Holy: Understanding it Better Through Amateurs and Professionals

Do you want to know what holy means?  Do you want the popular answer or do you want a real answer?  The facts are that there is more then one viable definition for holy.  It most likely means one of three major options: "set apart", "pure", or "whole" (in reverse alphabetical order to avoid prejudice).  The most popular at present is "set apart".  I want to take this status of where there is more than one viable or plausible definition a step further by discussing the distinction between amateurs and professionals.

To begin, let's recall a few famous quotes on the difference:

"If you think it is expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur."  Red Adair

I would add to this quote the following, due to my recent experience with car trouble in 2012:

"If you think it is expensive to hire an amateur to do the job, wait until you hire a supposed professional."

Another quote is:

"A professional writer is an amateur who didn't quit."  Richard Bach

"By the time I was 22, I was a professional.  A young and flawed professional, but not an amateur."  Stephen Sondheim

I'll introduce a few more valuable quotes on the difference, as I write more.  The point of these quotes is that there is a clear difference between an amateur and a professional.  I want to suggest that there is a way to distinguish the two and also to value the two (not just one!)   As I read through a series of these quotes on  "Brainy Quote", I noticed two things; 1) that the distinction between professional and amateur is important and 2) that most of the quotes prefer professional over amateur with a lesser amount of preference for amateur over professional.

I want to agree that the distinction is important, but I want to also say that it is likely dangerous to prefer professional over amateur in one sense.  It is more true to life that we all have to value being an amateur, because that is where we all begin before we go on to being professionals in some occupation.  Here I would fall back on a close parallel in Dr. Donald N. Larson's distinction between knower and teacher.  Amateurs can be very advanced knowers, but that does not mean that they can also be teachers.  But likewise some professionals lack the desire or interest of the knower that is sense in some amateurs.  That is why some professionals like Sergei Bubka say: "Even now I want to keep my amateur spirit, to spend my time, to be in the sport with all my heart".   But even as some professionals say that about themselves, speaking of the need for balance, an amateur like Bill Bruford have this to say about themselves in a recognition of balance:  "So I have the classic amateur's technique; I know some very tricky bits and I have large gaping holes".

So let's look at where I think my writing on holiness is in terms of a balance of both amateur and professional.  Let me begin with a quote from Alan Greenspan: "I was a good amateur, but only an average professional.  I soon realized that there was a limit to how far I could rise in the music business, so I left the band and enrolled in New York University".   If I examine my early blog posts, most of what I had to say came out of being a knower and an amateur, not a professional.  It does not mean it does not have value.  I am far from saying that.  But I think it had a "limit" to use Greenspan's word snd "large gaping holes" like Bruford says.  I was a very well-intentioned amateur with a lot of great discoveries that really make little difference to many of the professionals.

That all changed, when I decided I need more education (to get a good balance) and I enrolled at Nashotah House (Seminary) in Delafield, WI.  I was lacking some of the professional side of studying word meanings up to that point.  Since then I have been growing on the professional side and I hope I am also not letting go of the amateur side that just loves the thrill of discovery and hates to let go of the sheer curiosity to learn and to become a knower.  This knower aspect needs to remain alongside my becoming someone who can teach what holy means.

Robert Graves once said: "In love as in sport, the amateur status must be strictly maintained".  In other words, we lose something when we are only professionals who spend time on the clock not knowing why we do what we do.  There is no passion for it and there is a sick kind of snobbery in professionalism and teaching alone that puts down the one who knows.  I want to forever remain an amateur and a professional, so that I never become an academic snob.

Before enrolling at Nashotah House, I could feel that " ... disadvantage of not having acquired some technical profession", as Henry Bessemer once said.  Now I see my professionalism growing, as I write my thesis paper.  I am becoming more than a knower, I also am becoming a teacher.  I love having both together.  I still have that sense, as Simon van der Meer, once said that: " ... to a certain extent my slightly amateur approach ..., combined with practical experience was an asset".  I don't want to ever loose that common sense approach.

