yourself singing:
Yahweh Is the Sweetest Name I Know
but, of course,
Jesus ("Yahweh saves") is Too the Sweetest Name I Know.
May God bless you in your meditations on the possibilities of these proposals. And may you also not be too limited by only the ideas you have heard many times before.
In Christ,
Jon
Monday, March 24, 2014
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a (Translation - Day One of Five)
PREFACE
Welcome to a place where you can learn what holy really means rather than what it supposedly means. I write about the meaning of holy with due seriousness, because it is one of the three most important words for God's identity. This will be my initial post on a Monday for what is now to become my weekly habit. Each week, I will write 5 posts in the following order on a particular biblical passage: Mondays - Translation Topics, Wednesdays - Transfer Topics, Thursdays - Total Topics, Fridays - Training Topics, Saturday - Teaching Topics. Each time you return to this blog, you will grasp even better what I am saying. Rome was not built in a day and neither can the persuasive arguments for the meaning of holy, etc. be built in a day. It will ultimately take a book, like the one that I am writing. and that I hope will be published before the end of the year to straighten out a lot of confusion and blindness.
Each time you visit or receive an email through signing up for emails each time I write, I will explain in greater detail the entire process of understanding a complete unit of Scripture and the meanings of the big three words in Scripture: 1) Yahweh/the LORD, 2) blessed, and 3) holy. None of these three can stand entirely alone, though I have listed them in the order of priority. Each Biblical passage will be able to stand alone as an argument for the meanings of the big three including holy, but also each passage will add more strength and power to the persuasive arguments that came before it.
So today I am going to look at the primary translation issues in our text for today. Every text in translation has an enormous amount of consensus related to it that I will not discuss. There is no point in re-inventing the wheel in places where translators have done a wonderful job. My experience says that the majority of times, they do pretty well. But also my goal is to find those key words that function as very important to the unit of Scripture being explained and where there is some disagreement among translations and then to try to make improvements in those areas.
First, it is important to put my view of translation into context. I believe the goals of a great translation (in its strict or narrow sense) are two primarily: 1) clarity, and 2) meaningfulness. What I mean by strict or narrow sense is that the total of communication is summed up in: 1) translation, 2) transfer, 3) total, 4) train, and 5) teach. So here I am dealing with translation as a PART of the total communication process rather than as the WHOLE of the communication process. You can see the difference?
There is a great way to accomplish each one of these goals of clarity and meaningfulness. For clarity to be enhanced, it is important to keep one word for one thing as much as you can, if it is that way in the original. Unfortunately, it is seldom that this can be done entirely the way it is in the original unless we stick to every use of the original being translated by the exact same word which creates a very literal translation. That ideal may be great in a study bible, but it is not really possible in most cases when we are also talking about being meaningful.
There is also an important issue that needs to be cleaned up. This brings me, to the argument between literal or figurative being the best kind of translation. If these are two opposing opposites, then balance would be admirable. That is the case with the NKJV and the NIV, for the most part. My distinctive view is that clarity is the vertical and greater axis of what we strive for and meaningfulness the horizontal and lesser axis of what we strive for. They are not opposite poles on a horizontal line. Clarity is the more important of the two, but also the lesser is not to be neglected for the sake of only the greater. The greatest translations accomplish both effectively. So literal translations are the greater for clarity, figurative translations are the lesser for meaning, but the greatest is a translation that accomplishes both altogether. That is why I will be using both the NKJV and the NIV, because they come closest to the ideal. What I think would clean up the mess we have with so many translations is to base them on clarity and meaningfulness in the picture I suggested. Clarity is best accomplished when we can answer the question of "How many? with the quantity of "One" . Meaningfulness is best accomplished when we can answer the question of "How much?" with the quality of "Equal". The NKJV accomplishes a bit better clarity, while the NIV accomplishes a bit better meaningfulness.
The other reason that these two translations are my starting point is that many churches with pastors leading them, are using one of these two. My primary target audience is pastors who stand between the specialist scholars and the common person. These two translations work the best on that level. Having said that my primary audience is pastors, I do not mean that many competent common people will find my writing to be over their heads, but rather than occasionally that will be the case. Likewise a scholar can learn from what I will write, but I will be doing my best to avoid seminary jargon that the common person would have a hard time grasping meaningfully. So read on all three groups, there will still be great benefit for all. That is the end of my introductory material today. It is a bit long today and the rest of this week, but it will gradually shorten as I see less and less need to introduce or explain new materials.
INTRODUCTION: TRANSLATION TOPICS
The first step is to determine a natural unit of Scripture . In other words, I must use what the writer considers one natural unit, so I can pick up the clues that are most relevant to the words I am discussing. In most cases, I will be relying on the best sources I have found for what are called (rhetorical) outlines of a text. In the case of Genesis, I will be using Allen P. Ross' Creation & Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis, as my starting point. I also was a student of his at one time. But also this does not mean that I have used only him as a source. Rather, it means that I found his treatment to be among the best that I have read. He points out that Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is a complete unit as do most others. So I will be dealing with those verses primarily as my one unit of Scripture over the next 5 days.
