Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better By Understanding the Emotion of Fear

Today, I read an immensely sad article, How We Forgot the Holiness of God, in an email from Christianity Today (5/20/14).  The article should lead to the emotion of grief, not to the emotion of joy.  Once again an author makes a plea for the Rudolph Otto kind of holiness that inspires fear and awe. Hey, those are necessary emotions in the right context, but there is the possibility of emotional manipulation going on in this plea.  There is no concern for logical exegesis in the article, only getting people like you and me off our chair or couch and instead being fearful of being a sinner in the hands of an angry God.  But this is not like Jonathan Edwards' sermon that has an authentic basis for fear.  This instead comes off as a rather shoddy and cheap way of dealing with fear as an emotion. Holiness for me means a lot of more than this author in Christianity Today is implying.  A great deal more.  For me it means ultimately moving from an emotion of jealousy (I don't want to be like you) to an emotion of emulation (I want to be like you).

I'll show you how much  more holiness means to me by pointing out all kinds of errors in the article.  Perhaps before the author suggests we all fear, the author should fear more than anyone else.  You see fear is a great emotion, when it is understood properly.  But only when understood properly.  It cannot be used for manipulation or without emotional intelligence.  You have to have the latter to also avoid the former, even when by accident and not purposeful.

Let me illustrate.  When I was young and first learning to use a table saw my dad taught me to fear it, because it did not only cut off inches but also fingers.  That was good.  I haven't cut a finger off due to a healthy respect.  But he did not leave me stuck in fear.  He also taught me how to confidently avoid cutting off a finger so that my hand and fingers remained attached.  You need to move people from fear to confidence.  You don't start off with the silly idea of walking up to a table saw and using it fearlessly without lessons.  My dad was not manipulating me, but he was training me.  He made me a person confident in how to do what I wanted.  I wanted to accomplish the result ofcutting a board to the right length with a square cut end.  So he gave me a lesson in the emotions of fear and confidence, but also in the logic of how and why.

So let's look at the errors.  Keep in mind that I have been writing on holiness for around 10 years.  This blog has a link to some of my earliest beginnings in a separate blog.  I have read nearly everything that pertains to the topic that is worthwhile.

THE FIRST MISTAKE

So why is this author so confident that Rudolph Otto's right and the prior 400 years of Protestant exegesis is wrong?  My dad taught me to fear a table saw.  Why is this author not afraid that he's wrong in his definition of holy?  My dad taught me to fear a table saw, because a saw CAN do things.  I think we should be a little more fearful that Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley, and Spurgeon COULD do things.  I am a lot more fearful of their abilities than I am of Otto's CANNOT.

Otto's own weakness and can't do attitude is revealed by himself in his study of holiness' meaning.  He gets to a point where he is not sure of the meaning of the word for holy, so he chooses the one which fits better with his preferred philosophy.  Doesn't that scare you?  It scares me, like working with a table saw carelessly.  Otto is careless and carefree which means he is what is otherwise known as fearless.  I am confident, but I am not fearless as a result.  I know when to fear and when to be confident.  Don't let me ever get careless at the table saw.  But let's use it how it is to be used confidently.

THE SECOND MISTAKE

It is great to bring in Isaiah 6 as Otto uses this too as a central passage.  That makes perfect sense.  So it is true that Isaiah experiences fear in the passage.  But that does not define holy.  It is funny how the author misses other parts in the context.  He wants to go with Otto's definition having to do with fear and awe, but he ignores the concept of "whole" in the "whole earth is full of his glory".  He misses the argument for "moral wholeness" that Jonathan Edwards, Johann Bengel, and many others make from other contexts for their definition.  He skips past it.  Perhaps he has a historical bias about conclusions based on time and place.  Otto comes later, so he's correct.   He does not test Otto's view with other witnesses to see what they witnessed.  He does not ask famous commentators for their testimony.  One testimony in a real sense is enough.  The author and Otto experience no sadness in their testimony separating from leaders over a four hundred year period.  He misses out on the joy of finding the same conclusions with others.  No shared joy over a 500 year period to celebrate.  He's not worried about joy and connections with others.

THE THIRD MISTAKE

He takes the second mistake still further as far as emotions are concerned.  Not only is he not saddened by his break with past testimonies, he is also not afraid of going forward without an act of experimentation.

