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

Holy: Understanding Its Implications for 2013 and Revival

If you are checking out this blog to find the definition of holy, then I had better not waste any time in first addressing that question.  The definition of holy, you will quickly learn, if you search the internet is less than 100% certain.  If I were to rank the three major options you will find in your search, then they would be as follows (based on the scholarship as 2012 draws to a close):

"Set apart" - {B}
"Pure" - {C}
"Whole" - {D}

The letter grades are parallel to what you would find in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament written by Bruce M. Metzger.  If you are not too familiar with that book, then you can simply imagine the grades that you received on your school tests.  That will be close enough for you.   My main concern is that the {B} grade for "set apart" is usually treated like it is an {A}.  That ranking I regard as unjust to the other two greatest options.  Remember the grade above only rank the current state of things on Dec. 31st, 2012. 

Now looking into the implications of these meanings for 2013, I want to look back in time a little bit.  I was a big fan of Keith Green in my college years, so I became familiar with another name, Leonard Ravenhill.  This may not quite be accurate, but to the best of my knowledge he was Keith Green's primary mentor.  He also was quite a spokesman on the topic of revival.  So I want to present what he had to say on one occasion about holiness and its implications for revival. 

You can find the audio sermon yourself by going to:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=53107192638.   It is a considerable way into this sermon before he defines the word holy, but what he had to say about its definition is very significant for the issue of the implications from the definition of holy.   Each of the most likely three possible definitions also mean something different, when it comes to their significance or implications. 

He has five major points that he makes about holiness (in no particular order):
1) he defines it  as healthiness or the soul's health (this is closest to the meaning of whole above)
2) there is something attractive about holiness
3) there is nothing more beautiful than holiness
4) the passage says to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness, not worship the Lord in his holiness
5) the beauty of holiness is in contrast to supposed cranky holy people

Bill Hybels once wrote a book titled Becoming a Contagious Christian.  Could it be that Christians have lost their trait of attractiveness, beauty or contagiousness, because they are no more attractive than a cranky person?  Does the focus on being "set apart" or "purity" alone have in fact very different implications than does Ravenhill's definition?  Could a changed definition of holy be the reason for Why Revival Tarries (Ravenhill's most famous title)? 

I think we should all pause and consider that the implications from the definition of holiness can be as great as the difference between beautiful and ugly (cranky), attractive and unattractive, and fast versus slow (tarries).   It could be that revival is being slowed by a poor definition of holy.  Ravenhill was not a great biblical scholar, so that we can argue he understood the definition of the word holy is better on his biblical basis.  But we should pause and consider that a {B} ranking for "set apart" means that he also could have been right even if that does not mean he is right. 

We also have to remember that we are to "worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness".   When is the last time you saw God's holiness as beautiful?  May we all have a blessed 2013, filled with the beauty of Yahweh God's holiness!

In Christ,

Jon