I recently completed a book titled, Mental Health for Everyone, that is one part of what will be two parts to my post-graduate degrees including a Ph.D., where the central thesis will be on the definition of holy. Fortunately, one of advisers for my first thesis paper noticed that my work on definition of holy originally had two papers inside of one paper. As a result, I wrote my book on mental health since it is really my method for approaching the definition of holy.
I am excited to announce that my book on mental health is now officially published as of October 27, 2015. It is on sites like Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble.
The link for Amazon.com is:
http://www.amazon.com/Mental-Health-Everyone-Making-Choices-ebook/dp/B017ADOLBS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447991414&sr=8-1&keywords=mental+health+for+everyone
The link for Barnes and Noble is:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/mental-health-for-everyone-jon-westlund/1122880720?ean=9781498438858
If either link does not work for you, then use either my full name or the full title or both together.
You can also see a video on the book on youtube at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC5XDFly3GA
If you need to, then copy these links into your browser. I am not convinced that they will work otherwise.
The key to a successful definition of holy and blessed is the use of the principles that the mind uses to successfully reach decisions on things in our world. These principles of teaching, coaching, schooling, and educating are the method that I use in solving the differences over the meaning of holy as it is found in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures. There is truly one definition for it, not the many available on the internet!
My next project will be to write another version of this book on mental health and my method that will fill in the all the footnotes that formed the foundation for my published book. That version will be what I submit for my project for my S.T.M. (Masters of Sacred Theology). I can't wait until it too is complete.
The following 2 years I hope to devote to the meaning of blessed and holy. Please pray that I might even finish my footnoted version by this coming Spring and then devote myself on THE big project - the definitions of blessed and holy! That wish or goal is a stretch, but I would love it if it happened that way.
For now, I will let you know what you are looking for as in a definition of blessed and holy with further proof coming in the future. Blessed consists of an exhaustive set of wonderful things. Holy consists of the the fullness of these things. These definitions are a bit abstract, but if you read further I fill the details in more fully.
May God richly bless you with being mentally healthy and even more with being blessed and holy!
In Christ,
Jon
Showing posts with label definition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label definition. Show all posts
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Wednesday, May 06, 2015
Blessed and Holy: A Quick Exciting Update
There was a saying I used to hear that never made much sense to me, when I was very young. Maybe now this saying has some meaning - "You will know, when you know". I sort of feel that way now about the meaning of holy (and blessed). Things have come full circle for me after a lot of study, but the key study has been for my book Mental Health for Everyone: In Captivating, Motivating, Inspiring, Meaningful Pictures. (That book is the main reason you have not seen me posting here regularly in this last year.) So I now am convinced that holy does in fact mean whole, but in a different sense than the materials that I have presented previously in this blog.
Let me explain this in short version today, because my ultimate goal is to write as my final Ph.D. paper on the topic of the definitions for both blessed and holy. The paper could end up with a title something like this: Blessed and Holy is Yahweh and His Followers.
Let me give you a glimpse first into my start into the race of knowing the meaning of these two key biblical words - blessed and holy. Let me define what I mean by a classical and traditional definition of holy before I talk about the history of the definition of holy.
When I speak of the classical definition of holy, I am talking about its definition beginning no later than the 1500s (16th ct.) and extending into the 1900s (20th ct.). During this time, beginning from the Reformation, scholars relied heavily on the renaissance (renewal) of classical thinking.
The traditional definition refers to a definition that began in the late 1800s to gain a real foothold among scholars and it extends into the 1900s (20th ct.). It is a movement that primarily tries to remove the errors of classical thinking, dating back to the Greeks and Romans and including the Renaissance.
Each of these has a longer history, I am sure. What I am doing here is limiting it to the scholarship of these times. The evidence outside of these time periods is much more susceptible to different interpretations. The emergence of another renewal of science in the late 1800s removed some of the mist surrounding the meanings that biblical scholars were expressing. This made the separation of the two definitions much more clear and meaningful. A little book on holy, by Andrew Murray, a pastor and not a scholar technically, summaries the benefits of the work of scholarship in the late 1800s (19th ct.).
With those imposed limits, the history of the definition of holy can be boiled down to this:
These were the two competing views, when I started my best efforts to settle the issue of the definition of holy.
I have now arrived at a definition for holy that uses the insights from the classical definition of holy, but also applies a corrective. I likewise am convinced that elements of the traditional view are helpful here, though its helpfulness varies from scholar to scholar.
My goal is to arrive at a definition for blessed and holy that is both natural (fits with all of nature) and Scriptural (fits with all of Scripture). That is a very tall order, but I think a worth finish line.
I am not at all interested in classical view or traditional views unless they first meet those criteria. In some ways they do not. That is the main reason why I depart from their views. I find good among the efforts under each umbrella, but where I find unnatural things I remove them. I do the same, when I find un-scriptural things as well. I eliminate them.
So here are my preliminary definitions:
blessed . blessed as in righteous, true, loving, and good. (ex. Abraham has many sons)
holy - whole as in wholly just, wholly humble, wholly perfect, wholly great. (ex. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - the whole of the day)
The proof of all this will be mainly in my first book to be published soon, Mental Health for Everyone and it will be further supported by my final paper for my S.T.M. Degree (a 2 year doctoral program). It too will be titled Mental Health for Everyone, but it will have a different subtitle like - The Evidence from the Original Languages of Scripture.
The reason for the proof being separate is that my advisers in seminary recognized that I had two projects going in my thesis proposal. These two projects are each big enough alone to merit individual treatment. So I am doing my mind-related work first, because the mind is the natural thing to address when we are working on definitions. Without first thinking well, it will be very hard to define blessed and holy well. It will end up very sloppy. Mental health eliminates the basic errors in definition that we otherwise make.
I am very excited about the definitions that I give. My mental health material which addresses the mind more naturally also addresses the mind more scripturally or biblically. Those two sources furnish a ton of evidence for those willing to give up being classical and traditional when it contradicts nature or Scripture. I am willing.
So I am now speaking from the finish line of my first race on the definition of blessed and holy. I will enter another race soon after I am done writing on mental health for seminary.
That race will then be run for a minimum of 2 years. I can't wait to start the next leg of my journey. I know that I know at the first finish line, if you know what I mean! May God truly bless you and make you holy even as he is blessed and holy.
In Christ,
Jon
Let me explain this in short version today, because my ultimate goal is to write as my final Ph.D. paper on the topic of the definitions for both blessed and holy. The paper could end up with a title something like this: Blessed and Holy is Yahweh and His Followers.
Let me give you a glimpse first into my start into the race of knowing the meaning of these two key biblical words - blessed and holy. Let me define what I mean by a classical and traditional definition of holy before I talk about the history of the definition of holy.
When I speak of the classical definition of holy, I am talking about its definition beginning no later than the 1500s (16th ct.) and extending into the 1900s (20th ct.). During this time, beginning from the Reformation, scholars relied heavily on the renaissance (renewal) of classical thinking.
The traditional definition refers to a definition that began in the late 1800s to gain a real foothold among scholars and it extends into the 1900s (20th ct.). It is a movement that primarily tries to remove the errors of classical thinking, dating back to the Greeks and Romans and including the Renaissance.
Each of these has a longer history, I am sure. What I am doing here is limiting it to the scholarship of these times. The evidence outside of these time periods is much more susceptible to different interpretations. The emergence of another renewal of science in the late 1800s removed some of the mist surrounding the meanings that biblical scholars were expressing. This made the separation of the two definitions much more clear and meaningful. A little book on holy, by Andrew Murray, a pastor and not a scholar technically, summaries the benefits of the work of scholarship in the late 1800s (19th ct.).
With those imposed limits, the history of the definition of holy can be boiled down to this:
- Classical definition of holy (16th - 20th ct.) - whole as in righteous, just, true, loving, and good. Whole as perfect; whole as the summation of God's character, etc.
- Traditional (19th-20th ct.) definition of holy - set apart; separate; relational separation; moral separation; object separation; etc.
These were the two competing views, when I started my best efforts to settle the issue of the definition of holy.
I have now arrived at a definition for holy that uses the insights from the classical definition of holy, but also applies a corrective. I likewise am convinced that elements of the traditional view are helpful here, though its helpfulness varies from scholar to scholar.
My goal is to arrive at a definition for blessed and holy that is both natural (fits with all of nature) and Scriptural (fits with all of Scripture). That is a very tall order, but I think a worth finish line.
I am not at all interested in classical view or traditional views unless they first meet those criteria. In some ways they do not. That is the main reason why I depart from their views. I find good among the efforts under each umbrella, but where I find unnatural things I remove them. I do the same, when I find un-scriptural things as well. I eliminate them.
So here are my preliminary definitions:
blessed . blessed as in righteous, true, loving, and good. (ex. Abraham has many sons)
holy - whole as in wholly just, wholly humble, wholly perfect, wholly great. (ex. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - the whole of the day)
The proof of all this will be mainly in my first book to be published soon, Mental Health for Everyone and it will be further supported by my final paper for my S.T.M. Degree (a 2 year doctoral program). It too will be titled Mental Health for Everyone, but it will have a different subtitle like - The Evidence from the Original Languages of Scripture.
The reason for the proof being separate is that my advisers in seminary recognized that I had two projects going in my thesis proposal. These two projects are each big enough alone to merit individual treatment. So I am doing my mind-related work first, because the mind is the natural thing to address when we are working on definitions. Without first thinking well, it will be very hard to define blessed and holy well. It will end up very sloppy. Mental health eliminates the basic errors in definition that we otherwise make.
I am very excited about the definitions that I give. My mental health material which addresses the mind more naturally also addresses the mind more scripturally or biblically. Those two sources furnish a ton of evidence for those willing to give up being classical and traditional when it contradicts nature or Scripture. I am willing.
So I am now speaking from the finish line of my first race on the definition of blessed and holy. I will enter another race soon after I am done writing on mental health for seminary.
That race will then be run for a minimum of 2 years. I can't wait to start the next leg of my journey. I know that I know at the first finish line, if you know what I mean! May God truly bless you and make you holy even as he is blessed and holy.
In Christ,
Jon
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Both Better Through Improving our Mental Health
I know you are likely checking out this blog to find the definition of holy. I won't disappoint, if you can wait until I give the issue some context and then give you a definition in the third paragraph.
You may have noticed lately that in the United States there is a mental health crisis. The mass shootings with a concluding suicide in our schools and elsewhere is only the tip of the iceberg. Insanity is much deeper in our society than meets the eye. I would conclude that 90% of the insanity is not even noticed except to the trained observer, who knows that what is happening above the surface and is obvious is only a small part of a bigger problem. I agree with those who say that health is the next big issue that faces us in the coming of age of our times. Mental health is only one part, but a significant part toward all types of health. Blessed and holy are words that actually have a lot to say about that bigger picture of health or being wbole, but it is being missed due to a poor job of defining both words. I do believe that this problem starts with poor mental health.
I think most of us would agree that a mentally healthy person is healthy both emotionally and logically. Likewise a mentally healthy person or sane person has more credibility than a mentally unhealthy or insane person who has little credibility. In fact, the significant feature we like in any person is that they are mentally credible. You can rely on what they say. The problem is that you cannot always rely on what is given as the definition of blessed and holy. I am not going to go into detail in this post, but let me state what I believe is the definition for blessed and then for holy that has the most credibility. Then I will give you some direction for finding that credibility. So the definition of blessed that I find is most credible is that of "I am who I am". It is a character trait of a person being who they are consistently. There is no variance. What people don't realize is that the popular definition of blessed of "blessings" is not the definition of blessed but its significance. If you are who you are, then will reap blessing as a consequence. "Blessed are the peacemakers" is because they are "peacemakers" and not war mongers. So how about the definition of holy that I find most credible. I find moral or ethical wholeness to be the best definition. What is missed is that meaning is not the same as definition. One of the meaning is that of significance and that is where "set apart" fits. But it is not the definition of the word, a different kind of meaning.
So where can you find evidence for what I am saying. Let me begin with this blog. In my past posts up until very recently, you will find a lot of arguments from biblical texts, etc. What they boil down to is that I am saying that the definition of "set apart" is illogical. It is not mentally healthy in that sense. It has as many holes as Swiss cheese. You will not find much on the emotional aspect that is also very important. I owe everyone an apology for that, because it is a key component of being mentally healthy and spotting mental illness.
Let me give you an example. I am going to leave out nay names to keep what I have to say anonymous, but what I am describing actually happened while I was a student in one of my three seminaries that I have attended. I wanted to present my argument for the definition of holy in all its grand glory in an Old Testament class. Fortunately for me, I had a very smart colleague in the class who warned me "not to put strange fire on the altar". Here's what he meant. I would not get a good grade and it would not be pretty in class if I were to present a definition for holy that was contrary to my professor's definition for holy. In other words, there would not be a great dialogue on this topic. He was exactly right. I did a much more tempered approach and got a reluctant OK from the professor. Emotionally, this is not a good sign. It should have been that I could present a well-reasoned argument that would get full consideration in a calm and peaceful atmosphere. I think my classmate was right to see that emotionally I was only going to get some level of anger for what I said.
This is not how it should be in seminary. I was not going to present a view that it anywhere near to some classical heresy. In fact, I would have been introducing a kind of classical orthodoxy from Luther to Spurgeon in the Protestant perspective, which is what this seminary belonged to at its core. So there was not an openness to a mentally healthy dialogue between competing views, but a sense of subtle suggestion that it would be treated like "strange fire on the altar".
From nearly the earliest part of my writing 10 years ago, I have known about the logical issues. But now I realize their are emotional issues as well that need to be faced and not ignored. We need healthy people who know the basics of mental health. They need to know the feelings of:
!) Acceptance versus shame
2) Joy versus grief
3) Emulation versus jealousy
4) Confidence versus fear
5) Peace versus anger
Now the second examples in each case are not in all cases to be avoided. We need those emotions too. But these are not ones we should take pleasure in. Remember that statement: "Rejoice not that your enemy has fallen, but that your names are written in heaven. Our joy becomes a double joy when we share it with others. That is a reason for pleasure. But what pleasure should there be in separation from an enemy. Should that predominate? I don't think so.
I think you also see this in Paul's advice in Ephesians where we are told to: "Be angry, and sin not". So how do we do that? We "do not let the sun go down on our anger". Instead, we go to be in peace rather than anger. So what is the benefit of that? We "do not give the devil an opportunity". See, if we cannot discuss definitions without negative emotions predominating, we are giving the devil a foothold. We are not helping one another.