Let me illustrate.  Just yesterday I could not find my coffee mug that I uses on a regular basis.  I was not confident where it was.  I decided that rather than dilly dally in my brain, I would instead start to experiment with the different possible locations by going to them and seeing if the cup was there.  If it was, then I could be confident where it was.  If I did not find it, at least my confidence would grow from eliminating possible locations.  So off to my car I went.  It was not in the passenger's seat though I knew I had in the car the prior day.  So I went back to the most obvious, the kitchen where I normally kept it.  Not on the counters nor in the cupboard.  So off to other rooms in the house beginning with the most likely to the least likely.  Not there either, so I returned to the most obvious location again, the kitchen.  And there it was.  I couldn't see it yet, but there was my lunch container.  I was pretty sure my cup was inside it, because I recalled placing something in there that normally I did not.  I had forgotten to empty it the night before like I usually did.  So I opened it - I experimented with the idea that the cup was in my lunch container - sure enough there it was.

You see, it is very important to experiment with ideas by doing something with them, not just assuming the outcome from some hypothetical action.  I did something.  In this case of exegesis (reading a passage from an insider's perspective, not an outsider's), nothing is done except a connection between Isaiah's dread and what holy means.  That is a very sloppy experiment.  In my experiment above, I experimented with all the possibilities until I arrived at one that ruled out any others.  Is this kind insisting they found the thing they were looking for immediately without any failed experiments?  Did they even consider other possibilities at all?

The problem with Otto and this author is they try one possibility for fear - God's holiness - and stop there.  They don't consider other possibilities.  Maybe Isaiah had read how no one can see God's face an live and he thought he had seen his face and that regardless of holy or not, you die.  Or maybe the main issue was his uncleanness and he was ashamed of himself before such a clean assembly.  Like a wedding guest attending a wedding feast without proper clean attire.  He nor Otto does even look at that as a possibility in itself as a reason for fear.  Jesus was holy and yet it did not automatically lead to dread.  The Holy Spirit is in us, yet it does not lead automatically to dread.  I think fear and dread come in certain instances to us.  I don't think that is the constant state before holiness.  I would think the great emotion there is that of emulation - I want to be like Him.

An added problem inside the text that is not considered from an insider's perspective is that 'the whole earth is full of his glory" is much closer in the context to "holy, holy, holy" than the material on fear and dread.  Maybe what should be experimented with is the idea that God's "moral wholeness" is reflected in a view of the "earth's wholeness".  It possesses the glory that God has even if only a reflection of it as the moon is a reflector of the light of the sun.

So my question is why the author does not feel fear?  Why is he so cavalier and fearless as to make illusion to Otto's sloppy exegesis?  Why doesn't he have a goal of preferring the more immediate context over the more distant?

It appears he does not possess the skills of an exegete.  If he does not, then he should fear and stay away from exegetical comments based on an outsider, who admits his exegesis was built on an outsider philosophical perspective.


Holy, Holy, Holy is Yahweh God Almighty,
the whole earth is full of his glory.


Those words are the immediate context.  That is where the test is.  The testimony has to come from the most immediate.  The ones with the eye witness kind of testimony.  Not from the second rate witness in the next room or the larger context beyond that.  Stick to the most immediate.

Likewise, experiment.  Don't just show up with one option as a place to find the lost.  Check around until you find what you are looking for.  But don't stop short or you will end up like "U2" and "still trying to find what you are looking for".

THE FOURTH MISTAKE

I dislike it when people set up a straw man argument or a wet paper sack argument.  In other words, they make it so easy to win by having no competition.  I see this every year, when some college team rolls over some weakling and the polls move that team up to #1, only to see them get trounced three weeks later.  What this author is arguing about is supposed to be why holiness is forgotten, not about whether people are afraid of God or not.  I was expecting an emotional and logical argument.  I only got the former.

Here's his straw man argument.  People don't know the definition of holy, because they are not afraid of God's holiness.  People when asked for God's attributes don't mention holiness, because they want to avoid an attribute that leads to fear.  He even illogically treats love not as a requirement, but as a kindness or gift. He is illogical here.  The commandment (requirement) is love.  How is that like compassion?  It is mixing demands with gifts.