Howard Hawks, a film director is quoted as once saying: "I'd rather have flawed professionals than well-meaning amateurs".  But he also is famous for telling the story of a tennis pro who lost his ability to serve well, when he wrote a book about it, so sometimes all you can say is that you like something and that is how you know.  I am convinced that good experiential knowledge and good scholarship need to work alongside one another, not against each other.  So quoting Hawks on either side of the balance is not fair to him.  He was a combination of both.

You will find sometimes "flawed professionals" writing about the meanings or definitions of words in the biblical text.  You will also find "well-intentioned amateurs at times as well.  I want to talk about one specific example that is away from defining holy and might help us then be more objective because it is also from the past.

That specifc example is Martin Luther.  I believe, he was a "flawed professional" as well as a "well-intentioned amateur.  He once had a very simple or amateur question, "How much is enough [to satisfy this God]?  He found his answer in the biblical text in the words "righteousness of God".  These words worked, because he overlapped the meanings of righteousness and justification.  Justice is the answer to his question.  Righteousness is actually a flaw, because some (not all) professionals today realize that in the Hebrew text there is a distinction between righteousness and justice.  They are both amounts, but they are not the same answer to the same question.  Righteousness is the answer to "How many?  (ex. One God)."  Justice is the answer to "How much?" (ex. love your neighbor as yourself).  So Luther was a "flawed professional" but still a professional.  He was also a well-intentioned amateur, but sill a knower with a down to earth real question.  He was advised by some of the best professionals of his day like Erasmus' Greek text and Reuchlin's knowledge of Hebrew.

Let's hope we can be judged the same way as Luther or even better, when it comes to defining holy as it was originally understood in the biblical text in our time.  Let's take being professional to a new level without losing the spirit of the amateur.  Let's be like James Whistler who once said:  "I maintain that two and two would continue to make four, in spite of the whine of the amateur for three or the cry of the [professional] critic for five."  Let's keep our balance!  Let's define holy as both an amateur and a professional!

In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Genesis 2:1-3, Part 4 (of 5)

"The first choice we make everyday is will we act upon life or will be acted upon", according to Stephen R. Covey.  Likewise understanding the actions within a unit of biblical text is very significant.  It is not just though a matter of active or passive, it is also a matter of examing both the pre-state before an action and the post-state after an action that tell a person a great deal about two primary aspects of action.  Both the means by which the state of life is changed and also sometimes the natural or passive motive or the active motive behind the action. 

This part will focus on the actions within the text.  It will look at charting what are referred to as the pre-state and post-state of actions.  It is helpful for seeing how something is done, but also why it is done.  I learned this from a great expert in the area of computers, James J. Odell, who used it for different a different purpose having to do with search engines.  I have found this tool to be invaluable for focusing on the actions in the text. 

If you wish to know more about Odell's ideas, I suggest picking up his book, Advanced Object-Oriented Analysis and Design Using UML.   The book I am drawing from is from 1998.  He should not be held liable for my use of his ideas in dealing with a biblical text, but he should be credited for anything new I am able to contribute.  I find his way of seeing things to be truly unique and beneficial. 

This uniqueness may end up making this my most exciting entry on Genesis 2:1-3, just because you may have never seen this approach before.  Also an analogy from Stephen R. Covey may help clear up why God is staid to "make holy"/"Sanctify" the seventh day and also why God blessed it as well. 

Until I am able to update this entry further, please enjoy the following chart inspired by Odell's work:

Blessed and sanctified

                                                     Pre-state                                     Post-state

Finished                                    Unfinished                                                 Finished (complete action)

Ended                                       Not over                                                    Ended (complete action)

[Work]                                      Working                                                    Work (complete action)

Had done                         Had not done (incomplete action)               Had done (complete action)

Rested                                      Worked (completed action)                  Rested (complete action)

[Work]                                     Working                                                    Work (completed action)

Had done                               Had not done                                            Had done (complete action)

Blessed                      Becoming fruitful, multiplying, and filling        Fruitful, multiply, and fill

                                   (becoming fruitful, not yet                                 completed action by his other                                    multiplying, not yet full)                                     actions being complete)