I think it is good advice when people disagree on the meanings of words that we don't go to sleep with shame, grief, jealousy, fear, or anger. At some point we have to realize these are those emotions that while necessary, we should not get pleasure from them. This is what I think Luther realized, when he said that 'anger" was for God an alien thing. Sometimes God has to get angry, but we have to remember he does not enjoy it.
So I do think that to have a mentally healthy definition of blessed and holy, you have to consider not just the issues of logical versus illogical, but also the issues of emotional versus ill emotional. Was it right to consider in seminary a classic definition of holy as strange fire? I don't think it was. But behind it was an emotion of both fear for the students and anger for the teacher. At least, I think that his what my wise fellow classmate was trying to tell me.
Let's rise now to a healthy level. Let's rise to both healthy emotions and healthy logic. Then we can all take pleasure in mental health while we take not pleasure in mental illness. We also then too might get the definition of blessed and holy right as well as each definition's significance and meaning in that sense. Have a great night and remember healthy emotions before bed. Soak them up and sleep well. Ah, the devil will hate you for that. Pleasure only in the good? Take care.
In Christ,
Jon
You may have noticed lately that in the United States there is a mental health crisis. The mass shootings with a concluding suicide in our schools and elsewhere is only the tip of the iceberg. Insanity is much deeper in our society than meets the eye. I would conclude that 90% of the insanity is not even noticed except to the trained observer, who knows that what is happening above the surface and is obvious is only a small part of a bigger problem. I agree with those who say that health is the next big issue that faces us in the coming of age of our times. Mental health is only one part, but a significant part toward all types of health. Blessed and holy are words that actually have a lot to say about that bigger picture of health or being wbole, but it is being missed due to a poor job of defining both words. I do believe that this problem starts with poor mental health.
I think most of us would agree that a mentally healthy person is healthy both emotionally and logically. Likewise a mentally healthy person or sane person has more credibility than a mentally unhealthy or insane person who has little credibility. In fact, the significant feature we like in any person is that they are mentally credible. You can rely on what they say. The problem is that you cannot always rely on what is given as the definition of blessed and holy. I am not going to go into detail in this post, but let me state what I believe is the definition for blessed and then for holy that has the most credibility. Then I will give you some direction for finding that credibility. So the definition of blessed that I find is most credible is that of "I am who I am". It is a character trait of a person being who they are consistently. There is no variance. What people don't realize is that the popular definition of blessed of "blessings" is not the definition of blessed but its significance. If you are who you are, then will reap blessing as a consequence. "Blessed are the peacemakers" is because they are "peacemakers" and not war mongers. So how about the definition of holy that I find most credible. I find moral or ethical wholeness to be the best definition. What is missed is that meaning is not the same as definition. One of the meaning is that of significance and that is where "set apart" fits. But it is not the definition of the word, a different kind of meaning.
So where can you find evidence for what I am saying. Let me begin with this blog. In my past posts up until very recently, you will find a lot of arguments from biblical texts, etc. What they boil down to is that I am saying that the definition of "set apart" is illogical. It is not mentally healthy in that sense. It has as many holes as Swiss cheese. You will not find much on the emotional aspect that is also very important. I owe everyone an apology for that, because it is a key component of being mentally healthy and spotting mental illness.
Let me give you an example. I am going to leave out nay names to keep what I have to say anonymous, but what I am describing actually happened while I was a student in one of my three seminaries that I have attended. I wanted to present my argument for the definition of holy in all its grand glory in an Old Testament class. Fortunately for me, I had a very smart colleague in the class who warned me "not to put strange fire on the altar". Here's what he meant. I would not get a good grade and it would not be pretty in class if I were to present a definition for holy that was contrary to my professor's definition for holy. In other words, there would not be a great dialogue on this topic. He was exactly right. I did a much more tempered approach and got a reluctant OK from the professor. Emotionally, this is not a good sign. It should have been that I could present a well-reasoned argument that would get full consideration in a calm and peaceful atmosphere. I think my classmate was right to see that emotionally I was only going to get some level of anger for what I said.
This is not how it should be in seminary. I was not going to present a view that it anywhere near to some classical heresy. In fact, I would have been introducing a kind of classical orthodoxy from Luther to Spurgeon in the Protestant perspective, which is what this seminary belonged to at its core. So there was not an openness to a mentally healthy dialogue between competing views, but a sense of subtle suggestion that it would be treated like "strange fire on the altar".
From nearly the earliest part of my writing 10 years ago, I have known about the logical issues. But now I realize their are emotional issues as well that need to be faced and not ignored. We need healthy people who know the basics of mental health. They need to know the feelings of:
!) Acceptance versus shame
2) Joy versus grief
3) Emulation versus jealousy
4) Confidence versus fear
5) Peace versus anger
Now the second examples in each case are not in all cases to be avoided. We need those emotions too. But these are not ones we should take pleasure in. Remember that statement: "Rejoice not that your enemy has fallen, but that your names are written in heaven. Our joy becomes a double joy when we share it with others. That is a reason for pleasure. But what pleasure should there be in separation from an enemy. Should that predominate? I don't think so.
I think you also see this in Paul's advice in Ephesians where we are told to: "Be angry, and sin not". So how do we do that? We "do not let the sun go down on our anger". Instead, we go to be in peace rather than anger. So what is the benefit of that? We "do not give the devil an opportunity". See, if we cannot discuss definitions without negative emotions predominating, we are giving the devil a foothold. We are not helping one another.
I think it is good advice when people disagree on the meanings of words that we don't go to sleep with shame, grief, jealousy, fear, or anger. At some point we have to realize these are those emotions that while necessary, we should not get pleasure from them. This is what I think Luther realized, when he said that 'anger" was for God an alien thing. Sometimes God has to get angry, but we have to remember he does not enjoy it.
So I do think that to have a mentally healthy definition of blessed and holy, you have to consider not just the issues of logical versus illogical, but also the issues of emotional versus ill emotional. Was it right to consider in seminary a classic definition of holy as strange fire? I don't think it was. But behind it was an emotion of both fear for the students and anger for the teacher. At least, I think that his what my wise fellow classmate was trying to tell me.
Let's rise now to a healthy level. Let's rise to both healthy emotions and healthy logic. Then we can all take pleasure in mental health while we take not pleasure in mental illness. We also then too might get the definition of blessed and holy right as well as each definition's significance and meaning in that sense. Have a great night and remember healthy emotions before bed. Soak them up and sleep well. Ah, the devil will hate you for that. Pleasure only in the good? Take care.
In Christ,
Jon
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better through Luke 10:25-28 (Things - Part 5 of 5)
When it comes to the definition of holy it is important to understand the meaning of each option on a common sense level or slightly higher level at most. This has been largely overlooked in some of the quirky distinctions of definition on the part of some writers on the topic. The most comical in my mind is the distinction between whether one is separated from something or separated to something. I doubt very much that qadosh in Hebrew communicates such a subtle point. It shows the great lengths some will go to in trying to fix obvious problems with a definition. I find it much better to try to simplify definitions rather than complicate them.
For me, there are five fairly basic classes that words fall into. They are:
1) Amounts,
2) Relationships,
3) Wholes
4) Actions
5) Things
In following the idea of set apart, the distinction is usually that of relationships. Sometimes it is also seen as a separate thing from sin.
[Sorry the day has gotten late and it is time for me to conclude. I hope to be able to revisit this post next week based on a change in my writing schedule. My new goal is to now write on week for each of 5 days and then return the next week to tidy up any writing that was left incomplete.]
In Christ,
Jon
For me, there are five fairly basic classes that words fall into. They are:
1) Amounts,
2) Relationships,
3) Wholes
4) Actions
5) Things
In following the idea of set apart, the distinction is usually that of relationships. Sometimes it is also seen as a separate thing from sin.
[Sorry the day has gotten late and it is time for me to conclude. I hope to be able to revisit this post next week based on a change in my writing schedule. My new goal is to now write on week for each of 5 days and then return the next week to tidy up any writing that was left incomplete.]
In Christ,
Jon
Friday, April 25, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Luke 10:25-28 (Action - Part 4 of 5)
OPENING OF ACTION
I love this quote that I heard from a friend of mine yesterday: "Where there is a why, there is a how". It sounds a lot like "Where there is a will, there is a way", doesn't it? The first quote fits extremely well with the training that I hope to accomplish today from Luke 10:25-28. Today the goal is to be immensely practical. From the Greatest Commandment, which includes the 1st and the 2nd, everyone can learn a great deal about the why and the how of action.
Amount of action
At the core of training are two aspects, both the level of focus and the level of effort required, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) How many? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) How much? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) one by four, b) two by self
What does one by four mean in this answer? It means that there is "one" God and that there are four parts of ourselves, "heart", "soul", "strength" and "mind", that are supposed to love Yahweh God. There is one God for all four parts of ourselves, rather than one god for each one of the four parts or some other combinations of one and four.
What does "two by self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both are selves. There is yourself and myself, making two.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
2) a) with whole, b) as much as
What does "with whole" mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the whole of each of four parts. Notice the same level or quality for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal in quality though somewhat distinct in order.
So how does this all translate to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be focused on one God, even if we ourselves have four parts. Likewise the quality from each part needs to be equal. This is the clarity and the meaningfulness that we need today.
In our day, that appears that a lack of favoritism is a big problem as denominations tend to favor their one part over the others. From both my personal experience (which is worth more) and my reading (which is worth less), I have noted that seldom do denominations notice their favoritism for one part over another part due to their historically different questions. To mention just one example, Luther asked as his primary question, "How much?" is enough to satisfy an angry God. He responded with justification being primary. Calvin, while not against Luther on his question, asked a different primary question, "When" as in who precedes the other. He responded with humility being primary, since humanity follows after divinity. It would seem that the danger for each is favoring the heart in the first case and the soul in the second. The rule of action here is that they are to be equal without favoritism. With the loss of their understanding of holiness, it appears that favoritism has gotten worse not better.
Relationship of action
At the core of training are two other aspects, both the location and the timing required, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) Where? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) When? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to question of location? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) Israel, b) neighbor (lit. "near wiling")
What does Israel mean in this answer? What does it say about location. It means that those in the location of a nation are being addressed and not just the location of one household. This would also explain the expanded location to all nations being discussed in passages where there is mention of the "Jew first and also the Gentiles (Nations). This rule is not limited to inside some narrow place. There is one God for all Israel and by implication then all other nations rather than one god for each narrow household. This God who ought to reign over one nation and goes beyond just narrow locations should also be the God of all locations.
What does neighbor mean in my answer? It means that there are people near us by their willing to be there. They as free people chose to live in the house next door. They have chosen to pass down the path we are passing also. There are many ways that people come near to us versus pass far from us. But by rule, when the come near to us, they are now our neighbors. There are ourselves and them in the same close proximity.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question of time? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
2) a) Moses' century BC, b) 1st century AD
What does Moses' century B.C." mean in this answer? It means that this rule that is greatest also has an historic past. It isn't just here and now, though it is that. It is also from the past, into the present, and so into the future a rule. Notice that the timing for this rule does not change with time. It perseveres with time. If it still applied in first century long after Moses, it would still apply now. There is no preference for either the the past, the present, or the future. All three times mean it is an acceptable time to live by the neighbor rule. These times are treated as equal in quality though very distinct in order.
So how does this all transfer to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be aimed at the there and before, the here and now, and the elsewhere and after. We cannot place everything into one place and time. Likewise the quality from place and time needs to be equal no matter where and when the rule is applied. This is the transfer of time and place we need today in our rules where time and place doesn't make the rule obsolete.
In our day, it appears that the elsewhere and future is all that matters over the there and past or here and present for others. For others it is all about the there and past to the neglect of the other two. For others it is all about living for the here and now. Rarely do you hear of the value of all three places and times as equal in their own place and time. Rather we here that here and now we are better or then and there they were better or here and now is better. Rarely is each seen as an acceptable place and time for its place and time. We try to put everything into our time limits of choice rather than each thing its rightful place and time. People forget that placement and timing are of the essence and that preference for one over the others is likely its own prejudice. Don't try to tell anyone that placement and timing isn't a problem. They will think you are nuts.
Whole of action
At the core of training are two aspects, both the issue of identity and the core issue of the wholeness required, when a person is taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) Who? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) Whole? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
At the core of training are two aspects, both the level of focus and the level of effort required, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) How many? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) How much? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) one by four, b) two by self
What does one by four mean in this answer? It means that there is "one" God and that there are four parts of ourselves, "heart", "soul", "strength" and "mind", that are supposed to love Yahweh God. There is one God for all four parts of ourselves, rather than one god for each one of the four parts or some other combinations of one and four.
What does "two by self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both are selves. There is yourself and myself, making two.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
2) a) with whole, b) as much as
What does "with whole" mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the whole of each of four parts. Notice the same level or quality for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal in quality though somewhat distinct in order.
So how does this all translate to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be focused on one God, even if we ourselves have four parts. Likewise the quality from each part needs to be equal. This is the clarity and the meaningfulness that we need today.
In our day, that appears that a lack of favoritism is a big problem as denominations tend to favor their one part over the others. From both my personal experience (which is worth more) and my reading (which is worth less), I have noted that seldom do denominations notice their favoritism for one part over another part due to their historically different questions. To mention just one example, Luther asked as his primary question, "How much?" is enough to satisfy an angry God. He responded with justification being primary. Calvin, while not against Luther on his question, asked a different primary question, "When" as in who precedes the other. He responded with humility being primary, since humanity follows after divinity. It would seem that the danger for each is favoring the heart in the first case and the soul in the second. The rule of action here is that they are to be equal without favoritism. With the loss of their understanding of holiness, it appears that favoritism has gotten worse not better.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) Yahweh & Israel, and 2) another & self
What does "Yahweh and Israel" mean in this answer? Yahweh means that here is God with a personal rather than impersonal name. It also means that Israel (the name given to Jacob by God) that later became the name for a nation is being addressed by Yahweh. That is the "you" being referred to in this case. So the entire address is personal.
What does "another and self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both can be referred to as a self or selves. There is another self and myself that are critical in this case for answering who is being referred to. This commandment leaves no person out in the sense that all of us are not an island all by ourselves. There is nowhere for a person to hide from responsibility for others as well as themselves.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
2) a) of heart, of soul, of strength, of mind (of yourself), b) of you (your)
What does "of heart, etc." mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the the four parts of ourselves. Each is undeniably part of who we are. Notice the same level for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) It isn't a heart of a soul , soul of strength, etc. where one is the part of the other. No each one is an equal part of who we are as a person. There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal parts though in a somewhat distinct order.