Listen, I have gone to churches with public sharing.  That is not a good forum for deciding whether the church teaches holiness or not.  As for the definition, they don't know it, because there are too many options. Who's fault is that?  To blame it on the common people not fearing enough from their pews is to set up a straw man argument. The sad thing is the argument he gives cannot fight its way out of a wet paper sack (weakling!) either.

CONCLUSION

There are more errors, but suffice it to say, "Why is this author asking others to fear God, when he does not fear his own lack of ability?"   Lack of ability is the basic reason to fear.  Its counter part is another's ability to do what I cannot.

Take the table saw again.  The table saw CAN cut off a finger.  My finger CANNOT stop the table saw blade from doing just that, if it is in the wrong place at the wrong time.  So you bet I fear God.  I fear him more than this author in Christianity Today does.

But God has also given me good teachers, so that I am not just caught up in God's alien nature (as Luther called it), but I am caught up more in what I can do through God's compassion and God's heaven sent instructors on exegesis.  May God's children have more confidence and may this erring child of many mistakes realize what he CANNOT do and have greater fear.  Don't instruct others in what you yourself do not possess - healthy fear and a definition for holiness.


In Christ,

Jon
.

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Two Recent Books

If you are visiting this blog for the meaning of holy, it is a shame you and I cannot enter into a face to face conversation.  I am discovering relevant new material everyday.  It is impossible for me to express something about every discovery I make.  But every once in a while, I make discoveries that may tip the balance in understanding the meaning of holy. 

Whatever background you have grown up in, whether in church or synagogue, you have not seen or heard of some of the most profound books on the topic of the meaning of holy and on the topic of biblical interpretation.  The volume of them is beyond one person's reach. 

The issue is that holy or sanctification could mean one of the following definitions: 1) pure/purity, 2) set apart/separate, or 3) whole.  I want to introduce two books that advance the discussion considerably whatever position or positions you hold.

The first is: Disability in the Hebrew Bible: Interpreting Mental and Physical Differences.  It is written by Saul M. Olyan.  If you want to learn more about the book itself, click on:

http://www.amazon.com/Disability-Hebrew-Bible-Interpreting-Differences/dp/0521888077. 

The reason I recommend this book is because it touches by implication on the issue of holy means whole.  It has a great deal to say on the topic of holiness along that line.  He also expands on the work of the anthropologist Mary Douglas who says the same about the meaning of holy.

The second is: Conceptualizing Words for "God" Within the Pentateuch: A Cognitive-Semantic Investigation in Literary Context.   The author is Terrance R. Wardlaw.   If you want to learn more about the book itself, click on:

http://www.amazon.com/Conceptualizing-Words-within-Pentateuch-Cognitive-Semantic/dp/0567027376/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362074634&sr=1-1-fkmr1&keywords=conceptualizing+words+for+%22god%22+within+the+penteteuch.  

I know the book looks daunting.  So does the link look that way as well!  What I will say is that its topic is great, since it is A1 on the list of high priorities in dealing with God's name.  It ranks first before the importance of this blog.  But my interest in the book is that the outline the author uses nearly mirrors the argument that I must make for the meaning of holy.  I won't have to write quite so densely, but the use of linguistics in the book for finding meaning in the biblical text is highly important.   It puts a method out there that is ready to use for good biblical exegesis. 

So I recommend both.  One for its development of the argument for the idea that holy means whole.  The other for its development of exegetical or interpretative method.  They are both raising the bar for those who want to really know the meaning of holy.  Thank you for taking time to read this entry.  It is my hope that it benefitted you today.


In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Textual Studies

I want to begin with an examle from what is today called textual criticism.There are four books that are critical for examining the underlying New Testament Greek text.  They are:

1)  The Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies
2)  A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, written by Bruce M. Metzger
3)  The Text of the New Testament, written by Kurt and Barbara Aland.
4)  The Identity of the New Testament Text, written by William Pickering

The final one is a controversial addition, because it disagrees on the level of principles with with first three.  I've added it, because I believe in fairness toward competing views.  The more important issue though is a practice that is common to textual criticism that is unfortunately lacking in biblical translation. I read this recently in Bible Translation and the Spread of the Church: " ... the United Bible Society attempts to help translators by providing a graded evaluation for textual variants that are cited"(p. 42).   I would like today to provide grade for he translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words behind the English translation of "holy".