Sanctified                  Becoming set apart or whole                            Is set apart or whole

                                                                                                                  (completed action by his other                                                                                                                   actions being complete)

if set apart, then   (day not separate from the other six)           (day separated from other six)

if whole, then        (partial day of incomplete rest)                     (whole day of complete rest)

Rested                      worked                                                               rested (complete action)

                                                                                                               (didn’t rest the next day)

[Work]                      Working                                                              Work (complete action)

Had created            Creating                                                               Created (complete action)

Had made                Making                                                                Made (complete action)

The problem with the idea of separate is that there is no immediate direct reference to the other days of the week in this discussion in Genesis 2:1-3.  Instead the focus in the more immediate context is not on separating days or on separating work from rest, but instead on complete action versus incomplete action.  Of course, there is a distinction between (a separation of)  pre-state and post-state, but the point is to describe and identify the post-state, not to focus on this very natural separation.  The idea of separation is natural to the context, but it is not the focus of the context.  In fact, as Andrew Murray implied many years ago there are other Hebrew words that point to the idea of separation as biblical and so be holy or sanctified would not have to be one of them. 

Jon Westlund                                                                                             1/1/11                                                                                                         (revised slightly since this date)

I'm hoping to use "smart art" in this entry.  I will try to take what I have charted above and make it even more clear though the use of this application within Word 2007.  If I am able, you will enjoy the clarity of the lay out for how the different actions relate to outcomes, purposes and other actions.  [This entry is in process, awaiting when I have substantial time to complete it.

Holy: Understanding it Better through Genesis 2:1-3, Part 3 (of 5)

Stephen R. Covey is rather famous for saying: "The main thing is to keep the main thing, the main thing."  In the process of studying the meaning of a passage through language tools (linguistics as the study of language) and through exegetical tools (biblical hermeneutics or exegesis), it is the main thing to be reminded from the beginning to the end of the total process and again in the middle to use all the major tools for grasping the meaning of a passage and not just one or two of them.  I call this the total process.  The total process is the main thing. 

In one distinct way this blog entry on Genesis 2:1-3, is not like the others.  It is a reminder of the main importance of seeing the other 4 entries (out of 5) as equal parts of the whole and that keeping them together as a total is of main importance through the entire process and not just at the beginning or the end.  That is why I place this entry about the total process in the middle. 

I can't tell you how many times I have read writings on the meaning or definition of holy and they rely almost exclusively on just one of a total of 4 separate methods to be used to understand the meaning of word in the text.  The one that gets the most use is the method of etymology (tracing a word's history or it's similar roots with other words with similar letters or graphemes).  I'm not against this method as some appear to be (James Barr), but I want us to see its limitations.  So let's begin by looking at a diagram of the total process.

My diagram of the total process is as follows:

Even though I have increased the image's size, I don't want to assume yet that it is all of the print is readable, so let me at least list off the main names for each stage from the arrows on your left hand side.  They are: 1)Translate, 2) Transfer, 3) Total, 4) Train, and 5) Teach.  You can also righ click on the image and choose "open this link" and it will appear in slightly larger print. 


I've begun all of their names with "T" just to make things more memorable.  It also happens to be the case that in English these 5 names work well together as a description for each stage. 

There is also a biblical precedant for this process as well.  It is found in Nehemiah 8 and especially in verses 1- 12.  The situation is one in which the audience cannot understand Hebrew as well as Aramaic, so they require some assistance.  This sets then a precedent for our own time in which Hebrew from that time is not our first language.  So let's flesh this out a bit. 


[This entry is in process.]

Sincerely,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better through Genesis 2:1-3, Part 2 (of 5)

"When we succumb to believing that we are victiims of our circumstances and yield to the plight of determinism, [then] we lose hope, we lose drive, and we settle for resignation and stagnation", according to Stephen R. Covey.  I am using quotes from him in particular at this time, because of his untimely death at age 79 due to a biking accident.  Transfering information from one place and time to another is often treated with the same amount of lost hope, lost drive, resignation and then stagnation.  It is high time to get back to the task of transferring what was said in ancient places and ancient times to our own place and time. 