So how does this all total up for us in determining the how and the why? Actions like love need to be personal and regard the entire person rather than just one part of who people are. No training and all teaching means our strength gets weak while the mind prospers. All training and no teaching means the mind goes mindless. Likewise the treatment of each part needs to be equal. This personal and healthy touch we need in our actions. Impersonal and only a part of the job will not do.
Also in our day, it appears that a lack of being personal is growing with more and more focus on technology and its strength as a tool over the other parts that make up who we are. There also seems to be a kind of smugness coming over those who like the increased intelligence of the computer, but are ill-equipped to better train the brain. We could use some brain training equal to technological training.
Action of action
At the core of training are two aspects, both how to do something and why to do something. Without the how confidence wanes, without a why motivation wanes. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) How? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) Why? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) love, b) love
What does "love" mean in this answer? It means that love matters, because it is something that we do. If it is something that we do, then we need training in loving. We know to potty train a child, but do we know how to love train them and adults? Sure, we ought to love Yahweh God, but how do we love? How do we practice love? It is ironic that I have trained many athletes to do a wide assortment of skills, but I have never explicitly taught people how to love. Since the Bible points out a lot of hatred in this world (the failure to do for others), I would think love training is not optional.
What does the next "love" mean in my answer? Again, I think there are skilled lovers and then there are unskilled lovers (who are very close to haters). I think I need to start offering love workshops the more I reflect on love as the answer for the how. It like faith and hope is an action, but a different kind and the greatest action we can perform. So let's learn how to love to drive out any hatred that shows in us, when we ought to do the loving thing. .
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
2) a) with the whole of , b) as much as
What does "with the whole of" mean in this answer? It means what the measure of our love toward God ought to be from the whole of each of four parts. Notice again the same level or quality for each one. How might love look different if it were done "with the whole" of each part of ourselves? So why love with such passion? Perhaps it is because He first loved us! Remember also that "He so loved ... that He gave his only begotten son. Again, why? Because so great a love deserves so great a response in return. He is your God, so love Him in a way somewhat equal to His love.
So how does this all train us in determining the how and the why? Actions of love need to be both skilled and motivated to a high degree. We need passion for our trade and passion toward a high degree. Likewise the quality of love on our part needs to be equal to love for ourselves. This is the loving measure that we need to communicate more effectively.
What does "as much as" mean in this answer? The typical translation reads "love your neighbor as yourself". I put in "as much as" in place of "as" to make the degree or measure more explicit and meaningful without changing the meaning. It makes me think more about the "why" behind my love when I realize that my neighbor is in that sense my equal and so deserves that kind of love.
So how is training in love going? In our day, it seems that love has become almost hatred, since it is one area that is seldom practiced to make the activity perfect, but rather is left in the arms of spontaneity or blind luck. I would argue we need to work on it like we work on a jump shot, like we work on a recipe, like we work in accounting, etc. Let's get to work, practice, and then love rather that hate.
Thing of action
At the core of training are two aspects, both the definition of what is love and which kind is it
, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) What? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) Which? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) You , God, b) you and neighbor
What does "you and God" mean in this answer? It means you as in lawyer, disciples, and the people. It means the God for all as identified by the Jews for generations.
What does "two by self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both are selves. There is yourself and myself, making two.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
2) a) , b) as much as
What does "with whole" mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the whole of each of four parts. Notice the same level or quality for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal in quality though somewhat distinct in order.
So how does this all translate to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be focused on one God, even if we ourselves have four parts. Likewise the quality from each part needs to be equal. This is the clarity and the meaningfulness that we need today.
In our day, ....
what? lawyer, teacher, God, disciples, the people
which? 1st greater commandment, 2nd lesser commandment, greatest summary altogether
teach
CLOSING OF ACTION
[just a bit more to go]
In Christ,
Jon
I love this quote that I heard from a friend of mine yesterday: "Where there is a why, there is a how". It sounds a lot like "Where there is a will, there is a way", doesn't it? The first quote fits extremely well with the training that I hope to accomplish today from Luke 10:25-28. Today the goal is to be immensely practical. From the Greatest Commandment, which includes the 1st and the 2nd, everyone can learn a great deal about the why and the how of action.
Amount of action
At the core of training are two aspects, both the level of focus and the level of effort required, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) How many? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) How much? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) one by four, b) two by self
What does one by four mean in this answer? It means that there is "one" God and that there are four parts of ourselves, "heart", "soul", "strength" and "mind", that are supposed to love Yahweh God. There is one God for all four parts of ourselves, rather than one god for each one of the four parts or some other combinations of one and four.
What does "two by self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both are selves. There is yourself and myself, making two.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
What does "with whole" mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the whole of each of four parts. Notice the same level or quality for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal in quality though somewhat distinct in order.
So how does this all translate to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be focused on one God, even if we ourselves have four parts. Likewise the quality from each part needs to be equal. This is the clarity and the meaningfulness that we need today.
In our day, that appears that a lack of favoritism is a big problem as denominations tend to favor their one part over the others. From both my personal experience (which is worth more) and my reading (which is worth less), I have noted that seldom do denominations notice their favoritism for one part over another part due to their historically different questions. To mention just one example, Luther asked as his primary question, "How much?" is enough to satisfy an angry God. He responded with justification being primary. Calvin, while not against Luther on his question, asked a different primary question, "When" as in who precedes the other. He responded with humility being primary, since humanity follows after divinity. It would seem that the danger for each is favoring the heart in the first case and the soul in the second. The rule of action here is that they are to be equal without favoritism. With the loss of their understanding of holiness, it appears that favoritism has gotten worse not better.
Relationship of action
At the core of training are two other aspects, both the location and the timing required, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) Where? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) When? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to question of location? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) Israel, b) neighbor (lit. "near wiling")
What does Israel mean in this answer? What does it say about location. It means that those in the location of a nation are being addressed and not just the location of one household. This would also explain the expanded location to all nations being discussed in passages where there is mention of the "Jew first and also the Gentiles (Nations). This rule is not limited to inside some narrow place. There is one God for all Israel and by implication then all other nations rather than one god for each narrow household. This God who ought to reign over one nation and goes beyond just narrow locations should also be the God of all locations.
What does neighbor mean in my answer? It means that there are people near us by their willing to be there. They as free people chose to live in the house next door. They have chosen to pass down the path we are passing also. There are many ways that people come near to us versus pass far from us. But by rule, when the come near to us, they are now our neighbors. There are ourselves and them in the same close proximity.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question of time? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
What does Moses' century B.C." mean in this answer? It means that this rule that is greatest also has an historic past. It isn't just here and now, though it is that. It is also from the past, into the present, and so into the future a rule. Notice that the timing for this rule does not change with time. It perseveres with time. If it still applied in first century long after Moses, it would still apply now. There is no preference for either the the past, the present, or the future. All three times mean it is an acceptable time to live by the neighbor rule. These times are treated as equal in quality though very distinct in order.
So how does this all transfer to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be aimed at the there and before, the here and now, and the elsewhere and after. We cannot place everything into one place and time. Likewise the quality from place and time needs to be equal no matter where and when the rule is applied. This is the transfer of time and place we need today in our rules where time and place doesn't make the rule obsolete.
In our day, it appears that the elsewhere and future is all that matters over the there and past or here and present for others. For others it is all about the there and past to the neglect of the other two. For others it is all about living for the here and now. Rarely do you hear of the value of all three places and times as equal in their own place and time. Rather we here that here and now we are better or then and there they were better or here and now is better. Rarely is each seen as an acceptable place and time for its place and time. We try to put everything into our time limits of choice rather than each thing its rightful place and time. People forget that placement and timing are of the essence and that preference for one over the others is likely its own prejudice. Don't try to tell anyone that placement and timing isn't a problem. They will think you are nuts.
At the core of training are two aspects, both the issue of identity and the core issue of the wholeness required, when a person is taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) Who? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) Whole? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
At the core of training are two aspects, both the level of focus and the level of effort required, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) How many? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) How much? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) one by four, b) two by self
What does one by four mean in this answer? It means that there is "one" God and that there are four parts of ourselves, "heart", "soul", "strength" and "mind", that are supposed to love Yahweh God. There is one God for all four parts of ourselves, rather than one god for each one of the four parts or some other combinations of one and four.
What does "two by self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both are selves. There is yourself and myself, making two.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
What does "with whole" mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the whole of each of four parts. Notice the same level or quality for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal in quality though somewhat distinct in order.
So how does this all translate to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be focused on one God, even if we ourselves have four parts. Likewise the quality from each part needs to be equal. This is the clarity and the meaningfulness that we need today.
In our day, that appears that a lack of favoritism is a big problem as denominations tend to favor their one part over the others. From both my personal experience (which is worth more) and my reading (which is worth less), I have noted that seldom do denominations notice their favoritism for one part over another part due to their historically different questions. To mention just one example, Luther asked as his primary question, "How much?" is enough to satisfy an angry God. He responded with justification being primary. Calvin, while not against Luther on his question, asked a different primary question, "When" as in who precedes the other. He responded with humility being primary, since humanity follows after divinity. It would seem that the danger for each is favoring the heart in the first case and the soul in the second. The rule of action here is that they are to be equal without favoritism. With the loss of their understanding of holiness, it appears that favoritism has gotten worse not better.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) Yahweh & Israel, and 2) another & self
What does "Yahweh and Israel" mean in this answer? Yahweh means that here is God with a personal rather than impersonal name. It also means that Israel (the name given to Jacob by God) that later became the name for a nation is being addressed by Yahweh. That is the "you" being referred to in this case. So the entire address is personal.
What does "another and self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both can be referred to as a self or selves. There is another self and myself that are critical in this case for answering who is being referred to. This commandment leaves no person out in the sense that all of us are not an island all by ourselves. There is nowhere for a person to hide from responsibility for others as well as themselves.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
What does "of heart, etc." mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the the four parts of ourselves. Each is undeniably part of who we are. Notice the same level for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) It isn't a heart of a soul , soul of strength, etc. where one is the part of the other. No each one is an equal part of who we are as a person. There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal parts though in a somewhat distinct order.
So how does this all total up for us in determining the how and the why? Actions like love need to be personal and regard the entire person rather than just one part of who people are. No training and all teaching means our strength gets weak while the mind prospers. All training and no teaching means the mind goes mindless. Likewise the treatment of each part needs to be equal. This personal and healthy touch we need in our actions. Impersonal and only a part of the job will not do.
Also in our day, it appears that a lack of being personal is growing with more and more focus on technology and its strength as a tool over the other parts that make up who we are. There also seems to be a kind of smugness coming over those who like the increased intelligence of the computer, but are ill-equipped to better train the brain. We could use some brain training equal to technological training.
Action of action
At the core of training are two aspects, both how to do something and why to do something. Without the how confidence wanes, without a why motivation wanes. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) How? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) Why? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) love, b) love
What does "love" mean in this answer? It means that love matters, because it is something that we do. If it is something that we do, then we need training in loving. We know to potty train a child, but do we know how to love train them and adults? Sure, we ought to love Yahweh God, but how do we love? How do we practice love? It is ironic that I have trained many athletes to do a wide assortment of skills, but I have never explicitly taught people how to love. Since the Bible points out a lot of hatred in this world (the failure to do for others), I would think love training is not optional.
What does the next "love" mean in my answer? Again, I think there are skilled lovers and then there are unskilled lovers (who are very close to haters). I think I need to start offering love workshops the more I reflect on love as the answer for the how. It like faith and hope is an action, but a different kind and the greatest action we can perform. So let's learn how to love to drive out any hatred that shows in us, when we ought to do the loving thing. .
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
What does "with the whole of" mean in this answer? It means what the measure of our love toward God ought to be from the whole of each of four parts. Notice again the same level or quality for each one. How might love look different if it were done "with the whole" of each part of ourselves? So why love with such passion? Perhaps it is because He first loved us! Remember also that "He so loved ... that He gave his only begotten son. Again, why? Because so great a love deserves so great a response in return. He is your God, so love Him in a way somewhat equal to His love.
So how does this all train us in determining the how and the why? Actions of love need to be both skilled and motivated to a high degree. We need passion for our trade and passion toward a high degree. Likewise the quality of love on our part needs to be equal to love for ourselves. This is the loving measure that we need to communicate more effectively.
What does "as much as" mean in this answer? The typical translation reads "love your neighbor as yourself". I put in "as much as" in place of "as" to make the degree or measure more explicit and meaningful without changing the meaning. It makes me think more about the "why" behind my love when I realize that my neighbor is in that sense my equal and so deserves that kind of love.
So how is training in love going? In our day, it seems that love has become almost hatred, since it is one area that is seldom practiced to make the activity perfect, but rather is left in the arms of spontaneity or blind luck. I would argue we need to work on it like we work on a jump shot, like we work on a recipe, like we work in accounting, etc. Let's get to work, practice, and then love rather that hate.
Thing of action
At the core of training are two aspects, both the definition of what is love and which kind is it
, when taking action. In this case, it is important to answer two basic questions:
1) What? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
2) Which? for a) 1st commandment, and for b) 2nd commandment
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the first question? I found these things to be very good answer to very good question:
1) a) You , God, b) you and neighbor
What does "you and God" mean in this answer? It means you as in lawyer, disciples, and the people. It means the God for all as identified by the Jews for generations.
What does "two by self" mean in my answer? It means that there are two people who both are selves. There is yourself and myself, making two.
So what things in our text indicate the answer to the second question? I found these things to be a very good answer to a very good question:
What does "with whole" mean in this answer? It means that we are to love God with the whole of each of four parts. Notice the same level or quality for each one. (I curiously had never thought of this quite this way until today.) There is no preference for either the heart, the soul, the strength, or the mind. They are treated as equal in quality though somewhat distinct in order.
So how does this all translate to us in determining the how and the why? Action like love needs to be focused on one God, even if we ourselves have four parts. Likewise the quality from each part needs to be equal. This is the clarity and the meaningfulness that we need today.