First, I have to add one further point from the book that I mention in the previous paragraph about textual critics providing options with grades:  "Kurt Aland writes that this feature [a graded evaluation for textual variants; was `insisted upon by Eugene A. Nida against the whole editorial committee, if I may speak out of school, and in retrospect I believe he was right'" (p. 42).  I too believe he was right and that the principle can carry over to translation.  When there are variants or variations in how a word is translated, why not grade them as a group rather than insist on one option alone without grade A evidence? 

Here is what I insist that we need to do in translating holy - we need to show the variations in how "holy" in the original is translated rather than present the evidence as though there is only one option, when we are speaking of more than one possibility.  Based on my reading, here is what the committee of scholars would like assign for grades for the different possible translations of the original text whether in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. 

There grades for a committee of scholars (if they know the evidence well):

"set apart"  B+
"pure" B-
"whole C-

This I think would be the graded evaluation for translation variants.  I want to point out that these are not my personal grades on these variants.  Notice that I do not think that the best scholars on this topic assign an A grade for any of these definitions.  I draw this primarily from the most prominent theologians on the topic in the 20th Century: Rudoph Otto "wholly other", Norman Snaith "set apart" and Klein "probable" for "set apart". 

The difficulty for the last entry of "whole" and the reason it receives only a C- is that while the English word for "holy" has a root meaning in English of whole, this only proves what the early English translators and some of its earlier readers thought the Hebrew meant "whole" according to their English translation efforts.  That is significant, but it is not the final conclusion in the discussion.  The English word "holy" cannot be used to prove what the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek means.  It is a translation and not the original.  We have to retrace the evidence for "holy" as a valid translation.  For myself, if qadosh in Hebrew or hagios in Greek does not mean whole, then I think holy might be better replaced for the sake of meaningfulness and clarity, consistently by the English words "set apart" or "pure".  It makes little sense for the sake of meaningfulness to have to always explain what holy means.  Holy has historical value, but does it have contemporary value in that case? 

The other problem for the meaning of "whole" is that the scholarship of that earlier era going back to at least Tyndale in the history of English transaltion, it does not leave us clear footnotes to trace where the idea of "whole" comes from.  We know know what they thought (their conlusions), but we are going to have a hard time knowing why and from what source (their support).   

So moving forward from here, it is not only ancient copiers of the text that preseved marginal readings, so do contemporary textual scholars.  The old copyists graded their options according ot in the text (higher grade) and in the margin of the text (lower grade).  We need to do the same with those words that are translated in most English translations by "holy", "sanctified", or "hallowed".  We need to presently grade the different meanings openly for the readers.  Give people the graded options they deserve, ratther than one option that suggests a higher certainty than there is in reality. 
Reality is refreshing.  Anything less is draining.

In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Quantity and Quality

Have you ever read a copy of Consumer Reports, or have you ever examined customer comments on-line, or have you ever paused in front of your television to listen to the latest evaluation of a side by side comparison of products?   I would guess that the majority, if not a super majority, of us have done such a thing.  Two of the hot button topics for products are quantity and quality.  Comparisons usually boil down to the specifics of market share and product quality.  Apple, the number one seller, is compared to the other top sellers like Samsung for quality.  People often try to persuade another person of their "brand" being superior due to its market share among customers and experts and/or due to its product quality as recognized by customers and by experts.   The definitions suggested for holy, as found in the Bible, in many ways are evaluated in much the same way.  I don't say this in any way to trivalize the importance of the definition of holy.  Its definition is more important than your cell phone brand.  I say this only by way of making one point by this illustration about comparisons.  We often do compare things including the possible definitons of holy based on our assessment of the quantity and quality of a definition, whether we are aware of evaluating it based on quantity and quality or not. 

I have noticed both in my reading and from the comments of others that the leading brand definition for holy is "set apart".  The second most popular brand is the definition of "pure".  The third most popular definition is "whole".  They are the top they in market share or popular support among "believers" whether Christians or Jews in relationship to the Hebrew word qadosh.  The remaining brand definitions are out there, but their market shares are so small that scholars most often don't even mention them.  One example among about twenty other possibilities is "worth (or value").  Another has the idea of "preparation" as its core meaning.  These definitions come from renowned scholars, but they just haven't gotten any foothold among the other possible definitions for people including myself.  The definition of holy as "worth" was important for me initially, because it taught me that there could be a meaning out there other than "set apart".  It proved not to have much value beyond that despite coming from one of my favorite professors.