In Ross' treatment of themes in Genesis, he believes that "blessing" and "cursing" are the significant theme of Genesis. In picking the theme, I tend toward what he considers to be only a structural theme in the word usually translated as "generations". I am convinced that Genesis is a book focused on relationships more than any other general theme and this is manifested specifically through "generations". In any case, all three words are significant enough that they require attention. Also God's name does come up immediately after in the opening story in Genesis 2:4, while holy is in direct connection with blessing in 2:1-3. Also significant is words that have great consensus around them like "divide" that could be seen as near synonyms for the definition of "set apart" that is associated with "holy".
TRANSLATION OF YAHWEH
The opening section or unit of Genesis only tells us "what' kind of person creates the world, God. Sometimes we speak of God as though it were God's name. God is not his name any more than my name is "man". "Man" by the way is not necessarily a term of endearment, so "God" could have the same chilling effect. We do not yet find out God's name in the first section of Genesis. But immediately in the beginning of the second section, we learn who this God is. This God's name is "Yahweh".
Unfortunately, many people end up calling God by a very impersonal name. We also cannot see God's name in the typical translation like the NIV. We see something else in its place.
Here is the explanation from the NIV translators in their preface, p. ix.:
In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton,
the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that
name as "LORD" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew
word rendered "Lord," for which small letters are used. Wherever the two names stand
together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered
"Sovereign LORD. "
I note that we are not given a reason for adopting the device used in most English versions, unless the explanation is that they adopted it for the reason that "most English versions" do what they have done. The problem is that "LORD" in most people's minds means the same thing as "Lord". Also clarity has dropped significantly, because most people do not distinguish "LORD" from "Lord", but instead place one word or idea in place of two words or ideas. On Wednesday, under the topic of Transfer, I will discuss further why this may not be the way to go anymore while it may have been the only way to go in the 1st century.
TRANSLATION OF BLESSING
Back in the early 90's maybe even late 80's, I learned that our definition of blessing as primarily prosperous had a significant problem in its application to certain texts. I learned this initially from Dr. William Bean at the Center for Biblical Research (CSBR) in Pasadena, CA. (He now is part of the same kind of ministry under a different name in Redlands, CA.) The unique aspect of his research was his connection to Dr. David Bivin in Israel along with Dr. David Flusser of Hebrew University.
At that time, I was not necessarily impressed by the new idea for its translation as I was by the idea that there was clearly a problem in how we understood its meaning in certain contexts, especially those that applied to God. Recently, I arrived at a new definition that makes a lot of sense in many (but not all!) contexts. People need to realize that the fact that the primary definition does not apply to all contexts is quite natural. The average English dictionary demonstrates this fact.
But also I think this idea that words typically have more than one meaning beyond its first sense needs some explanation as to why. It may help to realize that ancient alphabets in some cases even developed more meanings from one letter by rotating those letters to different positions. So more than one meaning from one written object has a long tradition. The one can be made into the many within a certain span of meaning.
It is also important to realize that meaning itself has more than one meaning. I found Robert H. Stein's A Basic Guide to Reading the Bible: Playing by the Rules very helpful in this regard. If I clarify what he says just one step beyond his own 3 forms of meaning, I think it is fair to speak of 3 kinds of meaning as: 1) definition, 2) implication, and 3) signification or significance. Now as in any scenario, by having more than one meaning be possible, there becomes room for abuse or confusion, but I as a player in a game of studying my Bible, I always have tried to play within the rules.
With trying to define blessed, I think it is important to point out the various options for its meaning and not just quickly chose one from a set of suggestions and prematurely eliminate the other options. What it boils down to is to ask the question: "What if blessed means: 1) integrity in terms of definition, 2) means holiness by implication, and 3) prosperity by significance. Are we willing to consider what all dictionaries seem to see as inherent, that the great majority of words at least have more than one meaning?
I believe that in the context of Genesis 2;1-3, that blessed is being used in the sense of its definition, since its possible implication is directly connected to it. But I also think in Genesis chapter 1, it can be used in the sense of its significance, where prosperity makes much more sense. The type of meaning, I believe, would be signaled by the context, just like the 22 letters in an ancient alphabet could have more than one meaning through signaling a change by turning the letters to differing positions. Same letter, different meaning is possible and I believe that same word, different meaning is also possible; but also with a clear signal of the change. That is part of the rules. Changing meaning in a whimsical way or to be clever would be outside the rules except in humor and poetry. There the whole point of the rules might be to be whimsical or clever.
TRANSLATION OF HOLY
Back in the early 90's and again maybe early 80's, I remember Dr. Daniel P. Fuller presenting to a class where we used inductive Bible study tools, the idea that holy did not mean what most scholars thought, but rather it had a connection with the definition of "worthy". Here again, I was not convinced by his replacement definition, but I was convinced that "set apart" had a problem in the particular verses we were studying.
I don't know if there is any important word in the Bible other than holy that has suffered more in the effort to find a good definition for it. As I once mentioned in one of my earlier blog posts, I counted something like 20 options for its definition. The good news is that probably 17 of the 20 deserve little or no more effort applied to them. The experts in scholarship in times of uncertainty, seem to sometimes take shots in the dark out of their own sense of urgency. That is what many of the 17 definitions appear to be, but I think they do show up due to underlying uncertainty about what the original text words underlying our English word, holy, mean.