In our day, ....
what? lawyer, teacher, God, disciples, the people
which? 1st greater commandment, 2nd lesser commandment, greatest summary altogether
teach
CLOSING OF ACTION
[just a bit more to go]
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Luke 10:25-28 (Relationship - Part 2 of 5)
RELATIONSHIP
There is no more important time to define holy correctly than RIGHT NOW. And the best people to have on your team to reach the correct definition are those who possess both common sense and a specialized sense. It is also good to have on your side commonly known passages like Luke 10:25-28 to make sure your point of view is well-supported. (More on this part later this week.) When it comes to understanding the definition of holy in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, surprisingly the biggest problem is not that people do not know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I still wish more did! The bigger problem is that the specialists who know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek lack too often common sense in their own language.
When people lack common sense, they are undependable. That can leave us running scared. That is a very big problem. It can result in what are called "random catastrophic failures" by yourself and those who are around you. You need brains that don't have this problem. You need a brain that has common sense. It is like a computer with a dependable microprocessor. We have got computer integrated circuits that have overcome this issue, but do we have the brains too? These kinds of errors need to be taken care of and fast as learned in the computer industry years ago. Again, brains with those kinds of mistakes can leave people running scared.
Let me give you a concrete example. I once was coaching on a sideline, when the head coach sent into the quarterback a signal from the sidelines for the next play. The quarterback took the signal to mean that we wanted to do a quick kick. That wasn't nearly so bad until the rest of the team lined up with him and did just that. It made absolutely no sense whatsoever. We had time outs to use. It ended up costing us the game. We were driving at the time for a potential score. The quarterback had a great sense of his mechanics as a quarterback, which is a specialized knowledge that other players don't possess, but he also lacked common sense. That made him at a critical point in the game undependable. It was really costly. But that was only a game. In the case of holy, its wrong definition is much more costly. It can cost us our lives.
So how can "random catastrophic failures" be avoided? I think I know how. First, there has to be no opposition to continuing to grow in our specialized knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. That has to be a GIVEN right now. What is not a GIVEN is that those with this specialized knowledge are dependable.
The problem of their lack of dependability seems to keep growing. They keep pointing out what is not dependable (ex. James Barr), but they do a weak job of replacing what is not dependable with something that is dependable. I'm afraid that a major part of this problem goes back to the place where our schools that were designed to give us sense failed to do so.
Don't get me wrong, I am strongly in favor of schools. I believe in "sense and schools" as much as I believe in "rules and freedom". They are inseparable. But the point of schools is to provide sense and eliminate nonsense. Nonsense is what I believe is resulting in "random catastrophic failure". Something is wrong. Elimination of what is wrong is not happening frequently enough. We have got a problem right NOW.
What I would like to do is have everyone take a deep breath (in football we call this a "time out") and take some time to find out to text if they possess common sense. That goes for everyone who wants to know the meaning of holy or blessed or any biblical words for that matter. The problem is that there has not been a good test for common sense. (While there are a lot of tests for whether you know Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek).
Reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense won't do it. That is somewhat of a dead end. Common sense is something that you can't study for once you are asked, because then you are admitting you don't HAVE it. Relationally, you either HAVE or you DON'T' HAVE it, when you are asked the question. So here is the big test. By the way, I would have struggled to come up with the answer not that long ago myself. So don't feel bad, rather get yourself tested. That is the first step to getting it, if we don't have it already.
I want you to answer a simple essay question without any studying. I want to find out whether you have it right NOW (not later). I want everyone who is going to read my definition of holy or give me their definition of holy to at least possess common sense BEFORE they or I speak on the topic. (I have already given my definition in earlier posts, if you trust my common sense.)
To do this testing of common sense, I am offering a series of tests. It will have three parts over the remaining days of this week (the week starting Sunday, April 20, 2014). Remember to really prove you have common sense right now you have to avoid cheating. This is all based on a honesty system. I can't check all the cheaters at the door, but you can check yourself. By the way, God is checking you at the door (according to my mother).
I want you to post your answers in the comment sections below. You can write out the answer in as little as 5 to 10 words in a list or you can expand on it. The question is whether you are among the HAVES or the HAVE NOTS in the place and time you are RIGHT NOW. There is no better timing.
I will not be posting answers, until there is enough interacting with the question (100 + people), but I will let you know if you get 100 % as soon as I can without giving the answer away to everyone else. (I will be open to common sense suggestions on how to do this process better. I also have never done this process quiet like this before. You know what that means. )
So here is the question: "Tell me in as short of a manner as you can, the common sense words in your language?" Please time yourself and give yourself a full 15 minute time period, if needed. I hope you do well! Thank you for taking part.
Don't worry, I'll giving the definition of holy to all who possess common sense without "random catastrophic failures! Again, thank you for taking an active part.
Sincerely,
Jon
There is no more important time to define holy correctly than RIGHT NOW. And the best people to have on your team to reach the correct definition are those who possess both common sense and a specialized sense. It is also good to have on your side commonly known passages like Luke 10:25-28 to make sure your point of view is well-supported. (More on this part later this week.) When it comes to understanding the definition of holy in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, surprisingly the biggest problem is not that people do not know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I still wish more did! The bigger problem is that the specialists who know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek lack too often common sense in their own language.
When people lack common sense, they are undependable. That can leave us running scared. That is a very big problem. It can result in what are called "random catastrophic failures" by yourself and those who are around you. You need brains that don't have this problem. You need a brain that has common sense. It is like a computer with a dependable microprocessor. We have got computer integrated circuits that have overcome this issue, but do we have the brains too? These kinds of errors need to be taken care of and fast as learned in the computer industry years ago. Again, brains with those kinds of mistakes can leave people running scared.
Let me give you a concrete example. I once was coaching on a sideline, when the head coach sent into the quarterback a signal from the sidelines for the next play. The quarterback took the signal to mean that we wanted to do a quick kick. That wasn't nearly so bad until the rest of the team lined up with him and did just that. It made absolutely no sense whatsoever. We had time outs to use. It ended up costing us the game. We were driving at the time for a potential score. The quarterback had a great sense of his mechanics as a quarterback, which is a specialized knowledge that other players don't possess, but he also lacked common sense. That made him at a critical point in the game undependable. It was really costly. But that was only a game. In the case of holy, its wrong definition is much more costly. It can cost us our lives.
So how can "random catastrophic failures" be avoided? I think I know how. First, there has to be no opposition to continuing to grow in our specialized knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. That has to be a GIVEN right now. What is not a GIVEN is that those with this specialized knowledge are dependable.
The problem of their lack of dependability seems to keep growing. They keep pointing out what is not dependable (ex. James Barr), but they do a weak job of replacing what is not dependable with something that is dependable. I'm afraid that a major part of this problem goes back to the place where our schools that were designed to give us sense failed to do so.
Don't get me wrong, I am strongly in favor of schools. I believe in "sense and schools" as much as I believe in "rules and freedom". They are inseparable. But the point of schools is to provide sense and eliminate nonsense. Nonsense is what I believe is resulting in "random catastrophic failure". Something is wrong. Elimination of what is wrong is not happening frequently enough. We have got a problem right NOW.
What I would like to do is have everyone take a deep breath (in football we call this a "time out") and take some time to find out to text if they possess common sense. That goes for everyone who wants to know the meaning of holy or blessed or any biblical words for that matter. The problem is that there has not been a good test for common sense. (While there are a lot of tests for whether you know Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek).
Reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense won't do it. That is somewhat of a dead end. Common sense is something that you can't study for once you are asked, because then you are admitting you don't HAVE it. Relationally, you either HAVE or you DON'T' HAVE it, when you are asked the question. So here is the big test. By the way, I would have struggled to come up with the answer not that long ago myself. So don't feel bad, rather get yourself tested. That is the first step to getting it, if we don't have it already.
I want you to answer a simple essay question without any studying. I want to find out whether you have it right NOW (not later). I want everyone who is going to read my definition of holy or give me their definition of holy to at least possess common sense BEFORE they or I speak on the topic. (I have already given my definition in earlier posts, if you trust my common sense.)
To do this testing of common sense, I am offering a series of tests. It will have three parts over the remaining days of this week (the week starting Sunday, April 20, 2014). Remember to really prove you have common sense right now you have to avoid cheating. This is all based on a honesty system. I can't check all the cheaters at the door, but you can check yourself. By the way, God is checking you at the door (according to my mother).
I want you to post your answers in the comment sections below. You can write out the answer in as little as 5 to 10 words in a list or you can expand on it. The question is whether you are among the HAVES or the HAVE NOTS in the place and time you are RIGHT NOW. There is no better timing.
I will not be posting answers, until there is enough interacting with the question (100 + people), but I will let you know if you get 100 % as soon as I can without giving the answer away to everyone else. (I will be open to common sense suggestions on how to do this process better. I also have never done this process quiet like this before. You know what that means. )
So here is the question: "Tell me in as short of a manner as you can, the common sense words in your language?" Please time yourself and give yourself a full 15 minute time period, if needed. I hope you do well! Thank you for taking part.
Don't worry, I'll giving the definition of holy to all who possess common sense without "random catastrophic failures! Again, thank you for taking an active part.
Sincerely,
Jon
Monday, April 14, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through (Translation - Part 1 of 5)
PREFACE
I know that people largely come to this site to find a definition of holy (blessed and holy are inseparable, if you want a good definition for either). So I do not want to let you or them down. First, my usual pattern will be dealing with a text of Scripture through a 5 step process or 5 day process from Monday through Saturday (skipping one day). I want the argument for the meaning of holy to be biblical above all else. I will occasionally also drop into this sequence shorter pieces. Second, in each blog post, I am going to start indicating levels of difficulty for understanding. I am going to answer in advance the question, "Is this written on a level that I can understand (and appreciate!)?" This way a reader can either decide to read the sections all the way up to their highest level or skip over levels to get to their own higher levels.
Indicating the steps of 1) translation, 2) transfer, 3) total, 4) train, and 5) teach over 5 days is one thing. That is not that difficult and I have explained these previously. But in order to label difficulty level, it is important to understand how those levels will be indicated and what is my basis for those levels. I am going to use two sources for this. One is the biblical basis of Exodus 18. This will provide the labels for each level and the biblical foundation for my viewpoint. The other source is mainly for application to today. It is the traditional bell curve for intelligence (IQ) rankings that will help me make Jethro's advice to Moses in Exodus 18 more specific to our understanding today. (I will mention that I will not go into the different kinds of intelligence, because that is another bunny trail.)
DEFINITION OF HOLY
Some readers simply want a quick definition, so before going into the difficulty levels, let me provide a short definition of holy as I have found in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. It's meaning (3 kinds) is:
1) by definition, moral wholeness (the parts are - just, humble, perfect, and great)
2) by implication, pure (because it is what it is and nothing else beyond what it is)
3) by significance, set apart (because there are many moral codes that are not morally whole, but only rise to the level of part of the Jewish and Christian moral code - justice only as one example).
In most cases that you look up the definition of holy, you will be given only one of these three as a definition of holy. I present instead the idea that meaning can actually bring all three of the greatest supposed definitions offered for biblical holiness into complete harmony. They do not have to be fully exclusive. Once the definition of holy as moral wholeness falls into place, the other two fall into their place without combating the first. That is all I can say quickly. I say this at much greater length in other posts.
DIFFICULTY LEVELS
My goal is to break things out as to difficulty level, so I think it is important to talk about intelligence levels and leadership levels. This is because many people both under-sell or over-sell themselves on the learning levels or on their leadership levels.
First, I point out something that used to caused me to stumble when it came to learning and leading. I used to think they were rather exclusive of one another. Now I realize that learning enhances leading and that it is one of four key components that results in: 1) bigger, 2) faster, 3) stronger, and 4) smarter leaders and organizations.
[insert leader learner photo here]
Exodus 18
rulers of 1s (priesthood of all believers easy cases only)
rulers of 10s
rulers of 50s
rulers of 100s
rulers of 1000s
rulers of 10,000s (Moses's role of difficult cases only)
leaders based on difficulty of law and statute levels - their intelligence level (among others traits they should possess as leaders
5 levels of leadership - Moses plus 4 levels of leaders (plus Luther's self-leadership)
general intelligence
general language studies
specialized intelligence
Hebrew language studies
I imagine at this point something like this:
Level 1) The Common Sense Level (like the Golden Rule)
"The Filter for Everything"
Level 2) The Greater Majority Level (like the Greatest Commandment)
"The Filter for Most Things"
Level 3) The Smaller Majority Level (like the Ten Commandments)
"The Filter for Some Things"
Level 4) The Specialized Level (all the other specific commandments)
"The Filter for Very Few Things"
[ save the following material for another post]
We live in a time when the loopholes that people find to make excuses seems to be expanding. There is a great way to minimize those objections: a return to the basics. Vince Lombardi, on one such occasion, had this to say the following week to his championship team; who had just lost to the college all-stars team: "Gentlemen, this is a football". To which Max McGee (always the joker) replied: "Slow down coach, you're going too fast". The problem right now is that schooling or education is going too fast. It is pursuing the far fringes of what we know and is by-passing the obvious. Common sense gets the short end of the stick. Specialized sense gets the long end of the stick.
[You can obviously see this post is still under construction. So are some of my others. Things are happening behind the scenes that will eventually make it possible for me to complete posts more regularly. Momentum is building, so please be patient. Thank you.]
In Christ,
Jon
I know that people largely come to this site to find a definition of holy (blessed and holy are inseparable, if you want a good definition for either). So I do not want to let you or them down. First, my usual pattern will be dealing with a text of Scripture through a 5 step process or 5 day process from Monday through Saturday (skipping one day). I want the argument for the meaning of holy to be biblical above all else. I will occasionally also drop into this sequence shorter pieces. Second, in each blog post, I am going to start indicating levels of difficulty for understanding. I am going to answer in advance the question, "Is this written on a level that I can understand (and appreciate!)?" This way a reader can either decide to read the sections all the way up to their highest level or skip over levels to get to their own higher levels.
Indicating the steps of 1) translation, 2) transfer, 3) total, 4) train, and 5) teach over 5 days is one thing. That is not that difficult and I have explained these previously. But in order to label difficulty level, it is important to understand how those levels will be indicated and what is my basis for those levels. I am going to use two sources for this. One is the biblical basis of Exodus 18. This will provide the labels for each level and the biblical foundation for my viewpoint. The other source is mainly for application to today. It is the traditional bell curve for intelligence (IQ) rankings that will help me make Jethro's advice to Moses in Exodus 18 more specific to our understanding today. (I will mention that I will not go into the different kinds of intelligence, because that is another bunny trail.)
