Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through 1 Kings 18 as the Text and Now Your Testimony

People want to know things like definitions for certain.  That is an admirable desire on high importance topics like blessed and holy.  The problem is that the same people don't know how to get there.  The same people who want certainty also can get trapped in wavering rather than knowing.  Knowing the meanings of blessed and  holy for certain, as found in Genesis 2:1-3, requires something that most lexicons and scholars don't provide.  They don't test the meanings of these words from inside the text.

Instead, they test the meaning of each word from outside the text.  They use etymology (in some instances when they claim they don't) or they use cognate languages (these are languages like French in relation to English).  I don't think that either one of these tests is very valid or certain.  If you want reasonable certainty on a very important set of topics, then a lexicon or reading another 100 scholars won't get  you there.  The way to know something for certain over another possibility is to test what is true and humble versus what is false and proud.  But it has to be a complete test.  So how do we get to a better place and time, where and when we know for certain the meaning of blessed and holy?  I got an answer for that.  Read on.

I think the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18 shows how to get past various the many opinions on the meanings of blessed and holy.  I'm going to present the story in the following format of questions:

1) What are the numbers?  (to form judgments)  (i.e. must be)
2) What is the test?  (to form testimonies)  (i.e. will be)
3) What are complete guidelines?  (to form laws)  (i.e. wants to be)
4) What is  the action?  (to form commandments)  (i.e. can be)
5) What is the thing?  (to form statutes)  (i.e. let be)

Before I continue let me present the major opinions I think are worth considering on the definition (one of three kinds of meaning) of holy:

1) "set apart" (by far the most popular in the last 100 years, but not previously)
2) "pure" (made popular in groups like the Puritans, but that is no surprise)
3) "moral wholeness" (the most popular of the last 500 years in Protestant theology)

I believe the latter wins after a thorough testing and experimentation.  But for the testing to be successful there must be many testifiers, not just many experiments.  Too many times we think of them as the same thing. Read on and see the difference.


What are the numbers?  Let me stack up the numbers for you first.  Do you remember the story of Elijah?  He asks the people for a test.  He asks for a time out.  He says, "How long will you continue to waver between two opinions?"  The people like his idea for ending their wavering.  So here is how it went #s wise.

Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet

1)  2 opinions, 1 opinion
2)  400 reps/prophets of Baal, 1 rep/prophet for Yahweh (Elijah)
3)  1 altar for Baal, 1 altar for Elijah
4)  the whole community assembled as testers/witnesses, the whole community assembled as testers/witnesses
5)  Only fire from heaven, only fire from heaven.
6)  many slashings leading to bleeding, not even one slashing
7)  0 gallons of water, excess gallons of water
8)  Very dry wood, very wet wood

I think you can tell that Elijah is not even worried about the odds being stacked against him in this test.  He knows there are two options: 1) a guaranteed decline or failure, which is why he makes fun of them, and 2) an uncertain possibility, which he believes will test out just fine.

I likewise am not at all bothered by the numbers.  The number of lexicons means little to nothing, if they all are just Xerox copies of each other.  The answers that lexicons, dictionaries, word studies, newer scholarship, older scholarship, and church leaders give wavers between opinions.

So what is the test?  Let me stack up the test for you.  The test is what will be your opinion here and now.  Notice that Elijah is not willing to deal with further procrastination on their part.  Their desire to avoid the topic in the here and now is seen in his primary question: "How long will you waver between two opinions?"

Here is my breakdown on the place and time:

Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet

1) at present they go to worship Baal and Yahweh, Elijah wants them to go to worship only Yahweh,
2)  they have perhaps in even the same building worship to each, Elijah wants them to have separate worship,
3)  they want to continue waiting, Elijah wants the waiting to stop,
4)  they have put off agreeing to test each view at a place and time, Elijah asks them for a test at a place and time - a here and now test (very shortly)
5) they have gotten comfortable with their uncertainty (wavering), Elijah wants them to rid themselves of their uncertainty  (He wants them to say: "As for me and my house we will serve Yahweh".
6)  apparently they have been putting the place of decision off for a long time, Elijah wants the time out to end so they can get back to action,
7)  procrastination, urgency
8)  traveling from place to place, finding their place

What Elijah asked for and what he got from the people was a test.  That is all he needed from the witnesses.  He needed one agreed upon place and time when they could all testify to the results.  He alone as a witness was not enough.  He wanted maximum testing or witnessing.  They made a covenant or bond with Elijah that they would be witnesses to a test.  It is no test to hear the testimony of only one witness.  That is all that I am.  He did not give them any guarantees except that he would be present, when Yahweh proved who he was.  They agreed to the same place and time as Elijah and they did not require certainty from him in advance, but rather they sought certainty after the test where they were present to testify.  Maybe their wavering was directly a result of their desire to have guarantees in advance, rather than waiting for til the time that they could testify to guarantee what was true and humble.  