The largest conflict and controversy as a result is about 3 options: 1) moral wholeness, 2) purity, and 3) set apartness. The first thing to consider is that most translators have assumed there can only be one meaning as in one definition. They have not readily considered Dr. Stein's concern that there is more than one kind of meaning, even while there would only be one definition for holy.
The other aspect of this discussion is that Andrew Murray, a rather famous pastor from South Africa near the end of the early 1800s and early 1900s also raised a similar concern about meaning. In his little devotional book, Holy in Christ, he added a little word study at the back of the book on various proposed meanings on holy. He actually labels each definition under a letter of the alphabet A-G (7 possible definitions). His own favorite is C, but he also sees subsets of his view under 1 - 8. I have verified my opinion that he favored C. (since he does not say it directly) in his book from the early 1900s in his book Andrew Murray on Prayer. One of the most important parts of his discussion is where he points out that in general if holy means "set apart", then it does not by itself explain why.
I liken his argument to that of the difference that Dr. Stein drew between definition, implication, and significance. What Murray seems to be saying is that "set apart" fits more in the position of significance or implication, but that it does not have by itself a definition for why it is "set apart", because it is not the definition of holy, but moral wholeness does fit that role. I think that may put Pastor Andrew Murray's point on a more solid footing as far as the rules of interpretation are concerned.
So much for trying to clarify the meaning of holy. There are at least 3 good options that have a strong standing. Now it is important to no longer assume that it has to be 1 of the 3 meanings given. It could be all 3, if they are related to definition, implication, and significance. When I come later to looking at the Transfer aspect of holy, then I will make more of the contextual argument and then later under teaching, I will work more on the referent aspect of meaning. But also I will then make more of the common sense or specialized sense argument for what it is and it is not.
Now let's develop its meaningfulness. I think it is important to define the top 3 proposed meanings for maximum meaning in their usage.
1) moral wholeness - the moral aspect has to do with goodness in conduct or character. Wholeness here refers to containing all the elements or parts, so that it is a complete morality. Jonathan Edwards spoke of a moral wholeness that included right, true, loving, and good.
2) purity - the quality or condition of being pure or clean. It has the quality of not being mixed like pure water or pure gold.
3) set apart - to separate and to keep for a purpose as in reserving a seat for someone in particular.
In each case, these words each have a relatively high level of meaning to us. It is not the case that they are meaningless words. Holy on the other hand, can become rather meaningless when you ask people on the street to define it. In a standard dictionary like Webster's New College Dictionary, we find the idea of dedicated to religious use; consecrated, sacred. The problem is that each of these ideas are nearly completely religious ideas, making them hard to relate to other parts of life. This is why holy can be difficult to understand.
CLOSING
What is really needed is to define holy in terms of the 3 options suggested in order to give it more meaning and clarity. Each of these is somewhat useful in that they have more contexts for use than the purely religious one. Holy can still be found to be useful in terms of being meaningful, if we can define it clearly using 1-3 of these words. Hallow on the other hand and sanctified on the other hand may need to disappear in an English context, because they are even more meaningless than holy is in English. When is the last time anyone realized that "hallowed be your name" is connected to "holy be your name"? Halloween be your name might be closer to the common person's thinking. That is far too meaningless. And when is the last time I've met someone who knows Latin? No time that I know of in recent years.
In Christ,
Jon
Welcome to a place where you can learn what holy really means rather than what it supposedly means. I write about the meaning of holy with due seriousness, because it is one of the three most important words for God's identity. This will be my initial post on a Monday for what is now to become my weekly habit. Each week, I will write 5 posts in the following order on a particular biblical passage: Mondays - Translation Topics, Wednesdays - Transfer Topics, Thursdays - Total Topics, Fridays - Training Topics, Saturday - Teaching Topics. Each time you return to this blog, you will grasp even better what I am saying. Rome was not built in a day and neither can the persuasive arguments for the meaning of holy, etc. be built in a day. It will ultimately take a book, like the one that I am writing. and that I hope will be published before the end of the year to straighten out a lot of confusion and blindness.
Each time you visit or receive an email through signing up for emails each time I write, I will explain in greater detail the entire process of understanding a complete unit of Scripture and the meanings of the big three words in Scripture: 1) Yahweh/the LORD, 2) blessed, and 3) holy. None of these three can stand entirely alone, though I have listed them in the order of priority. Each Biblical passage will be able to stand alone as an argument for the meanings of the big three including holy, but also each passage will add more strength and power to the persuasive arguments that came before it.
So today I am going to look at the primary translation issues in our text for today. Every text in translation has an enormous amount of consensus related to it that I will not discuss. There is no point in re-inventing the wheel in places where translators have done a wonderful job. My experience says that the majority of times, they do pretty well. But also my goal is to find those key words that function as very important to the unit of Scripture being explained and where there is some disagreement among translations and then to try to make improvements in those areas.
First, it is important to put my view of translation into context. I believe the goals of a great translation (in its strict or narrow sense) are two primarily: 1) clarity, and 2) meaningfulness. What I mean by strict or narrow sense is that the total of communication is summed up in: 1) translation, 2) transfer, 3) total, 4) train, and 5) teach. So here I am dealing with translation as a PART of the total communication process rather than as the WHOLE of the communication process. You can see the difference?