DEFINITION OF HOLY
Some readers simply want a quick definition, so before going into the difficulty levels, let me provide a short definition of holy as I have found in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. It's meaning (3 kinds) is:
1) by definition, moral wholeness (the parts are - just, humble, perfect, and great)
2) by implication, pure (because it is what it is and nothing else beyond what it is)
3) by significance, set apart (because there are many moral codes that are not morally whole, but only rise to the level of part of the Jewish and Christian moral code - justice only as one example).
In most cases that you look up the definition of holy, you will be given only one of these three as a definition of holy. I present instead the idea that meaning can actually bring all three of the greatest supposed definitions offered for biblical holiness into complete harmony. They do not have to be fully exclusive. Once the definition of holy as moral wholeness falls into place, the other two fall into their place without combating the first. That is all I can say quickly. I say this at much greater length in other posts.
DIFFICULTY LEVELS
My goal is to break things out as to difficulty level, so I think it is important to talk about intelligence levels and leadership levels. This is because many people both under-sell or over-sell themselves on the learning levels or on their leadership levels.
First, I point out something that used to caused me to stumble when it came to learning and leading. I used to think they were rather exclusive of one another. Now I realize that learning enhances leading and that it is one of four key components that results in: 1) bigger, 2) faster, 3) stronger, and 4) smarter leaders and organizations.
[insert leader learner photo here]
Exodus 18
rulers of 1s (priesthood of all believers easy cases only)
rulers of 10s
rulers of 50s
rulers of 100s
rulers of 1000s
rulers of 10,000s (Moses's role of difficult cases only)
leaders based on difficulty of law and statute levels - their intelligence level (among others traits they should possess as leaders
5 levels of leadership - Moses plus 4 levels of leaders (plus Luther's self-leadership)
general intelligence
general language studies
specialized intelligence
Hebrew language studies
I imagine at this point something like this:
Level 1) The Common Sense Level (like the Golden Rule)
"The Filter for Everything"
Level 2) The Greater Majority Level (like the Greatest Commandment)
"The Filter for Most Things"
Level 3) The Smaller Majority Level (like the Ten Commandments)
"The Filter for Some Things"
Level 4) The Specialized Level (all the other specific commandments)
"The Filter for Very Few Things"
[ save the following material for another post]
We live in a time when the loopholes that people find to make excuses seems to be expanding. There is a great way to minimize those objections: a return to the basics. Vince Lombardi, on one such occasion, had this to say the following week to his championship team; who had just lost to the college all-stars team: "Gentlemen, this is a football". To which Max McGee (always the joker) replied: "Slow down coach, you're going too fast". The problem right now is that schooling or education is going too fast. It is pursuing the far fringes of what we know and is by-passing the obvious. Common sense gets the short end of the stick. Specialized sense gets the long end of the stick.
[You can obviously see this post is still under construction. So are some of my others. Things are happening behind the scenes that will eventually make it possible for me to complete posts more regularly. Momentum is building, so please be patient. Thank you.]
In Christ,
Jon
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better (Teach Things- Part 5 of 5)
PREFACE
One of the major requirements for this blog for dealing with the definition of holy is to make sure it sheds light rather than blocks light. When something blocks light, then it quite obviously stands in the way of light. That is a great way to discern the value of anything a person reads on the definition of holy. We always need to ask, "Did this source shed light on what I am trying to find or did they shed darkness on what I am trying to find?" In the end: "Did I find what I was looking for?" or are we like U2 saying: "Still haven't found what I'm looking for".
A major drive in people is to find what is lost, until it is found. You likely arrived as this sight as a result of a search engine looking for the definition or meaning of holy.
A coin has value while it is in our pocket, but when it is lost, its value grows just like an item's value increases from scarcity. A lot of times over the years, to find something, I just needed to turn on the lights or grab a flashlight. The light functioned like a search engine. It showed me what I was looking for. Make sure that what you read on the definition of holy sheds light!
The purpose of my blog is to shed light on the meaning of holy. I bring things out into the light that have been blocked from people's view. It is not that the definition of holy was not previously well-known. It is that its meaning got lost somewhere along the way, resulting in many differing definitions.
For me, one of the primary things that was blocked from my view, when I read my Bible before the last 10 years, was the definition of the biblical word that we translate as "holy" as "moral wholeness". When I first saw "wholly" listed as a definition for the Hebrew word qadosh alongside "holy" as a translation in a Bible dictionary, then I knew that I had not seen or heard of that definition ever before. None of my teachers, who had often helped me perceive things anew, had brought this to light for me before this time (that I could recall). I was at the time searching to find a word in the Bible that united a set of different kinds of major moral values like love and truth together.
An important tool for teaching is what I call the 5 C's Cascade. It is a great tool for classroom enlightenment or persuasion. The fundamental rule of it is that you must complete the full cascade for persuasion to really happen.
The cascade looks like a series of water falls. You could also use the analogy of a set of 5 dominos that if one falls the others must fall with it. The analogies are manifold. Let's stick to the water falls in this case, since cascade language fits best with that analogy.
Here are the 5 steps of teaching for persuasion or shedding light at the barest bone level:
1) challenge
2) connection
3) celebration
4) chance
5) choice
You could also word them this way with a bit more explanation:
1) challenge (to see)
2) connection (to see)
3) celebration (to see)
4) chance (to see)
5) choice (to see)
or you could amplify it even more this way:
1) challenge (to see an amount)
2) connection (to see a relationship)
3) celebrate (to see whole)
4) chance (to see action)
5) choice (to see a thing)
I have become convinced from my time as a teacher and as a coach or my other time as a teacher and a pastor that the problem with most teaching is that it does not challenge. It just floats along with the tide of darkness rather than reaching for the lights. Good teaching is supposed to enlighten or bring to light things otherwise previously not seen. School is supposed to function as a corrective to nonsense and darkness. But does it do so, when it settles for darkness? How is it that we don't challenge the darkness instead?
If there is no light in the classroom, then how can we say that there is a teacher in the room? One of the great things about Jesus was that he was a teacher (otherwise known as a rabbi). He challenged the status quo, if you haven't noticed. He also shed light while other teachers loved the darkness instead. His teaching skills might have been one of his biggest reasons for his opposition to oppose him.
Challenge
My greatest teachers all challenged me to see things that I previously wasn't seeing. I can remember many examples, but let me mention one that I remember extremely well when it comes to challenging me.
James Johnson, a professor of mine at Bethel College (now University) in St. Paul, MN called me in to explain what I needed to do with a paper that I had written. I had written a paper for his history class on the First Great Awakening that I thought was going to get a good grade. I didn't get even a good grade, but also instead of stopping there he challenged me to re-write the paper to see the history of not just Jonathan Edwards and his camp, but also see that of others in opposition to him. I realized then that I was to bring both sides to light, not just one side to light and to accurately represent history through a vivid comparison of both sides in full view. Only then was my paper shedding light on history rather than a mixture of darkness and light according to my own choosing. I needed to shed light and give people a legitimate choice of options. I learned a great deal that opened my eyes to see things that I had not previously seen.
Photo of Bethel History Faculty in '80s
James Johnson (far left)
Connection
But it was not just Dr. James Johnson's challenge to see a greater amount than just one side, it was also Dr. John S. Piper's and Tom Stellar's (Dr. Piper's right hand man, if any) teaching me to see connections. Dr. Piper introduced me to a method of arcing that his teacher, Dr. Daniel P. Fuller, had taught him at Fuller Theological Seminary. This method opened my eyes so many times to see things that I had not seen before that I decided later to study myself under Fuller. I still like to call Dr. Fuller every so often and thank him, when I see a new relationship in the text that I never saw before through my revised arcing method.
Dr. John S. Piper in 1979
Dr. Daniel Payton Fuller
Celebration
But it was not just Piper and Fuller, who were teachers who opened my eyes. While I had gone to Fuller to learn about church planting in the School of World Mission (now the School of Intercultural Studies) and exegesis (the scholarly name for reading the Bible itself) under Dr. Fuller, I also discovered two unexpected sightings while I was there. I saw a leadership program that tied into my training under Tentmaker's, Inc. and my own self-study of Dr. Peter F. Drucker (then at Claremont Graduate School) that would challenge me as a leader more than I would be challenged as a student of church planting. So I changed my concentration from church planting to leadership. I also found an opportunity to learn more about translation and language studies as a whole and to take my learning to a higher level than I had achieved at Bethel College (now University) under Dr. William A. Smalley, Dr. Don N. Larson, and Lois Malcolm (now a professor at Luther Northwestern in St. Paul, MN). I found Dr. Betty Sue Brewster,. Dr. P. Daniel Shaw and Catherine Rountree, who all helped me see the bigger picture of language and communication at its broadest level. It was then that I began to see and know that it was only a matter of time before a reason for celebration could happen. I just had to remind myself not to count all my chicks till all my chicks were hatched. That is the time to celebrate, but in the middle of progressing, it is good to be reminded to wait. This sense of celebration mainly came from learning the TEAR method of language study that helped me see best the larger picture of language and communication. To the best of my ability, it appears that the TEAR view of language came primarily from Eugene A. Nida.
Eugene Albert Nida
Chance
But there is something more about the TEAR view of language than meets the eye. It is also that it shows that there is a chance to make a difference in the area of method or technology. Dr. P. Daniel Shaw was my first teacher that taught me how to use the TEAR approach to language. I was finally made able to use it effectively when I read a Bible text or anything else for that matter. So what Dr. Shaw gave me that the others previously had not was to see the chance of getting things accomplished that previously had seemed impossible. I remember very well that once I grasped the action words in a passage that suddenly I also saw better the relationships in a passage and it solved a problem in Piper's and Fuller's method that they had not solved for me. I will always have to acknowledge Dr. Shaw for first letting me see in ready the Bible new chances and new possibilities.
Choices
So what teachers taught me to see other choices? Who opened my eyes to be smarter? Often the difference between a smart person and a person who is not as smart is knowing that the choices are more diversified than the less intelligent person realizes. Who most opened my eyes to this?
Ironically, John S. Piper needs a lot of credit here though he would not be on the same page as my philosophy professors and anthropology professors on a number of topics. His list of choices would be shorter than theirs. He is the one who told me to study philosophy. Another theologian here who deserves some credit before I talk more about philosophers and anthropologists is Dr. Robert H. Stein. He taught me how to find new choices among the German scholars that others ranked as of no value. In the end, one of his ideas in A Basic Guide to Reading the Bible, may end up to have given me a choice in understanding the words of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew that no one else even suggests. So he cannot be underrated, that is for sure.
There is a long list of those who taught me to see choices that others never have gotten the option to even see, let alone have the option to make those choices. I've got to acknowledge my philosophy professors from college, who helped me see when theologians made a choice based on a philosophical school rather than a biblical text. That opened up things to see other choices. Their names include Dr. Don Postema, Dr. Melville Stewart, Dr. Stanley Anderson, Dr. Paul Reasoner, and Dr. Niel Nielson. In anthropology, both Dr. Thomas Correll and Dr. Sperry (sp?). Alongside of them I was also introduced to Dr. Michael Rynewich (from Macalester) and Dr. David Rausch from the history department. All of them opened my eyes to seeing the many choices that others did not see.
This largely culminated in three major papers I wrote while at Fuller Theological Seminary. One was a paper where I summarized all the possible views on baptism looking at all the choices from a broad cultural view. Then I did later another paper that involved a ton of research where I suggested other choices for interpreting Paul's comments on singleness. I tried to turn over every rock of choices and then tried to discern which were good choices and which were not. But my advantage was that I had a lot of choices before deciding. This also led me to the Center for the Study of Biblical Research in Pasadena, CA where I learned more about Jewish culture or philosophy.
The big benefit from all of these choices is having more choices from which to choose, because I can see them while before I could not.
In all of this discussion, I have left out other names that also could be mentioned. I hope I have another time to give them their due. Already, my mind is beginning to catalog those who I have missed. The trade off in not mentioning them here is that my writing does not grow even longer. That is a good choice. Thank you.
[I will re-visit this and other writing as possible. thank you for your patience.]
In Christ,
Jon
One of the major requirements for this blog for dealing with the definition of holy is to make sure it sheds light rather than blocks light. When something blocks light, then it quite obviously stands in the way of light. That is a great way to discern the value of anything a person reads on the definition of holy. We always need to ask, "Did this source shed light on what I am trying to find or did they shed darkness on what I am trying to find?" In the end: "Did I find what I was looking for?" or are we like U2 saying: "Still haven't found what I'm looking for".
A major drive in people is to find what is lost, until it is found. You likely arrived as this sight as a result of a search engine looking for the definition or meaning of holy.
A coin has value while it is in our pocket, but when it is lost, its value grows just like an item's value increases from scarcity. A lot of times over the years, to find something, I just needed to turn on the lights or grab a flashlight. The light functioned like a search engine. It showed me what I was looking for. Make sure that what you read on the definition of holy sheds light!
The purpose of my blog is to shed light on the meaning of holy. I bring things out into the light that have been blocked from people's view. It is not that the definition of holy was not previously well-known. It is that its meaning got lost somewhere along the way, resulting in many differing definitions.
For me, one of the primary things that was blocked from my view, when I read my Bible before the last 10 years, was the definition of the biblical word that we translate as "holy" as "moral wholeness". When I first saw "wholly" listed as a definition for the Hebrew word qadosh alongside "holy" as a translation in a Bible dictionary, then I knew that I had not seen or heard of that definition ever before. None of my teachers, who had often helped me perceive things anew, had brought this to light for me before this time (that I could recall). I was at the time searching to find a word in the Bible that united a set of different kinds of major moral values like love and truth together.
An important tool for teaching is what I call the 5 C's Cascade. It is a great tool for classroom enlightenment or persuasion. The fundamental rule of it is that you must complete the full cascade for persuasion to really happen.
The cascade looks like a series of water falls. You could also use the analogy of a set of 5 dominos that if one falls the others must fall with it. The analogies are manifold. Let's stick to the water falls in this case, since cascade language fits best with that analogy.
Here are the 5 steps of teaching for persuasion or shedding light at the barest bone level:
1) challenge
2) connection
3) celebration
4) chance
5) choice
You could also word them this way with a bit more explanation:
1) challenge (to see)
2) connection (to see)
3) celebration (to see)
4) chance (to see)
5) choice (to see)
or you could amplify it even more this way:
1) challenge (to see an amount)
2) connection (to see a relationship)
3) celebrate (to see whole)
4) chance (to see action)
5) choice (to see a thing)
I have become convinced from my time as a teacher and as a coach or my other time as a teacher and a pastor that the problem with most teaching is that it does not challenge. It just floats along with the tide of darkness rather than reaching for the lights. Good teaching is supposed to enlighten or bring to light things otherwise previously not seen. School is supposed to function as a corrective to nonsense and darkness. But does it do so, when it settles for darkness? How is it that we don't challenge the darkness instead?