The difficulty in the present, especially regarding holy's definition is that the tests are quasi-tests.  The are not tests that give you a great deal of certainty.  In fact, as scholars have assessed the definition of holy more recently, the tests are coming back more uncertain than previously.  The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (the grandest work on the Hebrew language) casts serious doubt on the etymological argument for "set apart".  It also made the courageous step of leaving out cognate (other language) material and relying primarily on the Hebrew language internally.  

I am afraid that the one test of blessed and holy has not really been performed up to here and now standards.  Since James Barr, no one has written a full blown test for the definition of holy after he successfully unseated the argument from etymology alone.  (He did not say it has no value, but he does say its value is limited.)  That is what I am trying to do otherwise in this blog and in an upcoming book.  I want to set the stage for a grand test of definitions of blessed and holy.  .

So what is complete?  What is complete is playing by all the laws.

I think the laws for Elijah and the prophets might have been something like this:

Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet

1)  no stranger fire other than from heaven, no strange fire other than from heaven,
2)  Prayers are permitted, prayers are permitted
3)  We can play with up to 400 players against Elijah by himself, I will permit them to have 400 as long as I can play
4)  bleeding and slashing is permitted, heckling is permitted without any need for physical violence
5)  There is no requirement to use green or wet wood, wet wood will be used that goes beyond required
6)  Baal gets to go first based on the "coin toss", Elijah will go second based on the same "coin toss"
7)  The contest will continue until a side gets the result of a fire.  Elijah continues until fire arrives
8)  If Baal wins then everyone is to go with him, if Yahweh wins then everyone is to go with him


What is the action?  What is the action is the experiment.

I think the rules for Elijah the prophets of Baal and the crowd of spectators were these:

Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet

1)  no matches were allowed (that is cheating), no matches were allowed (that is cheating)
2)  each side was to set up their own altar, each side was to set up their own altar
3)  each side was to ask their god to send fire from heaven, each side was to ask their god to send fire from heaven
4)  the action of the people of Israel was to be witnesses, the action of the people was to be witnesses
5)  neither side could sell money back guarantees in advance, neither side could sell money back guarantees
6)  the guarantee came after the experiment, the guarantee came after the experiment
7)  certainty would come from knowing the results following the experiment, certainty would come from knowing the results after the experiment,
8)  prayers and blood-letting allowed, prayers allowed but no blood-letting except from animals


To sum it up, it is to set up an experiment and perform it.  To be specific about the definitions of blessed an holy, I have only given a rough sketch of the experiment mainly for the definition of holy.  I still have a lot of writing to do and a lot of writing that is not on my blog yet.  I have thought it all through in my own mind and I already know the outcome for me personally.  But that does not mean there are many testimonies to that definition.

I knew holy's definition with certainty and personally back in November 2013.  Before that time, mainly the last 10 years, I knew through experimenting that there were lots of problems with the etymological argument arriving at "set apart" as the definition (one of three kinds of meaning).  I also knew that in the last 500 years that the Christian church and even the Jewish synagogue are divided on its meaning.  My question is a lot like Elijah's: "Why are satisfied with procrastinating between so many opinions?"  So I have begun the experiment that people can give witness to on-line.  I want witnesses.  I am not doing this in the dark somewhere.  I am doing it in the light of everywhere and at hyper-speed.   These are the twin advantages of the internet.  

Let me illustrate the importance of experimenting and not just guessing in our brains.  This is how I used experimenting just this morning (5/19/14).  .

So this morning, I did not know where my coffee or tea cup had disappeared to.  Rather than waver too long as to where it might be, I started out by experimenting with where it might be.  I had a few opinions in my mind.  I experimented first with the location of the passenger's side seat in my car.  I seemed to recall that the solution to this mystery had some connection with my car.  Well, it wasn't there.  Then I decided, let's re-check the kitchen looking in the open at the counter space and then in the cupboard.  I didn't find it there either.  Then I checked the other lower probability rooms.like the living room, etc.  Still, no success.  Then upon returning to the kitchen, I spotted where it was most likely hidden.  I noticed that I had not emptied my lunch container from the day before.  Than I recalled also that there was something I had placed in there the day before that was unusual for me. It was then that I opened the packet and there it was!  I found in truth where my cup was located and I also have to admit humbly that I did not know were it was with certainty until that moment.  No mental experiment was as good as finishing the experiment by opening the bag.

The problem is that too many people rely on their minds and not on their souls.  They think of knowledge as something that is mind-based rather than relationship-based.  I now realize for myself more than ever that knowledge in the Bible makes a lot more sense as a term of intimacy as one of my professors once called it.  I think his idea leans in the right direction.  Where and when will we be?  That is where and when we shall know.  No elsewhere and not any time before.

I also found my cup fairly fast, because I tested my theories rather than tried to just think my way into certainty in advance.  This is, I think, a great mistake by many people.  They don't just do it - experiment that is.  Peter Drucker taught me, through one of his books many years ago, the superiority of this method of experimenting.  People who are unsure need to experiment, to paraphrase his advice.



What is the thing?  No longer wavering between two opinions as to which one is god.  It is either Baal or it is Yahweh.  Which one shows that he is God?