There is a great way to accomplish each one of these goals of clarity and meaningfulness. For clarity to be enhanced, it is important to keep one word for one thing as much as you can, if it is that way in the original. Unfortunately, it is seldom that this can be done entirely the way it is in the original unless we stick to every use of the original being translated by the exact same word which creates a very literal translation. That ideal may be great in a study bible, but it is not really possible in most cases when we are also talking about being meaningful.
There is also an important issue that needs to be cleaned up. This brings me, to the argument between literal or figurative being the best kind of translation. If these are two opposing opposites, then balance would be admirable. That is the case with the NKJV and the NIV, for the most part. My distinctive view is that clarity is the vertical and greater axis of what we strive for and meaningfulness the horizontal and lesser axis of what we strive for. They are not opposite poles on a horizontal line. Clarity is the more important of the two, but also the lesser is not to be neglected for the sake of only the greater. The greatest translations accomplish both effectively. So literal translations are the greater for clarity, figurative translations are the lesser for meaning, but the greatest is a translation that accomplishes both altogether. That is why I will be using both the NKJV and the NIV, because they come closest to the ideal. What I think would clean up the mess we have with so many translations is to base them on clarity and meaningfulness in the picture I suggested. Clarity is best accomplished when we can answer the question of "How many? with the quantity of "One" . Meaningfulness is best accomplished when we can answer the question of "How much?" with the quality of "Equal". The NKJV accomplishes a bit better clarity, while the NIV accomplishes a bit better meaningfulness.
The other reason that these two translations are my starting point is that many churches with pastors leading them, are using one of these two. My primary target audience is pastors who stand between the specialist scholars and the common person. These two translations work the best on that level. Having said that my primary audience is pastors, I do not mean that many competent common people will find my writing to be over their heads, but rather than occasionally that will be the case. Likewise a scholar can learn from what I will write, but I will be doing my best to avoid seminary jargon that the common person would have a hard time grasping meaningfully. So read on all three groups, there will still be great benefit for all. That is the end of my introductory material today. It is a bit long today and the rest of this week, but it will gradually shorten as I see less and less need to introduce or explain new materials.
INTRODUCTION: TRANSLATION TOPICS
The first step is to determine a natural unit of Scripture . In other words, I must use what the writer considers one natural unit, so I can pick up the clues that are most relevant to the words I am discussing. In most cases, I will be relying on the best sources I have found for what are called (rhetorical) outlines of a text. In the case of Genesis, I will be using Allen P. Ross' Creation & Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis, as my starting point. I also was a student of his at one time. But also this does not mean that I have used only him as a source. Rather, it means that I found his treatment to be among the best that I have read. He points out that Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is a complete unit as do most others. So I will be dealing with those verses primarily as my one unit of Scripture over the next 5 days.
In Ross' treatment of themes in Genesis, he believes that "blessing" and "cursing" are the significant theme of Genesis. In picking the theme, I tend toward what he considers to be only a structural theme in the word usually translated as "generations". I am convinced that Genesis is a book focused on relationships more than any other general theme and this is manifested specifically through "generations". In any case, all three words are significant enough that they require attention. Also God's name does come up immediately after in the opening story in Genesis 2:4, while holy is in direct connection with blessing in 2:1-3. Also significant is words that have great consensus around them like "divide" that could be seen as near synonyms for the definition of "set apart" that is associated with "holy".
TRANSLATION OF YAHWEH
The opening section or unit of Genesis only tells us "what' kind of person creates the world, God. Sometimes we speak of God as though it were God's name. God is not his name any more than my name is "man". "Man" by the way is not necessarily a term of endearment, so "God" could have the same chilling effect. We do not yet find out God's name in the first section of Genesis. But immediately in the beginning of the second section, we learn who this God is. This God's name is "Yahweh".
"God" is not his name
any more than my name
is "man".
Unfortunately, many people end up calling God by a very impersonal name. We also cannot see God's name in the typical translation like the NIV. We see something else in its place.
Here is the explanation from the NIV translators in their preface, p. ix.:
In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton,
the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that
name as "LORD" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew
word rendered "Lord," for which small letters are used. Wherever the two names stand
together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered
"Sovereign LORD. "
I note that we are not given a reason for adopting the device used in most English versions, unless the explanation is that they adopted it for the reason that "most English versions" do what they have done. The problem is that "LORD" in most people's minds means the same thing as "Lord". Also clarity has dropped significantly, because most people do not distinguish "LORD" from "Lord", but instead place one word or idea in place of two words or ideas. On Wednesday, under the topic of Transfer, I will discuss further why this may not be the way to go anymore while it may have been the only way to go in the 1st century.
TRANSLATION OF BLESSING
Back in the early 90's maybe even late 80's, I learned that our definition of blessing as primarily prosperous had a significant problem in its application to certain texts. I learned this initially from Dr. William Bean at the Center for Biblical Research (CSBR) in Pasadena, CA. (He now is part of the same kind of ministry under a different name in Redlands, CA.) The unique aspect of his research was his connection to Dr. David Bivin in Israel along with Dr. David Flusser of Hebrew University.