If there is no light in the classroom, then how can we say that there is a teacher in the room? One of the great things about Jesus was that he was a teacher (otherwise known as a rabbi). He challenged the status quo, if you haven't noticed. He also shed light while other teachers loved the darkness instead. His teaching skills might have been one of his biggest reasons for his opposition to oppose him.
Challenge
My greatest teachers all challenged me to see things that I previously wasn't seeing. I can remember many examples, but let me mention one that I remember extremely well when it comes to challenging me.
James Johnson, a professor of mine at Bethel College (now University) in St. Paul, MN called me in to explain what I needed to do with a paper that I had written. I had written a paper for his history class on the First Great Awakening that I thought was going to get a good grade. I didn't get even a good grade, but also instead of stopping there he challenged me to re-write the paper to see the history of not just Jonathan Edwards and his camp, but also see that of others in opposition to him. I realized then that I was to bring both sides to light, not just one side to light and to accurately represent history through a vivid comparison of both sides in full view. Only then was my paper shedding light on history rather than a mixture of darkness and light according to my own choosing. I needed to shed light and give people a legitimate choice of options. I learned a great deal that opened my eyes to see things that I had not previously seen.
Photo of Bethel History Faculty in '80s
James Johnson (far left)
Connection
But it was not just Dr. James Johnson's challenge to see a greater amount than just one side, it was also Dr. John S. Piper's and Tom Stellar's (Dr. Piper's right hand man, if any) teaching me to see connections. Dr. Piper introduced me to a method of arcing that his teacher, Dr. Daniel P. Fuller, had taught him at Fuller Theological Seminary. This method opened my eyes so many times to see things that I had not seen before that I decided later to study myself under Fuller. I still like to call Dr. Fuller every so often and thank him, when I see a new relationship in the text that I never saw before through my revised arcing method.
Dr. John S. Piper in 1979
Dr. Daniel Payton Fuller
Celebration
But it was not just Piper and Fuller, who were teachers who opened my eyes. While I had gone to Fuller to learn about church planting in the School of World Mission (now the School of Intercultural Studies) and exegesis (the scholarly name for reading the Bible itself) under Dr. Fuller, I also discovered two unexpected sightings while I was there. I saw a leadership program that tied into my training under Tentmaker's, Inc. and my own self-study of Dr. Peter F. Drucker (then at Claremont Graduate School) that would challenge me as a leader more than I would be challenged as a student of church planting. So I changed my concentration from church planting to leadership. I also found an opportunity to learn more about translation and language studies as a whole and to take my learning to a higher level than I had achieved at Bethel College (now University) under Dr. William A. Smalley, Dr. Don N. Larson, and Lois Malcolm (now a professor at Luther Northwestern in St. Paul, MN). I found Dr. Betty Sue Brewster,. Dr. P. Daniel Shaw and Catherine Rountree, who all helped me see the bigger picture of language and communication at its broadest level. It was then that I began to see and know that it was only a matter of time before a reason for celebration could happen. I just had to remind myself not to count all my chicks till all my chicks were hatched. That is the time to celebrate, but in the middle of progressing, it is good to be reminded to wait. This sense of celebration mainly came from learning the TEAR method of language study that helped me see best the larger picture of language and communication. To the best of my ability, it appears that the TEAR view of language came primarily from Eugene A. Nida.
Eugene Albert Nida
Chance
But there is something more about the TEAR view of language than meets the eye. It is also that it shows that there is a chance to make a difference in the area of method or technology. Dr. P. Daniel Shaw was my first teacher that taught me how to use the TEAR approach to language. I was finally made able to use it effectively when I read a Bible text or anything else for that matter. So what Dr. Shaw gave me that the others previously had not was to see the chance of getting things accomplished that previously had seemed impossible. I remember very well that once I grasped the action words in a passage that suddenly I also saw better the relationships in a passage and it solved a problem in Piper's and Fuller's method that they had not solved for me. I will always have to acknowledge Dr. Shaw for first letting me see in ready the Bible new chances and new possibilities.
Choices
So what teachers taught me to see other choices? Who opened my eyes to be smarter? Often the difference between a smart person and a person who is not as smart is knowing that the choices are more diversified than the less intelligent person realizes. Who most opened my eyes to this?
Ironically, John S. Piper needs a lot of credit here though he would not be on the same page as my philosophy professors and anthropology professors on a number of topics. His list of choices would be shorter than theirs. He is the one who told me to study philosophy. Another theologian here who deserves some credit before I talk more about philosophers and anthropologists is Dr. Robert H. Stein. He taught me how to find new choices among the German scholars that others ranked as of no value. In the end, one of his ideas in A Basic Guide to Reading the Bible, may end up to have given me a choice in understanding the words of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew that no one else even suggests. So he cannot be underrated, that is for sure.
There is a long list of those who taught me to see choices that others never have gotten the option to even see, let alone have the option to make those choices. I've got to acknowledge my philosophy professors from college, who helped me see when theologians made a choice based on a philosophical school rather than a biblical text. That opened up things to see other choices. Their names include Dr. Don Postema, Dr. Melville Stewart, Dr. Stanley Anderson, Dr. Paul Reasoner, and Dr. Niel Nielson. In anthropology, both Dr. Thomas Correll and Dr. Sperry (sp?). Alongside of them I was also introduced to Dr. Michael Rynewich (from Macalester) and Dr. David Rausch from the history department. All of them opened my eyes to seeing the many choices that others did not see.
This largely culminated in three major papers I wrote while at Fuller Theological Seminary. One was a paper where I summarized all the possible views on baptism looking at all the choices from a broad cultural view. Then I did later another paper that involved a ton of research where I suggested other choices for interpreting Paul's comments on singleness. I tried to turn over every rock of choices and then tried to discern which were good choices and which were not. But my advantage was that I had a lot of choices before deciding. This also led me to the Center for the Study of Biblical Research in Pasadena, CA where I learned more about Jewish culture or philosophy.
The big benefit from all of these choices is having more choices from which to choose, because I can see them while before I could not.
In all of this discussion, I have left out other names that also could be mentioned. I hope I have another time to give them their due. Already, my mind is beginning to catalog those who I have missed. The trade off in not mentioning them here is that my writing does not grow even longer. That is a good choice. Thank you.
[I will re-visit this and other writing as possible. thank you for your patience.]
In Christ,
Jon
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Exodus 34 (Total Wholes - Part 3 of 5)
PREFACE
Many people want to know what the meaning of holy is, because they are told how important it is to "be holy". That desire to know or see something is invaluable. It creates the opportunity to see something that has not be seen before or to see again something that has been forgotten. Throughout the writing of my blog, I have tried to help people see something that they have not seen before, but also to help them remember something that has been forgotten.
My prime example of this is the theory that biblical holiness in its definition and at its core means "moral wholeness". For most people that is an idea that is new to them. To others, it is a reminder of what the 5 greatest church reformers of the last 500 years taught before the arrival of the 20th ct.. It is an idea that might shed light on what has been lost in the dark for the church and also might give salt to preserve what has not been preserved.
I would be nowhere today in either shedding light on what needs to be seen or in preserving what needs to be preserved without one very helpful tool in my toolbox. It is the total tool that is at the core of everything that is communicated to me and that I communicate to others. That tool I call the ARWAT (pronounced "Are What?") method. It is an acronym for the first letters of each of the greatest aspects of the method I use. I use it for everything now. I never let my mind work without it, because to turn back to any of the methods that I used before is to risk damage to my mind.
To work the mind without ARWAT is like the fictional Sherlock Holmes' comment that it is like an engine racing. Like the engine that eventually explodes, so the mind eventually explodes without it. The only other option for some is to simply turn off their mind. ARWAT is based on common sense, so its proof is universal in nature. But also it is capable of addressing the specialized sense needed for different kinds of work. It deals well with both the knowledge of the common person and with the knowledge of the specialists.
Part 3 of the 5 step process I use, is the most important step. What you need to know is how I arrived at the concept of total with the 4 parts that combine to make the total, because you may fail to look at other things I have written to find out who the 5 T's work.
Behind my 5 T's that focuses on relationships or transfers, is the ARWAT method that applies to persons and to being whole.
APPLICATION TO EXODUS 34
[ Still in construction due to an odd week of demands from my other work. I hope to catch up some later this week. Thank you for your patience.
In Christ,
Jon
Many people want to know what the meaning of holy is, because they are told how important it is to "be holy". That desire to know or see something is invaluable. It creates the opportunity to see something that has not be seen before or to see again something that has been forgotten. Throughout the writing of my blog, I have tried to help people see something that they have not seen before, but also to help them remember something that has been forgotten.
My prime example of this is the theory that biblical holiness in its definition and at its core means "moral wholeness". For most people that is an idea that is new to them. To others, it is a reminder of what the 5 greatest church reformers of the last 500 years taught before the arrival of the 20th ct.. It is an idea that might shed light on what has been lost in the dark for the church and also might give salt to preserve what has not been preserved.
I would be nowhere today in either shedding light on what needs to be seen or in preserving what needs to be preserved without one very helpful tool in my toolbox. It is the total tool that is at the core of everything that is communicated to me and that I communicate to others. That tool I call the ARWAT (pronounced "Are What?") method. It is an acronym for the first letters of each of the greatest aspects of the method I use. I use it for everything now. I never let my mind work without it, because to turn back to any of the methods that I used before is to risk damage to my mind.
To work the mind without ARWAT is like the fictional Sherlock Holmes' comment that it is like an engine racing. Like the engine that eventually explodes, so the mind eventually explodes without it. The only other option for some is to simply turn off their mind. ARWAT is based on common sense, so its proof is universal in nature. But also it is capable of addressing the specialized sense needed for different kinds of work. It deals well with both the knowledge of the common person and with the knowledge of the specialists.
Part 3 of the 5 step process I use, is the most important step. What you need to know is how I arrived at the concept of total with the 4 parts that combine to make the total, because you may fail to look at other things I have written to find out who the 5 T's work.
Behind my 5 T's that focuses on relationships or transfers, is the ARWAT method that applies to persons and to being whole.
APPLICATION TO EXODUS 34
[ Still in construction due to an odd week of demands from my other work. I hope to catch up some later this week. Thank you for your patience.
In Christ,
Jon
Friday, April 04, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Leviticus 19 (Train Actions - Part 4 of 5)
When it comes to training the focus has to be on action and results. It also has to be understood that seeing is not doing. You can even watch a video of the action and not learn immediately how to do an action. But also with training it is important to give the why for the how or the reason for the action. We can also say that usually a person does the action or does something how they were taught for the sake of the effect of that action or their desire to reach a certain goal.
In Leviticus 19, there are a myriad of different kinds of actions to perform. But there are also reasons for that action. The introduction to the chapter begins with "Be holy, because I Yahweh your God am holy". So, right from the outset, we are to "Be holy". That then begs the question, "What does it mean to be holy?"
John Eldredge, in this recently published book (2013), The Utter Relief of Holiness: How God's Goodness Frees Us from Everything that Plagues Us, says something that must not be ignored. He moves past the meaning or definition of holy to what being holy means in its effect or the reason why "be holy" is to be done. He says:
Follow this closely now: God is working with us --- correcting, guiding, disciplining ---
so that we might share in his holiness (whatever that is). Therefore, choose your way
carefully, so that whatever is broken in you might be healed. Severity is not the point;
discipline is not the point. The point is the restoration of your creation. Whatever
holiness truly is, the effect of it is healing. That what it does to a person. (p. 14)
This paragraph by Eldredge on holiness is one of the best statements on holiness that I have ever read or heard. That is saying a lot, since it would be hard to imagine any book on holiness that I have not at least opened or any sermon on holiness that I did not listen closely to, since 2004. (That being said, I did spot a new title today on Amazon, but beyond that I have read close to anything you can get your hands on about holiness.)
Now what makes John's statement in this single paragraph so good in my opinion? First, it is a great job of training people in the sense of separating action and motivation. It answers the how or in his words, the "way", and the motivational why, or in his words, the "effect", of being holy. I like especially that he points out that two effects are not the purpose behind being holy. It is not to bring the effect of being severe. So many people I talk to about holiness think that it is the desired effect or point of being holy. He then says that discipline is not the desired effect or point either. I've heard people speak of the point of holiness being that as well. (By the way, what John says does not necessarily exclude these things from the way holiness is arrived at.) The point or effect for Eldredge is to heal what is broken. Now that is a great "why" behind the "how"!
When people do something or choose not to do something, they usually do it seeking an outcome for someone, whether themselves, others, or God. I admit people do things only because they were told to do something, but more often they do it for a higher purpose than that. That especially becomes more true for adults. Hence the reason that they are harder to lead sometimes!
Seeking a better purpose behind their actions is also a clear reason why Rick Warren was able to sell a lot of books about having a purpose-driven life rather than a purposeless-driven dull action of drudgery. The questions "How?" and "Why?" need each other and in that order of priority. You see that in the problem in our day that we are given many purposes in our jobs, but now without a lot of how to. This is our bigger problem post-Warren, it seems. If you disagree with me here, it is not terrifically important. I just want you to think about it then next time at work.
So how am I to be holy? I believe that question is very well answered in Dr. Alllen P. Ross' four sets of four instructions that he found in Leviticus 19 and as found in his book, Holiness to the Lord. [I am currently working on Smart Art displays of what are the actions and then pre-effects and post-effects of non-action or action.]
The next question is why be holy? First, let's recall John Eldredge's effect of healing. Is there any sign of this in Leviticus 19? There might be. Repeatedly in this section of Scripture there is a repetition of "I am Yahweh" following instructions of conduct as part of "be holy". If you want to make it real explicit, then you might translate "I am Yahweh" out into "I am I am who I am". How is that a motivator, we might ask?
First, keep in mind this is a bigger motivator than "Do it, because I [God your parent] said so". That says nothing about whether we are doing what he is doing or whether we are to just do as we are told. A big difference is that God in this case is "I am who I am". There is no incongruently, no lack of integrity, and no lack of fit. Who God asks us to be is consistent with who he requires himself to be. Now that's the kind of person and God, I would love to work for, especially if he can teach me to be the same - "I am who I am".