Definitions of ancient biblical words have a type of market share among "believers" and scholars and the quality of expertise associated with them.  Just today I read this regarding the evaluation of a commentary in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (p. 267):

     A commentary does not fully inform you unless the author discusses all ... possibilities, gives
     reasons for and against each, then explains his or her choice. 

     ....  ..., especially how well it discusses all possible meanings.


In the case of the first line in this quotation it was referring to 3 possibilities for a particular text, but the point about "all" is telling as a principle.  I would quallify this a bit to all the top possibilities, when it comes to actually writing about them and trying to persuade others.  While it is important to have examined all the twenty some meanings that I have run across initially for defining holy in the biblical text, as I have listed in one of my earlier posts, they don't equally deserve fuller examination after their initial first examination.  Some possibilities immediately show up as fairly marginal selections.  This will always be slightly controversial, but I think it is still fair.  Every definition just like every person has to earn or prove their way to the top.  Surviving a test is critical to being part of the last definition standing. 

But my blog I hope is at least better than many sites where you are only informed of 1 possible definition rather than at least the top 3 possiblities.  So Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart should at least give me high marks for providing my readers with all 3 (or at least all 2) of the top possibilities.   This is one of the chief values of this blog.  It gives you options. 

But beyond just the quantity or number of possibilities is the question of quality in a definition.  You note above that even though I may have eventually found 20 some definitions, some of them were likely not to have more than a sliver of people willing to stand up for them. 

Now let's look at the issue fo the quality of a definition.  The quality of a definition should be based on the quality of the method used in determining a word's definition.  Since James Barr's Semantics of Biblical Language, there has been a general disregard or distrust for the etymological method for determining the meaning of a word.  He was by far not the first to be critical of this method (that began to receive criticism at the hands of the historical and comparative traditions in biblical exegesis), but he certainly dealt etymology are harsh blow.  I like to remind myself that "Barr goes too far", even when he makes an otherwise valid point.  I think his criticism of etymology does go too far.

Etymology became eventually one of the four chief divisions of grammar.  It dates back a long way as a method for defining words.  We know that the Greek philosopher Plato used it as one and maybe the worst example.  There have been in history some fanciful definitions for words drawn from supposed etymologies.   But not every etymology has to fall into that category. 

Let me give an example of this.  The word "mouse", as it is used for a device associated with my computer, does have a relationship to the mouse that my neighbor trapped a few weeks ago in his house.  In this case, the story goes that an actual visual connection was behind the language connection between these two uses of mouse.  By the way, if the original mouse was wireless (and so lost the appearance of a tail), then it may have never been called a mouse.  I can only venture guesses at what it might have been called then!  So the meaning of mouse as in an animal, that can be sometimes found unwanted in a house, does have a true connection to a mouse that moves as point and click tool or feature on my computer. 

For myself, my linguistic analysis includes etymology as one part of the lexical analysis of a word.  Individual letters and morphemes (small meaning units) can carry meanings that can help us define words.  They can assist in tracing a true meaning, but grammatical letters and small units of meaning cannot function alone for determining the meaning of a word.  It requires something bigger than an etymological method alone, it also requires something more than a lexical analysis as well.  It requires a linguistic analysis as a whole as a minimum method for us to have reasonable certainty that a word is understood correctly.

In come cases, a person has to go beyond grammatical (letter) analysis or linguistic (language) analysis, but they are the most direct ways to get at a word's meaning.  There can be historical factors that are important to finding out a word's meaning.  The actual story of how the computer mouse was named gives real proof that the meaning behind the object does have something to do with a little furry creature.  That is the sense in which the association beween two mice can be considered to have a true connection.  Etymology has as part of its meaning in Greek, the idea of a "true" root or meaning.  But beyond historical factors are literary factors, cultural factors, etc.  There are other methods when there is a "distance" of any of these kinds that might be more or less relevant in each situation.  That is where the exegete or the linguist must determine if there is a better tool to use beside linguistic analysis.  This covers the issue of quality in some detail.