The best clues for how to do this are in uncovering the explicit relationships in the ancient texts of that time, so that we can then understand better how to transfer things properly to our own place and time. 

This entry will look primarily into the importance of transfer.  What are those things in the text that connect with that time and also with our time?  I will be looking primarily at relational connections.  If possible I will include a diagam of the text that is very helpful.  This will be dependent though on a blog's formatting and its ability to handle an Excel file being pasted into it.  [If you have experience with that you may be able to help me.] 

I haven't tried it in the past because I have been assuming it would  not work.  [This entry is in process.]

Holy: Understanding it Better by Distinguishing Status from Proof

At present, the definition of holy as "set apart" enjoys the greatest status as far as possible definitions of holy.  Prior to its rise in the late 1800s and its continuing rise in the 1900s (the 20th century), the definition of holy as "whole" held the same higher status (with "set apart" as only its secondary or narrow definition).   So it becomes very important for every serious scholar to not substitute status for evidence. 

Status should follow after evidence and it should follow proof.  Status should not itself be proof or evidence.  This sounds quite obvious to anyone acquainted with science or scholarship.  Yet it is easily forgotten.  Luther once said that he preached a theology of the cross, not just a theology of glory.  Good ideas also can suffer for a time. 

Sometimes sitting down with scholars to discuss the definition of holy, I have often (but not always) noted a bias toward "set apart" that is heavily ingrained.  This is likely because of the status of that definition at the present time and because of the status of the scholars that hold that position.  The problem is that status can bias even some of the better scholars against testing two options equally. 

Status itself is not wrong or harmful.  Status is an excellent thing like glory, when it follows from evidence or proof.  But current status is not proof that the definition of holy is correct.  The order cannot be reversed.  I would argue that the number of scholars that hold one definition versus another is something that deserves attention, because in itself it is not wrong.   Yet greater than status is the merits of the argument that resulted in the status. 

This is why in some of my blogs, I point out that some of the evidence from some scholars of status is shaky or probable at best by their own admission.  So their personal status as scholars and their endorsement of a definition for holy cannot rest on their recognized scholarly status. 

The reason my previous blog is so important and why it is taking extra time to complete is because it is an example of my attempt to set aside status from before the year 2000 and before the year 1900 (both are approximate dates for the status change for both definitions).  I want to fully test both of the views alluded to above side by side using recognized units from within Scripture and each unit's immmediate context as the best test for the meaning of holy.  May the better definition and its merits get the status it deserves following the year 2000 (again approximate)!

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy: Understaning It Better Through Genesis 2:1-3

The most important arguments for the meaning of holy come from the biblical text itself for at least two reasons among others.  The first is that the etymology for the Hebrew word for holy is at best probable and not certain.  The second is the sheer volume of the use of the Hebrew word for holy, qadosh. etc., in the biblical text far outweighs the evidence from outside the biblical text.  This is a tremendous asset in trying to solve the problem of defining a word.  The larger the amount of text available, the more likely we are to solve any questions as to meaning.  So I would like to look at the two most likely possibilities for the meaning of holy.  The biblical words for holy in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek could mean either "set apart" or they could mean "whole."  The best method is to test both possibilities side by side to see which one has greater merit.

The best method I have found testing the definition of a word is to try to substitute the definition into the surrounding context and then look for possible parallels to test its meaning.   I am going to begin from the two most popular translations of the Bible that people are likely to know and then I will amend things from the original Hebrew text, if I think it would be helpful in an effort to identify parallels.  Overall, however, I find both of these translations to be the best in reaching the twin goals of being clear and meaningful.  The NKJV, I find is slightly more clear, the NIV is slighty more meaningful.  

In the NKJV (New King James Version), we read:

Genesis 2:1-3

2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 

² And on the seventh day God ended His work

which He had done,

and He rested on the seventh day from all His work

which He had done.

³ Then God blessed the seventh day

and sanctified it,

because in it He rested from all His work

which God had created

and made.