Second, if Yahweh is our God, the creator, then it would be a good idea as his creatures to conform also to what he has made in consistency with who he is. I can see how this could be restorative and by implication healing. It could have the ring of "repair" to what we too once were - "holy".
So "be holy" is no small instruction. It is one of the greatest instructions along with "be blessed". Being who we are as God is who he is might be a great way to begin restoration and revival. So please be blessed and be healed, whatever holy means. Be healed in what is broken. Just do it!
In Christ,
Jon
.
In Leviticus 19, there are a myriad of different kinds of actions to perform. But there are also reasons for that action. The introduction to the chapter begins with "Be holy, because I Yahweh your God am holy". So, right from the outset, we are to "Be holy". That then begs the question, "What does it mean to be holy?"
John Eldredge, in this recently published book (2013), The Utter Relief of Holiness: How God's Goodness Frees Us from Everything that Plagues Us, says something that must not be ignored. He moves past the meaning or definition of holy to what being holy means in its effect or the reason why "be holy" is to be done. He says:
Follow this closely now: God is working with us --- correcting, guiding, disciplining ---
so that we might share in his holiness (whatever that is). Therefore, choose your way
carefully, so that whatever is broken in you might be healed. Severity is not the point;
discipline is not the point. The point is the restoration of your creation. Whatever
holiness truly is, the effect of it is healing. That what it does to a person. (p. 14)
This paragraph by Eldredge on holiness is one of the best statements on holiness that I have ever read or heard. That is saying a lot, since it would be hard to imagine any book on holiness that I have not at least opened or any sermon on holiness that I did not listen closely to, since 2004. (That being said, I did spot a new title today on Amazon, but beyond that I have read close to anything you can get your hands on about holiness.)
Now what makes John's statement in this single paragraph so good in my opinion? First, it is a great job of training people in the sense of separating action and motivation. It answers the how or in his words, the "way", and the motivational why, or in his words, the "effect", of being holy. I like especially that he points out that two effects are not the purpose behind being holy. It is not to bring the effect of being severe. So many people I talk to about holiness think that it is the desired effect or point of being holy. He then says that discipline is not the desired effect or point either. I've heard people speak of the point of holiness being that as well. (By the way, what John says does not necessarily exclude these things from the way holiness is arrived at.) The point or effect for Eldredge is to heal what is broken. Now that is a great "why" behind the "how"!
When people do something or choose not to do something, they usually do it seeking an outcome for someone, whether themselves, others, or God. I admit people do things only because they were told to do something, but more often they do it for a higher purpose than that. That especially becomes more true for adults. Hence the reason that they are harder to lead sometimes!
Seeking a better purpose behind their actions is also a clear reason why Rick Warren was able to sell a lot of books about having a purpose-driven life rather than a purposeless-driven dull action of drudgery. The questions "How?" and "Why?" need each other and in that order of priority. You see that in the problem in our day that we are given many purposes in our jobs, but now without a lot of how to. This is our bigger problem post-Warren, it seems. If you disagree with me here, it is not terrifically important. I just want you to think about it then next time at work.
So how am I to be holy? I believe that question is very well answered in Dr. Alllen P. Ross' four sets of four instructions that he found in Leviticus 19 and as found in his book, Holiness to the Lord. [I am currently working on Smart Art displays of what are the actions and then pre-effects and post-effects of non-action or action.]
The next question is why be holy? First, let's recall John Eldredge's effect of healing. Is there any sign of this in Leviticus 19? There might be. Repeatedly in this section of Scripture there is a repetition of "I am Yahweh" following instructions of conduct as part of "be holy". If you want to make it real explicit, then you might translate "I am Yahweh" out into "I am I am who I am". How is that a motivator, we might ask?
First, keep in mind this is a bigger motivator than "Do it, because I [God your parent] said so". That says nothing about whether we are doing what he is doing or whether we are to just do as we are told. A big difference is that God in this case is "I am who I am". There is no incongruently, no lack of integrity, and no lack of fit. Who God asks us to be is consistent with who he requires himself to be. Now that's the kind of person and God, I would love to work for, especially if he can teach me to be the same - "I am who I am".
Second, if Yahweh is our God, the creator, then it would be a good idea as his creatures to conform also to what he has made in consistency with who he is. I can see how this could be restorative and by implication healing. It could have the ring of "repair" to what we too once were - "holy".
So "be holy" is no small instruction. It is one of the greatest instructions along with "be blessed". Being who we are as God is who he is might be a great way to begin restoration and revival. So please be blessed and be healed, whatever holy means. Be healed in what is broken. Just do it!
In Christ,
Jon
.
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Understanding the Meaning of Meaning
No, the title may sound like a riddle, but it is really a fact. There is not one meaning of meaning and it is very important for understanding the meaning of holy. So what does it mean you ask? That is a loaded question. Which kind of meaning are you referring to in your question? Are you asking for its definition? Or are you asking for its implication? Or are you asking for its significance? Or maybe you want to know all three meanings. That is what I want to discuss today is all three meanings, because all three are found in the Bible.
Exodus 19:10- 12 is where you see a great example of this. In it, it suggests three meanings for holy in the order of definition, of implication, and of significance.
Moses is first told to go to the people and make them holy today and tomorrow. We are later today about the people that "the whole of the people in the camp trembled" (Exodus 19:16). It could be that to make holy or sanctify the people meant to assemble the whole or all of the people.
Then we are next told that Moses is to have the people wash their clothes. Further on, it is said that "they washed their clothes" (Exodus 19:14). Then they are told to be ready for the third day and to "not approach a woman" (Exodus 19:15b).
Finally, we are told that Moses is to set limits to the people so no one would touch God's holy mountain. To the trained observer there are three different meanings here rather than three synonymous meanings here. Years ago, Dr. Robert H. Stein trained us to think of all three kinds of meaning and not just definitional meaning.
I see three meanings for holy here corresponding to the three kinds of meaning mentioned above. First, I am persuaded that the definition of holy is seen first in the call to assemble "the whole of the people" as a parallel to "make holy the people". Second, I believe the implication is next brought up with the instructions to have the people wash their clothes and for the men not to have sexual relations with a woman. These both relate to the implication of holy being purity. Finally, the last section discusses a boundary or a limit to the holy mountain. It is set apart from other mountains as unique.
Let me illustrate from my own personal experience how definition, implication, and significance can occur together in a situation. I am now for the first time (this once would have been a big deal) going to reveal a strategy that I used as a football coach to turn around a game at half-time where we were trailing 18-0. What I did not realize then was that I referred to all three kinds of meaning in speaking to my players. First, I realized on my way to our team huddle at half time that I had to keep things simple. I had to make sure that they would purely focus on one thing to correct for the second half. Then I realized I must help them realize that it was possible to have a second half that was entirely different from the first half. And finally I assumed that I was talking to the whole offensive line and the whole defensive line, when I gave them my specific instructions on what to fix. They all had to act together as a whole, not as distinct parts. So, though not in the same order as in Exodus, I referred to purity (of focus - one only), I referred to significance where they needed to believe they could set apart the second half from the first (they could still win the game after losing it the first half). Finally, I defined the whole as the four members of the defensive line as having to act as a unit or as a whole rather than separate parts. In this case, the whole of the lineman needed to discipline themselves to all penetrate to the same depth as a defensive line. So it is not unusual for all three meanings to occur in one space of text or language. (By the way, the Green Bay Packers still haven't figured out this idea of penetrating to the same depth as Larry McCarren, a former Packer, has).
I am going to try my best to publish more entries. They may as a result be shorter like this one. But I want to end with the meanings of holy. I think holy does mean by definition the whole or according to the whole. I think holy does mean by implication that purity is necessary. There must be focus, (not duplicity) when this assembly of people comes together. They must think of only the one thing necessary and not be double-minded or made impure by thinking of many things rather than the one thing necessary. Finally, the significance of God's holiness is that his holy mountain must be set apart as untouchable on the part of the assembly. If it is whole, then the whole cannot be violated. It must then be distinct. So all three of the most popular meanings of holy are found in one place, but my argument is that only one is the definition and that is congregational wholeness (or moral wholeness in other contexts). So keep in mind all three kinds of meaning and do not assume that every meaning you hear about is a definition. May God bless your reading. And may God also bless those who taught me all that I know. Thank you.
In Christ,
Jon
Exodus 19:10- 12 is where you see a great example of this. In it, it suggests three meanings for holy in the order of definition, of implication, and of significance.
Moses is first told to go to the people and make them holy today and tomorrow. We are later today about the people that "the whole of the people in the camp trembled" (Exodus 19:16). It could be that to make holy or sanctify the people meant to assemble the whole or all of the people.
Then we are next told that Moses is to have the people wash their clothes. Further on, it is said that "they washed their clothes" (Exodus 19:14). Then they are told to be ready for the third day and to "not approach a woman" (Exodus 19:15b).
Finally, we are told that Moses is to set limits to the people so no one would touch God's holy mountain. To the trained observer there are three different meanings here rather than three synonymous meanings here. Years ago, Dr. Robert H. Stein trained us to think of all three kinds of meaning and not just definitional meaning.
I see three meanings for holy here corresponding to the three kinds of meaning mentioned above. First, I am persuaded that the definition of holy is seen first in the call to assemble "the whole of the people" as a parallel to "make holy the people". Second, I believe the implication is next brought up with the instructions to have the people wash their clothes and for the men not to have sexual relations with a woman. These both relate to the implication of holy being purity. Finally, the last section discusses a boundary or a limit to the holy mountain. It is set apart from other mountains as unique.
Let me illustrate from my own personal experience how definition, implication, and significance can occur together in a situation. I am now for the first time (this once would have been a big deal) going to reveal a strategy that I used as a football coach to turn around a game at half-time where we were trailing 18-0. What I did not realize then was that I referred to all three kinds of meaning in speaking to my players. First, I realized on my way to our team huddle at half time that I had to keep things simple. I had to make sure that they would purely focus on one thing to correct for the second half. Then I realized I must help them realize that it was possible to have a second half that was entirely different from the first half. And finally I assumed that I was talking to the whole offensive line and the whole defensive line, when I gave them my specific instructions on what to fix. They all had to act together as a whole, not as distinct parts. So, though not in the same order as in Exodus, I referred to purity (of focus - one only), I referred to significance where they needed to believe they could set apart the second half from the first (they could still win the game after losing it the first half). Finally, I defined the whole as the four members of the defensive line as having to act as a unit or as a whole rather than separate parts. In this case, the whole of the lineman needed to discipline themselves to all penetrate to the same depth as a defensive line. So it is not unusual for all three meanings to occur in one space of text or language. (By the way, the Green Bay Packers still haven't figured out this idea of penetrating to the same depth as Larry McCarren, a former Packer, has).
I am going to try my best to publish more entries. They may as a result be shorter like this one. But I want to end with the meanings of holy. I think holy does mean by definition the whole or according to the whole. I think holy does mean by implication that purity is necessary. There must be focus, (not duplicity) when this assembly of people comes together. They must think of only the one thing necessary and not be double-minded or made impure by thinking of many things rather than the one thing necessary. Finally, the significance of God's holiness is that his holy mountain must be set apart as untouchable on the part of the assembly. If it is whole, then the whole cannot be violated. It must then be distinct. So all three of the most popular meanings of holy are found in one place, but my argument is that only one is the definition and that is congregational wholeness (or moral wholeness in other contexts). So keep in mind all three kinds of meaning and do not assume that every meaning you hear about is a definition. May God bless your reading. And may God also bless those who taught me all that I know. Thank you.
In Christ,
Jon
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Holy: Understanding it Better Despite the Hype or Conspiracy Theory
I was taught a great principle many years ago. It is that it is best approach to a would-be customer is to "under-promise and over-deliver" rather than the reverse. Despite this good advice, many people still make the same mistake - they over-promise. When you do that you open yourself to the charge of just offering a lot of hype along with broken promises. But hype is not the only danger. You also have to avoid the conspiracy theory - the idea that all promises are made to be broken. This is the fear of promises being there just to bring you aboard before you discover that the attitude of promises are made to be broken and that high expectations are meant to crumble. So how do you know if you have got a legitimate promise from a scholar or non-scholar as to what holy means in the Bible?
First, I know from experience the meaning of being over-promised. One thing that happens in Christian circles is that Christians over-promise what God's promises are for this life. Bad things never happen to good people. The truth is that this life includes the promise and guarantee of persecution. To say that your life in this life will be changed dramatically needs to be qualified. It is not an over-promise when it comes to eternity, but it is a dangerous promise for this life. We live in a day when manic-depression is becoming more and more common place. Could it be that people are becoming more manic though over-promises that they take seriously? They think everything will have a fairy tale ending. How much better if we promised people promises that can be kept?
Second, I also know from experience the meaning of every opportunity being seen as a conspiracy. Good things never happen to good people. We're always under attack from the persecutors. Good things happen only to those who compromise their principles and avoid persecution. I've heard my fair share of this kind of talk as well. I call it the radio talk show host syndrome. Drum up enough sentiment that the end is near and that all is going not well. Everyone knows the great conspiracy is winning without our seeing it. But is that a promise that is for sure? Do we really know the secret will of God? I thought so. We don't. And maybe depression could be lifted too if people did not experience so often the broken promises of fairy tales and conspiracy theories? Who knows.
So now let's look at the definition of holy. Scholars promise people that they will help people become consciously aware of what the Bible in the original languages is saying to us. If they are not, then they promise to be open about their uncertainty and be real with us. So far, so good it seems. But some Christian scholars even promise that in God's secret providence they know that on the major things in the Bible that the church cannot be wrong. As good evangelicals or otherwise, they know God would not let us down in this way. I find this over-promise very interesting, because if that is true, then God would never allow the church to not have the definition of holy wrong. The problem is that the church has contradicted itself over time as to what holy means in the Bible. So some Christians (those who call themselves by that name) must be wrong on a major topic.
I have proven many times before that at least since the Reformation, the primary definition of holy for the five major Protestant Reformers is that holy meant moral wholeness. The problem is that today many evangelical followers of these leaders have a different definition for holy. They say it means set apart. In between these two periods there were also some who claimed it meant pure. So if God keeps us always aware in His providence of the meaning of major words in Scripture, then how are these contradictions possible? There is another example of a major in Scripture having a problem the church is not sure how to solve. How can the Greatest Commandment (a major in the Bible), be quoted differently in Scripture? I thought we always know the majors? Returning again to holy, you can find the idea of set apart with moral wholeness in the older literature, but moral wholeness was the primary then unlike now. Up to this moment, you usually find set apart as the definition with little or no mention of moral wholeness. It is not even treated as secondary. It is treated as blatantly mistaken. I think we have an over-promise being made about God's providence in hat case. Majors in the Bible do not automatically mean that the church is not making any errors in its understanding through history. Not only that, but it flatly contradicts biblical history with its ebb and flow of God's people understanding God Himself correctly. That Biblical history to me is the real promise in history that should be promoted. Despite errors in understanding and elsewhere, the Jews survived. So can Christians today, based on God's providence for the Jews.