 Let me stack up the things for you at last:

Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet

1)  fire from heaven will demonstrate that Baal is god, fire from heaven will demonstrate that Yahweh is god
2)  we don't believe that any human being can command fire from heaven, we don't believe that any human being can command fire from heaven
3)  the demonstration has to be something that we cannot do ourselves, the demonstration has to be something that we cannot do ourselves
4)  the demonstration cannot be subject to coincidence (fire from heaven during a lightning storm), the demonstration cannot be subject to coincidence (it has not even rained for a long time and there are no clouds)
5)  the demonstration can happen using wood that burns very easily, the demonstration can be with dry wood but let's make it more miraculous by adding water than no human being can overcome without trouble)
6)  our god will answer us while the people are still there, my god will answer even after part of the day is lost and the people might be starting to want to go back home
7)  our god surely knows he has a stake in this and hasn't been distracted, your god I think is distracted by the latreen while my god is still interested
8)  we think by slashing ourselves greater attention will come from our god, my god needs no such attention getting measures

Some at least have heard who the winner in this experiment was in terms of demonstrating which god was the God.  It was the god named Yahweh.  Elijah now had not only his own testimony, he also now had the testimony of the people of Israel.  No longer was it him alone while the crowds limped along.  I know that later in the story Elijah starts to feel sorry for himself all over again.  But notice that God reminds him that he is not the only prophet of Yahweh who did not bend the knee and he certainly too was no longer the only one to testify as to who is God among the people.  There were now many witnesses.

That is where every reader of this blog can make their mark. They can become witnesses of the things they have seen.  You can do it by leaving a comment to let others know you have witnessed what I have said.  Others can then add their testimony to yours.  I know that I am not alone.  I don't have Elijah's problem today at least.

So I would like the testifiers of truth and humility, people who wait until after the experiment and have stopped procrastinating, to join with me and start using my tools under my "communication tools" tab and to start reading my prior experiments in this blog.  You'll be surprised what you'll find once you kick procrastination to the back seat of the bus.  It is an absolute necessity to understand your importance as fellow connection, witness, and testifier, who waits truthfully and humbly for certainty.  Then you shall know and not before.  Ah, isn't it fun to stop procrastinating and instead begin to get things done?  Take care my fellow witnesses.


In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding It Better Through Getting Started Right

The idea of seeing my task on this blog as defining the word in the Bible that is translated as "holy" is misleading.  It is more than that. That is really just 1/5th of a comprehensive set of tasks to make sure the holy is being understood correctly.  What I would like to introduce in this blog entry is the set of tasks that help insure a more reliable understanding of qadosh in the Hebrew and hagios in the Greek. 

In Guidelines for Barefoot Language Learning: An Approach Through Involvement and Independence, Dr. Donald N. Larson identifies 5 steps in learning to process input, when learning another language beyond our first.

He identifies these 5 steps as part of the larger task of "getting started right".  That is why this entry is particularly important.  To define a word is only one part of getting started right.  It is covering one, but one that is important because it is a component of what it means to be getting started right when learning a foreign language (or even more of your own)!

These are his five steps for processing language input or things (with some changes by yours truly):
  

First Step:  Classifying  (Amount of thing/input)

            Classify words as to their primary major class

 Second Step:  Defining  (Relationship of thing/input)

            Defining words for relationships or
            combinations of the major classes.  

Third Step:   Differentiating  (Action of thing/input)

            Differentiate words so that they can be
            distinguished with ease.

 Fourth Step:  Mapping  (Thing of thing/input)

            Map the range of all the classes that a word
            has based on its associations. 

 Fifth Step:  Establishing Sets  (Whole of thing/input)

            Establish a set by discovering the semantic
            features common to a set of words.

I have not found these steps that Dr. Don N. Larson outlines anywhere else in my reading of linguistics texts.  I know that one of his colleagues describes him as someone who was very good at making the complex simple.  I think this set of steps may outline in a more clear way what Dr. Eugene A. Nida was doing along with Louw in developing a lexicon for New Testament Greek build around what are called semantic domains.  I believe that Larson's "Establishing Sets" is the equivalent of Nida's semantic domains. 

Please note that defining a word is step 2 out of this set of 5 steps toward processing input from another language.  That means that simply defining holy by itself is incomplete.  It is really important that we understand that we naturally do all these steps, when we learned our first language whether conscious or not.  The other thing is that in developing these steps further, I have found that each step helps in understanding the other steps. 

Let me also show you these steps in a more simplified picture format:

It is also true that some of what I have said previously in some of my entries will have to be amended, because I was guilty of mixing these steps together rather than "differentiating" them as in step 3 above.  This is easily done because most of what I have read in both exegesis and linguistics has a tendency to develop some valid points, but the organization is more eclectic than well-organized.  Larson, I agree, had a great ability to organize things well. 