At that time, I was not necessarily impressed by the new idea for its translation as I was by the idea that there was clearly a problem in how we understood its meaning in certain contexts, especially those that applied to God. Recently, I arrived at a new definition that makes a lot of sense in many (but not all!) contexts. People need to realize that the fact that the primary definition does not apply to all contexts is quite natural. The average English dictionary demonstrates this fact.
But also I think this idea that words typically have more than one meaning beyond its first sense needs some explanation as to why. It may help to realize that ancient alphabets in some cases even developed more meanings from one letter by rotating those letters to different positions. So more than one meaning from one written object has a long tradition. The one can be made into the many within a certain span of meaning.
It is also important to realize that meaning itself has more than one meaning. I found Robert H. Stein's A Basic Guide to Reading the Bible: Playing by the Rules very helpful in this regard. If I clarify what he says just one step beyond his own 3 forms of meaning, I think it is fair to speak of 3 kinds of meaning as: 1) definition, 2) implication, and 3) signification or significance. Now as in any scenario, by having more than one meaning be possible, there becomes room for abuse or confusion, but I as a player in a game of studying my Bible, I always have tried to play within the rules.
With trying to define blessed, I think it is important to point out the various options for its meaning and not just quickly chose one from a set of suggestions and prematurely eliminate the other options. What it boils down to is to ask the question: "What if blessed means: 1) integrity in terms of definition, 2) means holiness by implication, and 3) prosperity by significance. Are we willing to consider what all dictionaries seem to see as inherent, that the great majority of words at least have more than one meaning?
I believe that in the context of Genesis 2;1-3, that blessed is being used in the sense of its definition, since its possible implication is directly connected to it. But I also think in Genesis chapter 1, it can be used in the sense of its significance, where prosperity makes much more sense. The type of meaning, I believe, would be signaled by the context, just like the 22 letters in an ancient alphabet could have more than one meaning through signaling a change by turning the letters to differing positions. Same letter, different meaning is possible and I believe that same word, different meaning is also possible; but also with a clear signal of the change. That is part of the rules. Changing meaning in a whimsical way or to be clever would be outside the rules except in humor and poetry. There the whole point of the rules might be to be whimsical or clever.
TRANSLATION OF HOLY
Back in the early 90's and again maybe early 80's, I remember Dr. Daniel P. Fuller presenting to a class where we used inductive Bible study tools, the idea that holy did not mean what most scholars thought, but rather it had a connection with the definition of "worthy". Here again, I was not convinced by his replacement definition, but I was convinced that "set apart" had a problem in the particular verses we were studying.
I don't know if there is any important word in the Bible other than holy that has suffered more in the effort to find a good definition for it. As I once mentioned in one of my earlier blog posts, I counted something like 20 options for its definition. The good news is that probably 17 of the 20 deserve little or no more effort applied to them. The experts in scholarship in times of uncertainty, seem to sometimes take shots in the dark out of their own sense of urgency. That is what many of the 17 definitions appear to be, but I think they do show up due to underlying uncertainty about what the original text words underlying our English word, holy, mean.
The largest conflict and controversy as a result is about 3 options: 1) moral wholeness, 2) purity, and 3) set apartness. The first thing to consider is that most translators have assumed there can only be one meaning as in one definition. They have not readily considered Dr. Stein's concern that there is more than one kind of meaning, even while there would only be one definition for holy.
The other aspect of this discussion is that Andrew Murray, a rather famous pastor from South Africa near the end of the early 1800s and early 1900s also raised a similar concern about meaning. In his little devotional book, Holy in Christ, he added a little word study at the back of the book on various proposed meanings on holy. He actually labels each definition under a letter of the alphabet A-G (7 possible definitions). His own favorite is C, but he also sees subsets of his view under 1 - 8. I have verified my opinion that he favored C. (since he does not say it directly) in his book from the early 1900s in his book Andrew Murray on Prayer. One of the most important parts of his discussion is where he points out that in general if holy means "set apart", then it does not by itself explain why.
I liken his argument to that of the difference that Dr. Stein drew between definition, implication, and significance. What Murray seems to be saying is that "set apart" fits more in the position of significance or implication, but that it does not have by itself a definition for why it is "set apart", because it is not the definition of holy, but moral wholeness does fit that role. I think that may put Pastor Andrew Murray's point on a more solid footing as far as the rules of interpretation are concerned.
So much for trying to clarify the meaning of holy. There are at least 3 good options that have a strong standing. Now it is important to no longer assume that it has to be 1 of the 3 meanings given. It could be all 3, if they are related to definition, implication, and significance. When I come later to looking at the Transfer aspect of holy, then I will make more of the contextual argument and then later under teaching, I will work more on the referent aspect of meaning. But also I will then make more of the common sense or specialized sense argument for what it is and it is not.
Now it is important to no longer
assume that it [holy] has to be
1 of 3 meanings.
Now let's develop its meaningfulness. I think it is important to define the top 3 proposed meanings for maximum meaning in their usage.
1) moral wholeness - the moral aspect has to do with goodness in conduct or character. Wholeness here refers to containing all the elements or parts, so that it is a complete morality. Jonathan Edwards spoke of a moral wholeness that included right, true, loving, and good.
2) purity - the quality or condition of being pure or clean. It has the quality of not being mixed like pure water or pure gold.
3) set apart - to separate and to keep for a purpose as in reserving a seat for someone in particular.