If biblical history was our guide for how much God really promises rather than our thinking we know the secret things of God in history, then I think we would not be so afraid of admitting our errors. Right now, to admit our errors is tantamount to saying God has let us down, because we have created a false promise or an over-promise that has people saying the church is all hype. That in turns can create a great deal of conspiracy theorists who realize that people are then disillusioned. The over-promise of understanding the Bible on major things all the time has got to get out of the way for God's real promises to be fulfilled.
Luther discovered a misunderstanding, Calvin a misunderstanding, Cranmer a misunderstanding, Wesley a misunderstanding, and Spurgeon a misunderstanding within the church's theology or teaching. Don't think that our generation of Christian's is automatically an exception to the rule of what God has done previously. He has let the church drift away through its own failure. He does not guarantee that we are right, because He is right. He guarantees to right us when we seek His face. Not on everything, not on the majors, not all the time, not to equal perfection, and not just because we think we are consciously aware of what God is secretly doing. He does it all according to His will including both what we know and what we don't know.
If I had to guess the #1 reason that few people today (who knows about tomorrow) take seriously the definition of moral wholeness, I would say it is because of all the false hype. The promises that have been promised that have not been kept. People everywhere are disillusioned by the over-promises of the past. Here is what I can promise. I will trust God that whatever level of understanding He gives me of his Word, He gives it to me in accordance with His promises and not according to some excessive hype nor due to some conspiracy that all churches are liars about God's promises and Christian understanding of Scripture.
Christians need to do the work. God never promised good fruit without a good tree. And a good tree comes from a good gardener who works his orchards. He does not just assume what the weather will be like. He trusts God through the wind and the rain as well as through the calm and the sunshine. Good Christians know that the question is not whether God is on our side, but whether we are on His side, because He does not guarantee that we always fight for what pleases Him. He only promises that He always fights for what is right and will give us light as He sees fit to give us light.
Please let go of over-promises and find the great promises of God as we come up on that season where God's Son rose from the dead even as He promised. Ah, a real promise that is kept. Now that's how we all ought to like it. God that time really over-delivered!
Sincerely,
Jon
First, I know from experience the meaning of being over-promised. One thing that happens in Christian circles is that Christians over-promise what God's promises are for this life. Bad things never happen to good people. The truth is that this life includes the promise and guarantee of persecution. To say that your life in this life will be changed dramatically needs to be qualified. It is not an over-promise when it comes to eternity, but it is a dangerous promise for this life. We live in a day when manic-depression is becoming more and more common place. Could it be that people are becoming more manic though over-promises that they take seriously? They think everything will have a fairy tale ending. How much better if we promised people promises that can be kept?
Second, I also know from experience the meaning of every opportunity being seen as a conspiracy. Good things never happen to good people. We're always under attack from the persecutors. Good things happen only to those who compromise their principles and avoid persecution. I've heard my fair share of this kind of talk as well. I call it the radio talk show host syndrome. Drum up enough sentiment that the end is near and that all is going not well. Everyone knows the great conspiracy is winning without our seeing it. But is that a promise that is for sure? Do we really know the secret will of God? I thought so. We don't. And maybe depression could be lifted too if people did not experience so often the broken promises of fairy tales and conspiracy theories? Who knows.
So now let's look at the definition of holy. Scholars promise people that they will help people become consciously aware of what the Bible in the original languages is saying to us. If they are not, then they promise to be open about their uncertainty and be real with us. So far, so good it seems. But some Christian scholars even promise that in God's secret providence they know that on the major things in the Bible that the church cannot be wrong. As good evangelicals or otherwise, they know God would not let us down in this way. I find this over-promise very interesting, because if that is true, then God would never allow the church to not have the definition of holy wrong. The problem is that the church has contradicted itself over time as to what holy means in the Bible. So some Christians (those who call themselves by that name) must be wrong on a major topic.
I have proven many times before that at least since the Reformation, the primary definition of holy for the five major Protestant Reformers is that holy meant moral wholeness. The problem is that today many evangelical followers of these leaders have a different definition for holy. They say it means set apart. In between these two periods there were also some who claimed it meant pure. So if God keeps us always aware in His providence of the meaning of major words in Scripture, then how are these contradictions possible? There is another example of a major in Scripture having a problem the church is not sure how to solve. How can the Greatest Commandment (a major in the Bible), be quoted differently in Scripture? I thought we always know the majors? Returning again to holy, you can find the idea of set apart with moral wholeness in the older literature, but moral wholeness was the primary then unlike now. Up to this moment, you usually find set apart as the definition with little or no mention of moral wholeness. It is not even treated as secondary. It is treated as blatantly mistaken. I think we have an over-promise being made about God's providence in hat case. Majors in the Bible do not automatically mean that the church is not making any errors in its understanding through history. Not only that, but it flatly contradicts biblical history with its ebb and flow of God's people understanding God Himself correctly. That Biblical history to me is the real promise in history that should be promoted. Despite errors in understanding and elsewhere, the Jews survived. So can Christians today, based on God's providence for the Jews.
If biblical history was our guide for how much God really promises rather than our thinking we know the secret things of God in history, then I think we would not be so afraid of admitting our errors. Right now, to admit our errors is tantamount to saying God has let us down, because we have created a false promise or an over-promise that has people saying the church is all hype. That in turns can create a great deal of conspiracy theorists who realize that people are then disillusioned. The over-promise of understanding the Bible on major things all the time has got to get out of the way for God's real promises to be fulfilled.
Luther discovered a misunderstanding, Calvin a misunderstanding, Cranmer a misunderstanding, Wesley a misunderstanding, and Spurgeon a misunderstanding within the church's theology or teaching. Don't think that our generation of Christian's is automatically an exception to the rule of what God has done previously. He has let the church drift away through its own failure. He does not guarantee that we are right, because He is right. He guarantees to right us when we seek His face. Not on everything, not on the majors, not all the time, not to equal perfection, and not just because we think we are consciously aware of what God is secretly doing. He does it all according to His will including both what we know and what we don't know.
If I had to guess the #1 reason that few people today (who knows about tomorrow) take seriously the definition of moral wholeness, I would say it is because of all the false hype. The promises that have been promised that have not been kept. People everywhere are disillusioned by the over-promises of the past. Here is what I can promise. I will trust God that whatever level of understanding He gives me of his Word, He gives it to me in accordance with His promises and not according to some excessive hype nor due to some conspiracy that all churches are liars about God's promises and Christian understanding of Scripture.
Christians need to do the work. God never promised good fruit without a good tree. And a good tree comes from a good gardener who works his orchards. He does not just assume what the weather will be like. He trusts God through the wind and the rain as well as through the calm and the sunshine. Good Christians know that the question is not whether God is on our side, but whether we are on His side, because He does not guarantee that we always fight for what pleases Him. He only promises that He always fights for what is right and will give us light as He sees fit to give us light.
Please let go of over-promises and find the great promises of God as we come up on that season where God's Son rose from the dead even as He promised. Ah, a real promise that is kept. Now that's how we all ought to like it. God that time really over-delivered!
Sincerely,
Jon
Friday, December 27, 2013
Holy: Understanding Better the Resistance to Changing Definitions
I love the following opening lines from Thomas Paine's Common Sense:
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable
to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial
appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But
tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
Perhaps the view that I have expressed that holy by definition means moral wholeness does not seem like much in relationship to the long history of people assuming it means set apart, but as Paine says custom and its outcry of defense will eventually subside. The need for time as well as reason is not an optional need. People do need soak time with new ideas before they will set aside old ideas.
I also agree that reason means something less than more time. The reason for my position on the definition of holy is solid in regard to reason, but time honored custom is very hard to break. So let's not be influenced so much by custom and by the superficial appearance of what is right. Let's consider other options and then give time for these options to prove themselves right in more than a superficial way.
John A. Lee's comments, as a biblical scholar on the status of Biblical lexicons, as sometimes preservers of tradition more than a producer of higher quality definitions is worthy of consideration. He too warns about the superficial appearance of authority by the sheer number of lexicons that say the same thing. But quantity is not the same as quality.
Perhaps in time, Lee's wisdom and that of Paine's common sense will be taken more seriously and what first appeared right as a definition might then also be considered wrong. That though will take time. I only hope not too much longer.
In Christ,
Jon
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable
to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial
appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But
tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
Perhaps the view that I have expressed that holy by definition means moral wholeness does not seem like much in relationship to the long history of people assuming it means set apart, but as Paine says custom and its outcry of defense will eventually subside. The need for time as well as reason is not an optional need. People do need soak time with new ideas before they will set aside old ideas.
I also agree that reason means something less than more time. The reason for my position on the definition of holy is solid in regard to reason, but time honored custom is very hard to break. So let's not be influenced so much by custom and by the superficial appearance of what is right. Let's consider other options and then give time for these options to prove themselves right in more than a superficial way.
John A. Lee's comments, as a biblical scholar on the status of Biblical lexicons, as sometimes preservers of tradition more than a producer of higher quality definitions is worthy of consideration. He too warns about the superficial appearance of authority by the sheer number of lexicons that say the same thing. But quantity is not the same as quality.
Perhaps in time, Lee's wisdom and that of Paine's common sense will be taken more seriously and what first appeared right as a definition might then also be considered wrong. That though will take time. I only hope not too much longer.
In Christ,
Jon
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Hesychius
You have come to this site to find the meaning of holy. I will not disappoint you in that regard, but before I give an answer to that question you need to know that the definition of holy or qadosh (Hebrew) or hagios (Greek) requires a little extra research, to put it very kindly. Fortunately, the high quality options are only three. They are: 1) moral wholeness, 2) pure, or 3) set apart. The lexicographer Hesychius is not a household name, but he has been very important in trying to determine the meaning of holy. His lexicon written around the third to fourth century time range is regarded as a great treasure for determining the meaning of many Greek words. In this case, we are talking about the meaning of hagioi or hagios. I want to tell you what I have found in examining the evidence from his lexicon.
[Under construction]
Sincerely,
Jon
[Under construction]
Sincerely,
Jon
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Digging (like an archaeologist)
It is unbelievable some days what I discover through digging through old books rather than old rocks. I consider what I am doing a little like digging through the layers that archaeologists dig through and indicate in their photos. Today, I found another incredible discovery. It is a book by John August Henry Tittmann. Its title is: Remarks on the Synonyms of the New Testament.
It is an older book, but I am not ashamed to say that I like digging through the old as well as the new. What I have found is that many things obvious to previous generations have been lost due to a simple bias against the old. In this case of trying to discern the meaning of holy, it is a bias against older scholarship. I think instead what scholars, students, and pastors should do instead, is dig through the older layers and recognize all the layers in the process, not just the top soil of our present time. John A. L. Lee's work on lexicography shows how danger it can be to operate without a knowledge of layers and a blind trust in authority rather than trust and verify.
Here is a link to what this older scholar, Tittmann, has to say, so you can dig for yourself a bit: http://openlibrary.org/books/OL23329406M/Remarks_on_the_synonyms_of_the_New_Testament. Check out especially pages 35-46. And also if you really want to get right to the heart of what holy means, you can examine pages 45-46 for his summary.
If I may summarize what he says here, he says: "hagios (Greek) is that which, on account of integrity of mind and morals, is sacred to God and revered." What is most interesting to me in my investigations is his use of "integrity ... of morals". This would fit very well with the idea of "moral wholeness". But perhaps what is more valuable is that he also places purity and being set apart alongside of his "integrity of morals". He says that "ieros" (Greek) has a connection with the idea of "consecrated to, or set apart for God". He also adds that katharis (Greek) is connected to the idea of "pure" as would also "agnos" (Greek).
If you read what he says carefully, then you can see its parallelism with the proposal (by Andrew Murray many years later), that there are other possible words for being set apart rather than the words qadosh (Hebrew) or hagios (Greek). This proposal is worth considering and I must give credit to Richard Trench for his volume on synonyms for alerting me to this once renowned scholar. Its it too bad that often awareness gets buried by generations and time? I rejoice in another discovery and another opportunity to make people aware and bring knowledge to a sometimes darkened world. Digging has its rewards!
In Christ,
Jon
It is an older book, but I am not ashamed to say that I like digging through the old as well as the new. What I have found is that many things obvious to previous generations have been lost due to a simple bias against the old. In this case of trying to discern the meaning of holy, it is a bias against older scholarship. I think instead what scholars, students, and pastors should do instead, is dig through the older layers and recognize all the layers in the process, not just the top soil of our present time. John A. L. Lee's work on lexicography shows how danger it can be to operate without a knowledge of layers and a blind trust in authority rather than trust and verify.
Here is a link to what this older scholar, Tittmann, has to say, so you can dig for yourself a bit: http://openlibrary.org/books/OL23329406M/Remarks_on_the_synonyms_of_the_New_Testament. Check out especially pages 35-46. And also if you really want to get right to the heart of what holy means, you can examine pages 45-46 for his summary.
If I may summarize what he says here, he says: "hagios (Greek) is that which, on account of integrity of mind and morals, is sacred to God and revered." What is most interesting to me in my investigations is his use of "integrity ... of morals". This would fit very well with the idea of "moral wholeness". But perhaps what is more valuable is that he also places purity and being set apart alongside of his "integrity of morals". He says that "ieros" (Greek) has a connection with the idea of "consecrated to, or set apart for God". He also adds that katharis (Greek) is connected to the idea of "pure" as would also "agnos" (Greek).
If you read what he says carefully, then you can see its parallelism with the proposal (by Andrew Murray many years later), that there are other possible words for being set apart rather than the words qadosh (Hebrew) or hagios (Greek). This proposal is worth considering and I must give credit to Richard Trench for his volume on synonyms for alerting me to this once renowned scholar. Its it too bad that often awareness gets buried by generations and time? I rejoice in another discovery and another opportunity to make people aware and bring knowledge to a sometimes darkened world. Digging has its rewards!
In Christ,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