So as I develop my points about the meaning of qadosh, etc. in Hebrew and hagios, etc. in Greek, I hope you will see me following Larson's strategy more closely in the future.  The coming steps are to actually practice what Larson preaches.  For that, I may have to reach out to others to make his theory more practical.  I am thinking that Dr. Betty Sue Brewster at Fuller Theological Seminary might be particularly helpful in that regard due to her connections with Dr. Larson and his influence in the book that she co-authored with her husband, Language Acquisition Made Practical (otherwise known as LAMP).   I recommend their text very highly for knowing how to learn a new language.  And in the end, that is what I am doing in learning and studying Hebrew and Greek. 


Sincerely,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through One Word Versus Many

I don't like confusion and I would guess you don't either.  Recently, I ran across an explanation that I never heard before for why there are so many words that translate the one word in Hebrew and the corresponding one word in Greek that are usually translated as holy.  Desiderius Erasmus, of Reformation fame, understood copiousness to be a distinct advantage in rhetoric or persuasive communication.   What he meant by copiousness is saying one thing in many different ways.  This is probably the best explanation for why translators translate one word in Hebrew and its corresponding one word in Greek by so many words. 

The one root or word in Hebrew can be translated in English by saint, sacred, sanctified, sanctuary, consecrated, hallowed, hallow, Holy One or holy.  Someone could easily see a Latin influence here, but the bigger question is why those words were kept alongside the more Anglo-Saxon words.  In some recent translations, the list gets even longer with set apart or separate.  In some older translations there was also halig and wholly.  Then you can add to this the theological vocabulary of sanctification or holiness.  Then to make matters more confusing saint can be replaced by santa in more popular usage.  At Christmas time it is interesting to realize this last connection. 

For clarity's sake, I would argue that it would have been far more effective to have used one word like holy each time for the one word in Hebrew and its corresponding one word in Greek.  Clarity is there in the original that simply is lacking in many translations because one word is replaced by many words. 

The way to create clarity is to have just one word for one word, where clearly the basic context is the same.  The way to create confusion is to have more than one option, when the context does not demand a different basic meaning.  This is more likely to cause connections to be missed by the average reader.

My own favorite example of this is my missing the connection between holy and "hallowed be Your Name" in the Lord's Prayer.  "Holy be your name" would be much clearer for showing the connection between that statement and "Yahweh [His name] your God is holy." 

I used to think the variety in words for one word came from William Shakespeare and poetic influence.  Maybe some of it did, but Desiderius Erasmus now seems to me a better explantion for an influence on translators.  So while I greatly admire Erasmus for most of what he contributed to scholarship, I think his idea of copiousness for persuasive speech or writing may have been applied inappropriately and it may have created unnecessary confusion in the ordinary English reader's mind. 

So I hope, if nothing else, by understanding this tendency in translation, you will be able to realize that in the majority of cases, the many words for "holy" are really one word.  The most common one word in English translation is holy.  I'd love to see a translation that used only this one word in its different forms, like the original did and like the Greek translation of the Hebrew did in the New Testament.  I think this would eliminate some, but not all, of the confusion out there over what "holy" means, because the connections between different parts of Scripture would be clear.  This would be a small step forward. 

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holiness is Wholeness: According to Rev. John Howe

Rev. John Howe gives a good summary phrase for holiness. He calls it the "attribute of attributes." A quick translation of his understanding of holiness is that it includes all the other attributes. In other words, holiness expresses wholeness. Attributes like truth and love would be parts of holiness for Howe. May God richly bless your life through His wholeness.


In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holiness is Wholeness: According to the Scriptures (Psalms 145:8-9)

In the case of this Psalm, I will argue for wholeness not so much from holiness as from an example where wholeness is inherent in a passage, showing its significance in the Bible in general. So again, I want to be clear, this will not be a clear exposition of holiness so much as an example of wholeness as a principle within Scripture.

In Psalm 145:8-9, in the NKJV, we read:

"The Lord is gracious and full of compassion, slow to anger and great in mercy. The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works."

I see here first a set of four elements or parts together in verse 8: gracious or grace, compassion, slow to anger or longsuffering and mercy. These are all in verse 8, but in verse 9, I think we see a summary of all of them as described in the words: "are over all His works." The word that summaries these four parts is translated "tender mercies," but also could be translated as tenderness or even softness. The word "mercies" is actually misleading since it has no direct connection with "mercy" in verse 8. If there is any possible connection it is more likely with compassion, though I do not regard them as necessarily connected, as some do.

So to summarize, I see four parts in: grace, compassion, longsuffering and mercy. And these all fit under what summarized as all His works in this context: tenderness. I am convinced it must be specific to this context since righteousness and truth are His works too and would not necessarily be tender in all cases like mercy, etc. clearly are when they are applied. So I do see this context as an example of a parts and whole relationships being significant in Scripture. This is an example of how important wholeness can be in principle.

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holiness is Wholeness: According to John Albert Bengel (Sometimes Johann A. Bengel)

In Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament, there is now included a section titled "Life and Writings of J.A. Bengel" apparently written by Charlton T. Lewis. There we read:

"From 1711 to 1713 he (J.A. Bengel) served a curacy at Stuttgart. It was about this period he composed a Latin treatise, On the Holiness of God, in which he shows, by parallel passages of Scripture, that all the attributes of God are implied in the Hebrew qodesh holy: in fact, that the divine holiness comprehends all his supreme excellence."