In each case, these words each have a relatively high level of meaning to us. It is not the case that they are meaningless words. Holy on the other hand, can become rather meaningless when you ask people on the street to define it. In a standard dictionary like Webster's New College Dictionary, we find the idea of dedicated to religious use; consecrated, sacred. The problem is that each of these ideas are nearly completely religious ideas, making them hard to relate to other parts of life. This is why holy can be difficult to understand.
CLOSING
What is really needed is to define holy in terms of the 3 options suggested in order to give it more meaning and clarity. Each of these is somewhat useful in that they have more contexts for use than the purely religious one. Holy can still be found to be useful in terms of being meaningful, if we can define it clearly using 1-3 of these words. Hallow on the other hand and sanctified on the other hand may need to disappear in an English context, because they are even more meaningless than holy is in English. When is the last time anyone realized that "hallowed be your name" is connected to "holy be your name"? Halloween be your name might be closer to the common person's thinking. That is far too meaningless. And when is the last time I've met someone who knows Latin? No time that I know of in recent years.
In Christ,
Jon
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Holy: Understanding It and other Great Things Better
You've heard of the "Greatest Show on Earth". You've probably also heard of the "Greatest Commandment". The thing in common between both of these is "Greatest". My quest to determine the definition (the primary meaning) of holy has a lot to do with the idea of "Greatest". I thought at one time that "holy" might be the most important word in the Bible and in one sense it is . Well, it is one half of what is "greatest", so not way off. It is clearly as important as "holy, holy, holy" indicates in both Isaiah and Revelation. There are two words though that eclipse it in importance and they are: "Yahweh" and "blessed". So "holy" is for me the third greatest word in the Bible.
Let me add a bit more to this to drive home my point about holy's position of greatness or importance. "Yahweh" as in "holy is Yahweh" is more important than "holy". Also "Yahweh" as in "Blessed be His Name" is more important than "blessed". We also see holy combined with blessed in in "blessed and sanctified" or "blessed and holy" as found in Genesis 2:1-3 and in Revelation. What is missed is that in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek" there is a pattern in the order that shows importance.
In Hebrew as in Greek, the "greater" precedes the "lesser". That makes perfect sense even in English, but there is a VERY GREAT distinction that must be drawn. In English we often place a greater in front of a lesser in the sense of a greater number and a lower number on the same level plane. So we place 5 ahead of 4 on a numerical scale of what is greater. That is not the way "greater" and "lesser" and even "greatest" is being used in Hebrew, (likely Aramaic), or Greek. In this case it would be a good idea to draw from our memory of geometry where there is a vertical axis and a horizontal axis. In Hebrew, the idea is that of the "greater" corresponding to the vertical line and the "lesser" corresponding to the horizontal and the "greatest" corresponding to where the two lines intersect with one another. At that point the "greatest" may be at the point of 0,0 rather than out at 5.1, etc.
I first got wind of this in the early 80s from an article on righteousness and justice and learning that they were not the same thing. This was first brought to my attention by a Hebrew scholar, but he never fully convinced me as to what they each meant in that case. That came 20 years later, when I was working in carpentry and noticed that Isaiah pointed out that righteousness corresponded to the plumb line and justice to the level line in carpentry. This was an astonishing confirmation of what the Hebrew scholar had convinced me of 20 years prior, that the two words were not entirely synonymous. This great scholar and my homely parable of carpentry experience verified a greater grasp of what these two words meant in definition. I also learned that when both righteous and justice were meant then the Hebrew for justice was used and then translated into judgment to mean both together. This was the practice that the early KJV translators saw practiced in the Old Testament by the Jews or Hebrews.
There is more to this. In Greek, they refer to narrow definitions for a word and broad definitions. This discussion is found in Aristotle among others. Righteousness would be a narrow definition. Justice would be a narrow definition. Judgment would be the broad use of the word for justice meaning both righteousness and justice altogether.
I think the thing that is holding the church back from anything "Great" happening like a "Great Awakening", another "The Reformation", another incredible revival, or another wonderful renewal movement is a failure to know and teach what things are great and what words point to that greatness in the Bible. The last example I would like to use is that the Bible in the opening creation story speaks of great things God created. Among then were the "greater light" to the light the day and the "lesser lights" to light the night. To me the greatest thing about each is that the combination of them both is what makes God's creation the "greatest" we can imagine or think. I hope and pray that the church especially can find its way back to the greatest things with admiration for both the greater and the lesser. We need to pay attention to those things that are truly greatest and avoid the distractions of lesser things in life. Poor judgment has become too common. Thank you for reading my humble thoughts that attempt to point others to the greatest things.
In Christ,
Jon
[I will be re-visiting this and making improvements as possible.12/11/13]
Let me add a bit more to this to drive home my point about holy's position of greatness or importance. "Yahweh" as in "holy is Yahweh" is more important than "holy". Also "Yahweh" as in "Blessed be His Name" is more important than "blessed". We also see holy combined with blessed in in "blessed and sanctified" or "blessed and holy" as found in Genesis 2:1-3 and in Revelation. What is missed is that in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek" there is a pattern in the order that shows importance.