In the NIV (New International Version) (1984), we read:

Genesis 2:1-3

¹ Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
² By the seventh day God had finished the work
he had been doing;
so on the seventh day he rested^[a] from all his work.
³ And God blessed the seventh day
and made it holy,
because on it he rested from all the work of creating
that he had done.


In the NKJV (New King James Version) with substitutions for clarity and with amendments for making things explicit, we read:

Genesis 2:1-3 (with whole for sanctified or holy)

2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and the whole of the host of them, were finished wholly.

² And on the seventh day God finished wholly His work

which He had done,

and He rested on the seventh day from the whole of His work

which He had done.

³ Then God blessed the seventh day

and made [the seventh day observance the] whole [day],

because in it He rested from the whole of  His work

which God had created

and made.

Genesis 2:1-3 (with set apart for sanctified or holy)

2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and the whole of the host of them, were finished wholly.

² And on the seventh day God finished wholly His work

which He had done,

and He rested on the seventh day from the whole of His work

which He had done.

³ Then God blessed the seventh day

and set [the seventh day] apart [from the other six days],

because in it He rested from the whole of His work

which God had created

and made.

In the NIV (New International Version) (1984) with substitutions for clarity and with amendments to make things more explicit, we read:

Genesis 2:1-3 (with whole for sanctified or holy)

¹ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished wholly in the whole of  their vast array.
² By the seventh day God had finished wholly the work
he had been doing;
so on the seventh day he rested^[a] from the whole of  his work.
³ And God blessed the seventh day
and made [the seventh day obervance the] whole [day],
because on it he rested from the whole of the work of creating
that he had done.

Genesis 2:1-3 (with set apart for sanctified or holy)

¹ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished wholly in the whole of their vast array.
² By the seventh day God had finished wholly the work
he had been doing;
so on the seventh day he rested^[a] from the whole of his work.
³ And God blessed the seventh day
and set [the seventh day] apart [from the other six days],
because on it he rested from the whole of the work of creating
that he had done.

So for clarity I substituted in each case for sanctified the words "whole" or "set apart".  For the sake of parallels, I also amended the text to show the similarity between a group of Hebrew words used that are properly connected with the idea of whole.  This is so that the reader can decide for themselves whether the context supports the concept of "whole" more or the context of "set apart" more.  If I leave the words as "all, etc.", it is much more difficult to see the possibility that holy or sanctifies is parallel with "whole" or even complete. 

So now I ask you the reader.  How long can we halt between two opinions?  Which one of the two optoins bears the most evidence from the parallels around it?  One has the support of six days in the context prior to the seventh.  The others has in the verses dealing with the seventh day five words connected with the idea of whole.  I pray I can find more time to develop other texts in this same manner as well. 

In Christ,

Pastor 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

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Concrete Objects

You may not be aware previously that the meaning of holy is uncertain. There are many words in the Bible whose meanings are not difficult to determine. Holy does not fall into that category. So in light of this uncertainty, I have decided to work on the issue from a position that is certain.


Holy in the bible means either whole or separate. I would rank the meaning of whole at 70% and the meaning of separate at 30%. Many would reverse those two percentages, yet I have the advantage of a great deal of unpublished material these other people have never seen. I am doing my best to get all of this unpublished material on the internet, but my time is limited at this point in the course of my ministry.


Only in the face of uncertainty, do I think it is wise to hold onto two definitions of holy. I believe we live in one of those times. So it is wise, to "not throw the baby out with the bathwater", but to be sure you've separated the two of them first. This same sage advice is foolish, when no reasonable uncertainty exists.

I am also aware that these promising definitions for holy are polar opposites. So my goal is to remove any reasonable uncertainty about the meaning of holy and to then introduce a definition with a reasonable amount of certainty to support it.


There are four keys to solving any issue of decipherment for an unknown language or for an uncertain word in a language according to the experts in deciphering unknown languages:


· There should be a large enough database and texts of the language (Amount)
· There should be a connected cultural context of the language (Relationship)
· There should be understood parallel or bilingual inscriptions of the language (Action)
· There should be pictorial or concrete references with the text of the language (Thing)

This is where the proof must be gathered to prove the meaning of holy. Fortunately, we are able to find evidence for all four of these keys. For our limited purposes in this blog, I would like to look at the last key of finding a pictorial or concrete reference for the word of holy.