There is more than this to this story, however. It has also come to my knowledge that Bengel would introduce this teaching on the character of God before he would take his students through the process of studying the Scripture itself. I have even written to the scholarly source of this information and hope to learn more later. Bengel clearly understood character's importance and priority.

What is incredible to me is that there seems to be no way to acquire this treatise in either Latin or English to examine his proof from "parallel passages in Scripture." It would be a great find to see this proof!

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holiness is Wholeness: According to Thomas Boston

Thomas Boston has this to say about holiness (in Gathered Gold by John Blanchard):

"Holiness is a constellation of graces." So he too recognized the summary idea or the wholeness idea of holiness.

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holiness is Wholeness: According to John Gill

Who preceded the great Baptist preacher of the late 1800s, Charles Haddon Spurgeon? It was Pastor John Gill. Spurgeon may have gotten his first hints that holiness is wholeness from his predecessor.

John Gill writes in his A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book 1 Chapter 20, Of the Holiness of God:

Holiness is an essential attribute of God; it is his nature and essence; it is himself, he is holiness itself; "he swears by himself, because he can swear by no greater"; and he will not swear by any less, and yet he swears by his holiness, (Heb. 6:13; Ps. 89:35; Amos 4:2, 6:8) which places put [together] and compared together show that the holiness of God is himself; and it has been thought to be not so much a particular and distinct attribute of itself, as the lustre, glory, and harmony of all the rest; and [it] is what is called "the beauty of the Lord", (Ps. 27:4) as it is the beauty of the good angels, and of regenerate men; and, indeed, what is wisdom or knoweldge, without holinesss, but craft and cunning? or what is power, without it, but tyranny, oppression and cruetly? but God is "glorious in holiness", (Ex. 15:11) this gives a lustre to all his perfections , and is the glory of them ; and therefore none of them are or can be exercised in a wrong manner, or to any bad purpose.

So again we have an example of another giant of the faith, in the Protestant tradition, who recognizes that holiness is not a particular attribute, but the harmony of all the rest. In clear words for today, we would say that it is the whole. And who cannot rejoice in Gill's point that holiness prevents any particular attribute from being misused. A wonderful insight by him and something to consider before we accuse a whole God of any wrongdoing.

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holiness is Wholeness: According to Martin Luther

I like how one great pastor put it: "Luther needs no trumpteter." He meant that everyone has heard of Martin Luther. Yet not everyone has heard his views on holiness or sanctification. Here is one popular expression of his view from Edward W. A. Koehler in A Summary of Christian Doctrine. He says on page 155:

XXVI. SANCTIFICATION THROUGH FAITH. (STEP V)

The word "sanctication" is sometimes used in a wider sense, as in 2 Thessalonians 2:13: "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." The term here comprehends the entire work of the Holy Ghost, by which He leads the sinner unto eternal life. However, it is also used in a narrower sense, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:3: "This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication" etc. Here the term evidently refers only to that part or phase of the Spirit's work, by which He incites and directs believers to live a godly life.


A couple of notes on Koehler's quote. First, note the "wider sense" of holiness as being a word that "comprehends the entire." Stopping right there you see the concept of wholeness in other English words. Then in the "narrower sense" you see that it "refers only to that part or phase." Stopping right there you see the concept of part.

So we can at least see some notion of wholeness in Luther and in the tradition that follows him. It now is our job to clear up this notion of holiness even more. We have to continue reforming in this tradition.

In Christ,

Pastor Jon Westlund

Holiness is Wholeness: The Purpose of My Work in this Blog


I ran across this quote that really struck my heart as I was working on something other than my chief passion of holiness.


"Keep about your work. Do not flinch because the lion roars; do not stop to stone the devil’s dogs; do not fool away your time chasing the devil’s rabbits. Do your work. Let liars lie, let sectarians quarrel, let critics malign, let enemies accuse, let the devil do his worst; but see to it nothing hinders you from fulfilling with joy the work God has given you. He has not commanded you to be admired or esteemed. He has not commanded you to get rich. He has never bidden you defend your character. He has not set you at work to contradict falsehood (about yourself) which Satan’s or God’s servants may start to peddle, or to track down every rumor that threatens your reputation. If you do these things, you will do nothing else; you will be at work for yourself and not for the Lord. Keep at your work. Let your aim be as steady as a star. You may be assaulted, wronged, insulted, slandered, wounded and rejected, misunderstood, or assigned impure motives; you may be abused by foes, forsaken by friends, and despised and rejected of men. But see to it with steadfast determination, with unfaltering zeal, that you pursue the great purpose of your life and object of your being until at last you can say, ‘I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do’." AUTHOR UNKNOWN


Add to this:


He [Thomas Cranmer, major contributor to Anglican and Episcopal churches] continually had to meet and overthrow error and he did not always have enough time or energy to adequately state and discuss the truth. If that is an exaggeration, perhaps we can put it this way. He could not state and discuss the truth in such a way that it is seen in its right perspective, as a positive thing and not merely in the defence against something else. And it cuts deeper than that. For even when he does state and discuss the truth, he is inhibited to some extent by the fear of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. The fear was not illusory, .... But it is not always a help to the free and positive expression of truth to have to keep a continual watch over the shoulder at possible misinterpreters. .... For after all, the best answer to error which is a perversion of the truth, is not a negative of the error, but a bold affirmation of the truth." G. W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian

And finally add to that:

"... means that we have to give it careful consideration, but it is no guarantee of validity." G. W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian.