In Hebrew as in Greek, the "greater" precedes the "lesser". That makes perfect sense even in English, but there is a VERY GREAT distinction that must be drawn. In English we often place a greater in front of a lesser in the sense of a greater number and a lower number on the same level plane. So we place 5 ahead of 4 on a numerical scale of what is greater. That is not the way "greater" and "lesser" and even "greatest" is being used in Hebrew, (likely Aramaic), or Greek. In this case it would be a good idea to draw from our memory of geometry where there is a vertical axis and a horizontal axis. In Hebrew, the idea is that of the "greater" corresponding to the vertical line and the "lesser" corresponding to the horizontal and the "greatest" corresponding to where the two lines intersect with one another. At that point the "greatest" may be at the point of 0,0 rather than out at 5.1, etc.
I first got wind of this in the early 80s from an article on righteousness and justice and learning that they were not the same thing. This was first brought to my attention by a Hebrew scholar, but he never fully convinced me as to what they each meant in that case. That came 20 years later, when I was working in carpentry and noticed that Isaiah pointed out that righteousness corresponded to the plumb line and justice to the level line in carpentry. This was an astonishing confirmation of what the Hebrew scholar had convinced me of 20 years prior, that the two words were not entirely synonymous. This great scholar and my homely parable of carpentry experience verified a greater grasp of what these two words meant in definition. I also learned that when both righteous and justice were meant then the Hebrew for justice was used and then translated into judgment to mean both together. This was the practice that the early KJV translators saw practiced in the Old Testament by the Jews or Hebrews.
There is more to this. In Greek, they refer to narrow definitions for a word and broad definitions. This discussion is found in Aristotle among others. Righteousness would be a narrow definition. Justice would be a narrow definition. Judgment would be the broad use of the word for justice meaning both righteousness and justice altogether.
I think the thing that is holding the church back from anything "Great" happening like a "Great Awakening", another "The Reformation", another incredible revival, or another wonderful renewal movement is a failure to know and teach what things are great and what words point to that greatness in the Bible. The last example I would like to use is that the Bible in the opening creation story speaks of great things God created. Among then were the "greater light" to the light the day and the "lesser lights" to light the night. To me the greatest thing about each is that the combination of them both is what makes God's creation the "greatest" we can imagine or think. I hope and pray that the church especially can find its way back to the greatest things with admiration for both the greater and the lesser. We need to pay attention to those things that are truly greatest and avoid the distractions of lesser things in life. Poor judgment has become too common. Thank you for reading my humble thoughts that attempt to point others to the greatest things.
In Christ,
Jon
[I will be re-visiting this and making improvements as possible.12/11/13]
Wednesday, December 04, 2013
Holy: Understanding It and Other Key Words Through the Analogy of Identity Theft
We all know about identity theft. It is, I believe, the # one crime worldwide at present. (Feel free to correct me, if I am wrong.) In either case, I thought it was happening to me today when an unexpected charge ended up in my checking account. Can we say bounce! Fortunately, with the trouble that occurred the day before in my account, I had transferred nearly all my money elsewhere. But something dawned on me. I think this is what has happened to God's identity, the God of the Bible that is. Not only is the identity of His holiness stolen, but many other key words that identify who God really is, are also stolen.
Here is what I mean in terms of specifics. The #1 most important word in the Bible is God's personal name. His name, Yahweh, is usually seen as "LORD" and so is defined as lord in many Bible readers minds. This is not actually who God is in terms of identity in those passages. You might get the impression He's over-consumed with lordship. The #2 most important word in the Bible is blessed. This is usually defined as prosperity, but that is not accurate in Hebrew. That is not who God is, when the Bible says "Bless Yahweh" (usually "the LORD" in translation). The #3 most important word in the Bible is God's character summary, holy. This is usually defined as set apart, but I can now make a tremendous case that this misses the mark by substituting holy's significance for its definition. It is like getting not only the cart before the horse, but also in front of the driver in importance too. The definition of holy is the greater party in this case before significance. The #4 most important thing is not one word in English, but a group translated as "I am who I am". This is the real key to understanding God's name, Yahweh, and what blessed means correctly. #5 is a set of words that equal what holiness is and one of them is badly misunderstood and that word is love. Its relationship to faith and hope is badly misunderstood. Also in that same set of words that equal the part of holiness, the words righteousness and justice are treated wrongly as synonymous. I wish I could present the argument for this last one right here.
I know I have not given a great deal of evidence here. You can find that elsewhere on my blog or you will have to trust my character for the moment, but later you will also be able to see the evidence for what I am saying. What I am giving here is a brief summary of my conclusions. I want you to see the results of my search and research in summary form, so you know that identity theft may have occurred and so you should be alert to what is happening. Again, this is not the entry where I try to prove it. That requires chapter and verse analysis. You could call this my opening statement.
So with these five mistaken notions, I think we can say that the identity of God in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of what is called the Bible is stolen. You don't get the right identity, if you don't know the meaning of his name and his character. Someone else has stolen His and He is not getting what he truly deserves for His real identity. If you confuse these 5 words or groups enough, then you end up with a very sad picture of who God is in the Bible.