In a concrete sense, for something to be "cut" (the root idea behind separate) or "uncut" (an analogy for whole) is very pictorial. It is easy to separate the two of them visually. Just take out your steak knife and cut a carrot. You have a very good visual of cut. Now magine another carrot that remains uncut. They are picture perfect polar opposites.

When we look at the concrete objects closely associated with holy, we find these as a beginning list: days, stones, ground, moutain, sacrifice and body. I will later talk about the more abstract concepts of self, name and morality as extensions of these concrete or literal meanings of cut or uncut.

If holy means "to set apart" or "to separate", then its literal or concrete idea is as follows for each concrete object:

• a day cut off from six other days (Geneis 2:1-3)
• altar stones cut off from other stones (Deuteronomy 27:6)
• ground/area cut off from other ground/area (Exodus 3:5)
• a mountain cut off from other mountains or land (Exodus 19:3, Deuteronomy 4:11)
• a sacrifice cut off from other sacrifices (Leviticus 1:3, Romans 12:1-2)
• a body cut off from other bodies (Leviticus 21:15-20, 1 Corinthians 6:19)

If holy means "to make or to keep whole", then its literal or concrete idea is as follows for each concrete object:

• an uncut day of evening to evening (Genesis 2:1-3)
• an uncut/whole altar stone (Deuteronomy 27:6 )
• an uncut ground/area (Exodus 3:5)
• an uncut mountain of the entire thing (Exodus 19:3; Deuteronomy 4:11 )
• an uncut/unblemished sacrifice (Leviticus 1:3; Romans 12:1-2 )
• an uncut/unmaimed body (Leviticus 21:15-20; 1 Corinthians 6:19)

If we extend the literal or concrete meanings of "cut" into more figurative or abstract meaning, then the idea by implication in various contexts (even where it is not used directly):

• a self cut off from other selves (Luke 10:26-28)
• a name cut off from other names (Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2)
• a morality cut off from immorality (Romans 7:12 and all contexts dealing with holy, righteous, true, loving and good)

Every single one of these concepts is biblical, the question is whether they are biblical through the use of the word holy. If they are not, then by adding the instances of holy to the list of even a correct biblical idea, increases the magnitude of importance beyond the importance the bible assigns to them. In other words, we distort the message of the Bible. On the flip-side, we also diminish the importance of being whole in relationship to each of these things. That may be the great crime.

If we extend the literal or concrete meanings of "uncut" into more figurative or abstract meaning, then the idea is by implication in various contexts (even where it is not used directly):

• an uncut self - heart, soul, strength and mind are all essentials (Luke 10:26-28)
• an uncut/corporate/comprehensive name - no word is more comprehensive of personality (Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2)
• an uncut morality - righteous, true, loving and good are all included (Romans 7:12 and all contexts dealing with holy, righteous, true, loving and good)

Every single one of these concepts is also biblical. The problem is the same as we see with the other meaning of separate, if it is not biblically accurate in its understanding of holy. We distort and diminish the other concept in a way that is not biblical.

In either case, the implications are large because holy is such a large concept in the bible. That is why we cannot afford to get it wrong. If it were a minor concept, then there would be no serious implication from error.

I hope these concrete objects in the context of holy help you make sense of the two ideas of "set apart" and "whole." They are diametrically opposed to each other in concrete meaning and the weighty importance of the meaning of the word holy potentially distorts things in a large way. This is not a small thing because decipherment is only the beginning. The implications are far greater because they effect our view of the world.

In future pieces of writing, I will further develop the other important pillars for deciphering the definite meaning of holy. It is the combination of them that I believe will give us reasonable certainty about what the word means. But for now I hope you are able to make sense of things in terms of meaning, because that is an important first step.

It is paramount that every real Christian take this very seriously. It has grave or momentous consequences, because biblical words have big implications far beyond any other words on this planet.

In Christ,

Jon