I see three key purposes for people to understand in reading this blog about holiness is wholeness. They relate to each of the quotes above.

The first purpose of this blog is to publicly make available my work on holiness is wholeness. It is written to allow people to have access to that view. If I am to work on that subject, it is paramount that I not get sidetracked by being a storehouse for all the views out there. I am willing to guess with my education that you can find all of them on the internet!

The second purpose of this blog is to biblically support the view that holiness is wholeness. It is not to criticize the view that holiness is separation alone, or the view that holiness is separation with a secondary idea of wholeness or the view that holiness is wholeness with a secondary idea of separation. If the view that holiness is wholeness is good, then it will have plenty of positive examples from the Bible to support it.

The third purpose of this blog is to show that holiness is wholeness deserves careful consideration as a biblical stance before moving on to guarantee its validity as a biblical stance. My point is that holiness is wholeness is not a strange novelty bursting on the scene and made popular only because the lessons of the past are unknown. Instead it is itself a past lesson that has been that has been unknown only because it was forgotten. I want to bring holiness is wholeness back to memory for careful consideration and then I want people to look to the Scriptures as marching orders for whether it is a biblical stance. I am only asking for serious consideration of holiness is wholeness when I compile the quotes or create links to quotes from Christian leaders. Then I am asking for people to follow up this careful consideration with biblical examination.

Biblical examination is now my work that I must not be distracted from, it is my task to support it with postive evidence without trying to answer all negative criticisms and it is my focus to look at holiness is wholeness through biblical examination.

Please pray for me and help me stay accountable to this effort.

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holiness is Wholeness: According to Scripture (Exodus 20:8)

"Substitute wholeness every time you see holiness." That's Ray Stedman's rule for reading with the understanding that holiness is wholeness. I love that rule. The only difficulty is that sometimes it doesn't seem initially to make sense. So I want to prove that it can make sense even when at first glance it may not seem possible.

Let's look at the text of Exodus 20:8, "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

The key here is whether it can make sense in the context to say: "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping the Sabbath Day wholly." And whether it can make sense to say: "Therefore the Lord blessed [keeping] the Sabbath day and made the Sabbath day [keeping] whole." On the surface it may not look like this is possible, because we are so accustomed to a particular way of interpreting the passage. So let's look more in depth at a way of understanding holy as whole.

Let's begin from the most obvious or most certain, and then end at the least certain. By this process, I think we will be able to clear up whether holiness is wholeness in the case of this important Sabbath text. First, we are looking at one day that is distinct from the other six days. We know that "the" indicates one and that "six" is explicitly mentioned regarding the other days. The idea of a week is implied, but not explicit which would make up a unit of seven. We also see that holy is an amout according to the translators in the context as shown by its ending. I would understand this to mean to keep it wholly versus partially. Others would understand it to mean to count it separately versus together with based on the idea of separation.

Second, we are looking at the fact that no work or not any work is supposed to happen on the Sabbath day. Not any implies that every type of work is forbidden. What is important here is that the idea of all usually includes all that is within a group like in "ya' all." Every or any tends to be even more inclusive in that it may reach beyond the members of a group and include even those outside a group. But we know from any translation that no amount of work is supposed to be allowed into this day of rest. This part of the translation needs work since this allows a fair amount of discussion on the strictness of keeping the Sabbath free from work. This part of the discussion is not as certain as the first part. So much for amounts or numbers.

Let's move on to the next most obvious. The seventh day is in contrast to the other six as shown by "but." It also follows the other six since it is called the "seventh" day. We also see relationships between various groups of people as alternative groups as shown by "nor." We see again a contrast as shown by "but" in the contrast between "made" in six days and "rested" on the seventh day. Finally we see what results from God resting on the seventh day. "Therefore" He blesses it and makes that day wholly. So much for relationships.

Let's now deal with some things not as obvious. There is a lot happening. We are to "remember," then be "keeping," then "shall labor" and "do," then understand what it "is," then "do" again, then God "made," then "rested," then "blessed" and finally "made holy."

Let's discuss the action of "remember." Remember could be said because it refers to something already known before. But I think it is meant to do more than just say I have told you this before. Is it not also possible that we would forget this day in the sense that it is not the usual routine? Why would we forget it? Because it is an exception to the rule of the other six days which are more the norm for each week. Simply put, it would be exceptional. Like birthdays, which occur only once per year, they occur only once per week, and so are harder to remember than the six that are the same.