I'm only interested in one God, the one in "The Book". Have we gotten that identity right? I think we have failed much more than many scholars and Christian leaders like to acknowledge. The last I checked, identity theft is still a crime. We need to catch the thieves and put them on trial for what they have done. Then we can restore God's actual identity, so he can say again, "I am who [my name, etc.] says I am". We might even begin to realize why God said what He did to Moses.
In Christ,
Jon Westlund
Here is what I mean in terms of specifics. The #1 most important word in the Bible is God's personal name. His name, Yahweh, is usually seen as "LORD" and so is defined as lord in many Bible readers minds. This is not actually who God is in terms of identity in those passages. You might get the impression He's over-consumed with lordship. The #2 most important word in the Bible is blessed. This is usually defined as prosperity, but that is not accurate in Hebrew. That is not who God is, when the Bible says "Bless Yahweh" (usually "the LORD" in translation). The #3 most important word in the Bible is God's character summary, holy. This is usually defined as set apart, but I can now make a tremendous case that this misses the mark by substituting holy's significance for its definition. It is like getting not only the cart before the horse, but also in front of the driver in importance too. The definition of holy is the greater party in this case before significance. The #4 most important thing is not one word in English, but a group translated as "I am who I am". This is the real key to understanding God's name, Yahweh, and what blessed means correctly. #5 is a set of words that equal what holiness is and one of them is badly misunderstood and that word is love. Its relationship to faith and hope is badly misunderstood. Also in that same set of words that equal the part of holiness, the words righteousness and justice are treated wrongly as synonymous. I wish I could present the argument for this last one right here.
I know I have not given a great deal of evidence here. You can find that elsewhere on my blog or you will have to trust my character for the moment, but later you will also be able to see the evidence for what I am saying. What I am giving here is a brief summary of my conclusions. I want you to see the results of my search and research in summary form, so you know that identity theft may have occurred and so you should be alert to what is happening. Again, this is not the entry where I try to prove it. That requires chapter and verse analysis. You could call this my opening statement.
So with these five mistaken notions, I think we can say that the identity of God in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of what is called the Bible is stolen. You don't get the right identity, if you don't know the meaning of his name and his character. Someone else has stolen His and He is not getting what he truly deserves for His real identity. If you confuse these 5 words or groups enough, then you end up with a very sad picture of who God is in the Bible.
I'm only interested in one God, the one in "The Book". Have we gotten that identity right? I think we have failed much more than many scholars and Christian leaders like to acknowledge. The last I checked, identity theft is still a crime. We need to catch the thieves and put them on trial for what they have done. Then we can restore God's actual identity, so he can say again, "I am who [my name, etc.] says I am". We might even begin to realize why God said what He did to Moses.
In Christ,
Jon Westlund
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through the Cart Before Horse and the Level without Plumb
Conceal and Carry
I can no longer support "conceal and carry" by committing two different mistakes. First, by"putting the cart in front of the horse" and second, by "measuring level without measuring plumb". Here is what I mean. It is not helpful for us to conceal the meanings of the top three most important words in the Bible and then carry that Bible with its incorrect definitions to others.
Both mistakes conceal the meanings of holy, blessed,Yahweh and to some extent the top 20-25 words in the Bible in terms of importance. So what do I mean?
The Cart Before the Horse
The cart before the horse picture should be pretty clear. There are lots of humorous photos on-line illustrating its absurdity. I tried to find a picture of a trailer in front of a truck to modernize the analogy, but it seems we are all too smart to make that mistake in our day. So why is this allowed in studying the meaning of words and by the people called lexicographers who put together lexicons?
[photo insert]
Here is what I have observed. Scholars when they have read some of the older writings on the meaning of words have not been careful to separate: 1) meanings, 2) implications, and 3) significance. This is a rule in Dr. Robert H. Stein's A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible. He was one of my best teachers during my college and seminary education. Stein's "meanings" is what people like the translator Eugene Nida mean by "definition". The other two are not definitions. The reason I am concerned about holy and the other two words is because of their significance to the meaning of the whole text of the Bible, but that does not indicate their definitions. Likewise neither does their implications define the word.
For example, we separate people in a hospital because of the danger of the well becoming ill through at least some of the sick. We do not separate people due to an arbitrary rule of separation, but rather we separate the unhealthy from the healthy in some cases to keep the healthy from also becoming unhealthy. The central point and definition that needs to be known is the difference between healthy and unhealthy. The definition of healthy is not separate and yet it seems to me that we have defined holy through the same error. When Rashi (a early Jewish teacher) says that holy means separate, does he mean it implies separate or that it is defined by separate. Second, has he himself switched an implication into the role of definition. You see the horse is the meaning, the implication is the cart, and the farmer or whoever is driving operating this machinery is the one who can explain the significance of what the horse and cart are for.
The Level without the Plumb
When a carpenter measures, they measure both vertically the walls to see if they are straight (plumb) and also the floors to insure they are straight (level). They would never consider it adequate to operate in building a structure without both vertical and horizontal measurements combining for a convergence of perspective. It simply makes no sense, because these meanings have been concealed by not seeing the difference between a horse and its cart.
[insert photo]
What I have discovered is that the meaning of 1)Yahweh, 2) blessed, and 3) holy have been concealed by the mistaken move of substituting the implications of a word for the definition of a word. Holy just happens to be one of the most important (#3).
[A work in process as I have time. Thank you for your patience.]
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
