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 the Classic Argument

I think I finally understand one of the classic biblical arguments for holy meaning whole.  By biblical, I mean that it tries to argue from the context of Scripture rather than from an extra-biblical source or from some form of derived etymology.  The argument may even be central for earlier scholars, who believed that holy in the original languages meant whole.  It primarily is a grammatical argument and also seems to follow a simple logical form.  It moves from the nature of personal names to the nature of the word holy as a character trait or quality.  That is its primary logic or argument. 

The argument is that a name is a comprehensive word for a person.  That is the nature of a name.  From this nature of a name, it is argued that its substitute also has that same nature.  That becomes the point of comparison in the metaphor of "holy is his name" in comparison to "Yahweh is his name". 

The key here is how "holy" can replace the name "Yahweh".  How can it be put in a parallel location to Yahweh?  With a parallel location as a substitute, what is the meaning that God's name and God's character have in common?

No other word that functions as a ethical or moral quality is substitued for the personal name like holy.  In grammar, many learned that a noun replaces a noun.  That is one reason why the parts of speech are taught.  It is because what is learned is what can substitute for another and what cannot.   So it is a kind of figure of speech to substitute an adjective or quality for a noun or name.  The question that then follows is what is the point of comparison between these two that they share in common that makes the comparison possible? 

A name like Yahweh is generally placed by grammar in the category of nouns.  The particular characteristic that is assigned to a name is that it is considered a way of expressing some quality or characteristic or descriptive in this case of a person.  To put a quality like holy in the place where we would normally would expect to find a name would highlight the comparison of quality or character. 

One of the character traits of a name is that it is a way to speak comprehensively about a person.  If someone calls me by the name "Jon", they are usually referring to all or everything about me.  They would not refer to my my leg amputated from my body as "Jon".  They would instead call it "Jon's leg" or a part of who I once was.  My name speaks to my whole person. 

This comprehensiveness appears to be the quality that the classical argument sees as the primary point of comparison between a name and the quality of holy.   In other contexts, the point of comparison may be different.  This is not the only kind of comparison that is possible, but rather what past writers have considered made the most sense based on the context. 

I am not making here an evaluative judgment on the effectiveness of this argument, but only a statement that I think this is how they arrive at holy being compared to a name at the point of wholeness or comprehensiveness.  I do, however, think that the argument has merit and deserves to be tested as one possible biblical argument for the meaning of holy.  Combined with other arguments it may be helpful in confirming the meaning of holy, provided we truly understand the nature of names. 

From everyday speech, we might say:

Kermit (the frog) is his name.
______ is his name. (points out a placement for a possible substitute)
Green is his name. (could be a point of comparison for trying to make a point of a character trait of Kermit)

The statments in Scripture that make the point of comparsion both consist of those where God's name is explicitlyYahweh and where we find a substitute where we would expect to see the name Yahweh.  So in Scriptue we read:

His name is Yahweh.
His name is _______.  (points our where the substitution happens)
His name is holy.
Holy (hallowed) be his name. (another similar statement where a quality replaces a name)

Interestingly in contrast we do not read:

His name is righteous (and just).
His name is true.
His name is loving.
His name is good.

These qualities are not put in the place where we would expect to find his name.  The point of comparison cannot be made to work with them.  Certainly God is righteous (and just), true, loving and good according to the Scriptures, so they must lack the point of comparison where holy succeeds.  Since each of these character traits are distinct from each other, the reason they may not work is that they are not comprehensive like God's name of Yahweh or like the character trait of holy which might include them all under its single heading.  Here I am evaluating the possible merit of the argument. 

So finally the point in the classical argument for the meaning of holy is that holy and God's name must share some common characteristic.  What earlier biblical scholars (like Johann/John Bengel) determined was that the common point of comparison was that of being comprehensive.  I think this argument was one of the classic supports for the idea that holy means whole.  This is pershaps why you see John Howe or Jonathan Edwards later calling holy "an attribute of attributes".  We might call it the "quality of qualities".   I leave it up to you to decide or comment on the merits of their argument and I hope you understand that the type of argument that they made has determined the way I have written this entry.  I could not use a lot of stories or narrative in the case of an argument that depends a lot on grammar and simple logic.  That is why I remained quite logical in trying to make their case:

His name (for the whole person) is Yahweh. 
His name (for the whole person) is ______.  (a substitute or parallel to fill the blank)
His name (for the whole person) is holy. 

That is how I think they saw it.  A name was the way to speak of the entire or whole person.  It was once said about a person: "The criteria for being a person ... are designed to capture those attributes which are the subject of our most humane concern with ourselves and the source of what we regard as most important and most problematical in our lives".   Notice the concern that the criteria of a person be made up of attributes or qualities.  Certainly being holy as an attribute of a pesron ranks as one of the most important concerns. 

The chief merit in the classic argument is that it is an attempt to use the context of Scripture to determine the meaning of a word from an exact parallel.  This is one basic argument in its starkest or simplest form.  Now the big question is, how do you see it?  Do you agree with their argument? 


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: 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