Let's discuss too the action of "keep." It means first or fundamentally to watch like a person watching for a full moon to occur. The idea of keep is a secondary meaning from the context where it means to keep a watchful eye on something that may otherwise be lost. This is where the idea of guarding sometimes comes in. Overall, it is a call to due diligence when it is combined in the context with remember. We have to remember and watch which is a great definition for diligence.

Another action to discuss is the most basic action of all, "do." Next to it is "made." My sense from the use of these words is that the key point is do not undo what the Lord has made.

Another action to discuss is that of "blessed." God did not originally curse this day making it subject to vanity any more than any other day He made, but he blessed it making it subject to fruitfulness. The reason for this action of "blessed" lies in His action of resting which supports why the action of blessing is needed. It was not that this day itself was cursed and needed His blessing. It was because people sometimes assume resting is unfruitful and so cursed unless God gives His direct blessing on the action of rest as not unfruitful action. Sloth and laziness are under a curse, but resting is fruitful. You can be sure, if some had their way, they would get rid of any rest along with sloth and laziness.

Finally, there is the action of "made holy." There are two traditional understandings of this word. The context determined which one the older commentators saw in a context. In this context it usually was seen as having to do with separation or with consecration. The other option was a meaning of wholeness. I think wholly or wholeness can make sense in the context.

God did not make this day originally profane any more than any other day God made. The reason for this action of "made holy" lies in His action of resting. He made it whole, not in the sense that the day itself was not whole and needed Him to make it whole. It was because people might think that keeping the Sabbath day was only required for part of the day and not the whole day without His direct word on the whole day. The point was to stress the whole day! Some have already gotten their way and have turned holidays, not into something they keep for a whole day, but at best a part of a day.

We see this action problem, don't we, in most holiday observances in the United States? Take the 4th of July. Is it not true that people think they are observant Americans when all they do on that day in observance is watch fireworks for only one part of the day? They give up their evening for the real theme and forget it the other three parts! Maybe I am too kind and some don't even give up their evening to think about independence. To counter this tendency in me, I have actually tried in the past to watch parades and do other things to keep that whole day a Day of Independence. I try to keep the whole day.

In all of this, it is important to note that the blessing and the direction to keep holy are given for the seventh day in this context because of God's change in action from making to resting. The blessing is because the danger is always lurking that someone will turn resting into a curse through calling it laziness. Making it whole is because someone will turn a whole day into a part day through calling keeping the whole day utterly ridiculous, or calling it trying to get the whole shooting match, or calling it the whole shebang, etc. From this they try to get you to back off from the whole day. You get the idea. So much for the action.

Now let's deal with some things that are a little less clear, plain or certain. I would never argue that because holiness is wholeness that there is no sense of separation in Scripture. Rather there is a very clear sense sometimes that we must "come out and be separate." When it comes to things, some very clear separations are happening between things in this context. So in terms of being, some things are separate or distinct from others. In terms of relationships, sometimes we have to come out from others.

Some of the things in this context are: work, rest, Sabbath, day, it, you, etc. , Lord, heavens and earth What Sabbath is literally is to cease from work. So it is separate from work. It does not say that it is or is not separate from play necessarily, but it is distinct from work. Also this day is distinct from other days. We normally separate one thing from many things. In addition, a day, to be a day includes parts: evening, night, morning and afternoon. Each are distinct parts of the day just as days are distinct parts of a week, weeks distinct parts of months, months distinct parts of years, etc. We also told about you, etc., which is distinct from everyone or just oneself alone. We also are told about the Lord who is separate from being a servant or steward. Finally, it is set in reference to the heavens & earth, etc. not just one distinct part of creation.

The confusion as to what holy is comes from the lack of understanding clearly whether parts of days are assumed in this context as what is being combated against or a melting together of this day with the other six is what is being combated. Is it primarily a problem of last day becoming another work day or a problem of this day only being kept one part of the day as a day of rest? That is a very good question. Or could it be that both problems are being combatted with the distinction between work and rest and then the distinction between wholly and partially? That is an even better question. Please ponder this before answering.

What we need is the following: The testimony of places being certain should be followed to take away the doubts of the uncertain places. The certain places should not be allowed to overwhelm the uncertain, but it gives us some great clues. I think the context allows for wholly as combatting a separate problem. I would like to know your thoughts.

In Christ,

Pastor Jon Westlund

Holiness is Wholeness: Making Things Easy and Light

I had a very inspirational talk with a fellow pastor in which we discussed holiness is wholeness. The talk helped me see clearly that I want to make holiness is wholeness an easy and light thing for people to grasp.

Holiness is very much on people's hearts and minds. What isn't always there is clear meaning. I am beginning to realize that the easiest way for people to grasp that holiness is wholeness is to show its meaning in Biblical context. People have access to the Bible, even if they do not have access to a myriad of other things.

So if I can do only one thing in life, I hope I can enrich your life by making all of this easier and lighter to grasp. May God richly bless your understanding of His word.

In Christ,

Pastor Jon Westlund

Holiness is Wholeness: According to Protestantism's Soft Spot of Comprehensiveness


Former Miami Dolphins quarterback Bob Griese once said: "There's no great mystery to quarterbacking. You move personnel around in various formations looking for the defense's particular patsy and then you eat him alive." I am afraid that the enemies of God and his people have found our particular soft spot and are now eating us alive!

That weak spot is Anglican or Episcopal comprehensiveness. The reasons for this are many, but the main reason is because the meaning of comprehensiveness has been cut loose from its clear biblical origins. Another reason is that Anglicanism has never had a clear primary leader like has other Protestant traditions. It has Cranmer, Hooker, Jewel, Simeon, etc. as its chief leaders rather than one clear champion like Luther. Richard Hooker is the one who I understand to have defined holiness by the English word comprehensiveness. But knowledge of this and clarity on this seems to be lacking when I write or speak to contemporary Episcopalians. I cannot say that when I speak to a Lutheran about justification the same thing happens. Instead they are quite clear on its biblical origins.


J. I. Packer wrote an excellent little booklet titled: A Kind of Noah's Ark? The Anglican Commitment to Comprehensiveness. As an Anglican, he and C. S. Lewis represent what is right about Anglicanism. In this booklet he writes: "ONE ingredient in today's Anglicanism ... is ... its claim to be comprehensive in a way that other traditions are not, and its confidence that this comprehensiveness is a fine thing." But, not everyone agrees that it is a fine thing. Packer sees this problem and points out that comprehensivenss has been "paraded as an Anglican excellence from at least four points of view."


The four points of view are: 1) inclusiveness (or calculated inclusion), 2) integration ( or integrative practice), 3) tension (inner tension) and 4) relativism (inescapeable theological relativism). The problem as Packer sees it is that "there is no common mind on how the current breadth of doctrinal toleration should be regarded." For Packer, part of this is caused by all of these views parading themselves as excellent views of comprehensiveness. I agree.

Yet let's add to Packer's insight. I believe that these four views mainly emerged because Anglicanism has not been clear on its greatest strength which is holiness. Comprehensiveness was originally a definition for holiness. In the hands of the best Anglicans like Hooker it brought good things to the church like a more comprehensive or whole list of 5 solas in contrast to Luther's partial 3 solas: faith alone, grace alone, Scripture alone. It also saw the place for Scripture, tradition, reason and ... as informative parts of a whole schema for grasping the meaning of Scripture. These ideas were in fact more comprehensive in a way that fits with being more whole than other Protestant perspectives.

Holiness is the root of comprehensiveness is in contrast to the many meanings that Packer suggests that have been given to comprehensivness. Sadly, it seems that Anglican scholars like Wescott and Hort at the end of the 1800s may have been duped into some soft version of comprehensiveness in some of their perspectives that has led many to fall into a type of relativism in more recent church history.

Holiness is the root for comprehensiveness also means that Anglicans in particular should have been the first to grasp the wholeness of God's character in the major parts of what makes up holiness. I am surprised that someone following in the tradition of Richard Hooker did not grasp the character traits of righteousness, truth, love and goodness as chief parts of God's character in contrast to those who want to stress only his love. The same could be said for the chief parts of God's forgiveness in his mercy, grace, compassion and longsuffering in contrast to stressing only his grace or mercy.

Because comprehensiveness is Protestantism's soft spot, I believe it is the hill, or the valleys that connects the hills, we must retake. We must reform ourselves and realize that comprehensiveness is rooted in holiness or wholeness before we can enjoy the fruit of revival. William Tyndale realized that the Word of God needed to get to the people in their own language. He decided to take that hill or die doing it. We need to decide with the same level of conviction to retake the hill of holiness is wholeness. Comprehensiveness must originate again from holiness. Then Packer's confidence that comprehensiveness is a fine thing can be restored. May God keep reforming us and then may the reviving of us be the fruit of reform.

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holiness is Wholeness: According to John Wycliffe

Name the two most famous translators in English Bible translation history? Two of the most famous, argueably, are William Tyndale and John Wycliffe. I found recently a very exciting piece of evidence that at least one of these translators was convinced that holiness is wholeness.

In the Wycliffe New Testament is a very wonderful example of how Wycliffe understood the word holiness in English. Underlying this example is not the typical Greek word translated as holy, but there is a footnote which shows his understanding of the word holiness in English, even if there is no evidence of his view of the Greek word for holiness.

In Titus 2: 7, we read this in the Wycliffe New Testament:

"In all things give thyself ensample of good works, in teaching in wholeness, in firmness." The footnote for this passage reads: "In all things give thyself example of good works, in teaching in holiness of living, in firmness of virtues." Notice the parallel, wholeness is in the main part of his text, and in the parallel footnote is holiness.

Like I said before, a wonderful example! God bless the translators who understand not just the original text, but their own language so well.

In Christ,

Pastor Jon