Let me now come back to linguistic analysis as a method in terms of its quality as a method.  I am convinced that it surpasses etymological method mainly because it includes it, but does not rely upon it excessessively or exclusively.  It also is a method that is not so dependent on trying to figure out a history that might have been lost, because it is more strictly a method rooted in the general principles of language.  You might say it is more purely linguistic. This is a major reason for this blog and my thesis paper that I am writing.  I am convinced that the highest quality method of linguistic analysis needs to be used to surpass the etymological method not through just pointing out the weaknesses of etymology, but also by providing new strengths by avoiding having to re-construct a meaning rather than relying on the most immediate evidence availalble.  A full linguistic analysis has a lot of advantages. 

So in conclusion, this blog has a very definite purpose: It is my attempt to define holy with more certainty.  But it also is more than its purpose that gives it value.  It is also not content with testing just one possible definition of holy in the original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek text of the Bible, but with at least two being tested and more likely the top three being tested.  That is its quantity advantage!   By the way, when it later gets down to one option through allowing three options, that would be even more valuable!   It also is valuable, becuase it uses a method that surpasses the over-reliance on the etymological method or the over-criticism of the etymological method (which I am not sure where it intends to leave us).  That is is quality advantage! 

Please check back at least monthly and maybe even weekly and sometimes even daily for further developments.  I hope you feel the energy of greater quantity and greater quality as reachable goals in the short future.  Take care. 

Sincerely, 

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better from a Prior Example

We've likely all heard someone utter those hope dashing words:"We've seen this movie before".  The connotation is that "the movie" is not worth our time, since it has been seen before.  It doesn't have to be the exact same movie, it may only follow the same plot, etc.  We've also probably also heard someone else say: ""We've seen this [movie] a hundred times before".   Sometimes when these phrases are said, they have nothing to do with a movie, but a proposed solution that led to nowhere exciting before and will lead to that same place again.  In any case, the point is negative.  The point is that this is a waste of our time.  The problem is that people today are suffering from the "we've all seen this movie before" syndrome, where proposed solutions are the same thing all over again and so will fail to live up to their claims again.  In contrast, I am claiming that defining holy has the potential to be a movie we have never seen before.  It can live up to its promised implications.  It can eventurally make a big difference. 

I also want to say something positive about something that I've personally seen before that has made a substantial difference in my life.  In my last entry, I spoke about doing linguistic analysis on the words in the Bible translated as "holy".  Years ago I read a linguistic analysis that changed my view on the definitions for the Hebrew words of righteousness and justice.  Then later this same point was driven home by a carpentry illustration in the book of Isaiah.  I am anticipating that my linguistic analysis of holy will provide a similar scholarly argument and that the anthropologist Mary Douglas has already provided in her writings the illustration in Scripture that provides the concrete illustration of its meaning.  So I am going to happily watch the same movie again!  These two movies will be similar I believe and therefore I am filled with anticipation rather than dread.   Not only that, but since holy is a higher moral character trait, it can have an even greater impact!

Instead of being deflated, I will be delighted if I get to see the same movie a second time with only the "names" that are changed.  This time instead of "justice and righteousness" the names will be "holiness and purity, set apaart, wholeness, etc.".  Just today on 12/12/12, I ordered from the library the book that I read some time ago: Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and their Influence.  It is edited by Benjamin Uffenheimer, Henning Reventflow and Yair Hoffman.  The volume contains a chapter written by Moshe Weinfeld titled: "Justice and Righteousness - The Expression and Its Meaning".  I read this article a long time ago, so I need to read it again.  But what I clearly got from the article is that in Hebrew justice and righteousness are not synonyms like we think of them in English. 

Just yesterday I read Romans 5 with my eyes open to the fact that the two words do not mean the same thing in Hebrew and for Paul, the Hebrew of Hebrews in the 1st Century.  Reading the passage with those eyes, I recognized that translators too often use justice related words rather than using righreousness related words when the Greek indicated that would be more consistent.  But if a person thinks the terms are synonymous this certainly makes sense.  But if you read righteousness rather than justice you can better understand Paul's use of the words "one" and "many" in the context much better. 

Let me explain this further through Isaiah 28:17 and Luke 10.  -----   I have chosen two of the most popular translations and one very literal one to demonstrate my point from mostly eliable translations of the Bible.  You may want to consult the NET Bible, if you have further questions. I have consulted the Hebrew directly to insure that I'm satisfied with the translations, but a blog entry of this size is not the place for further details.  Let's begin with looking at Isaiah 28:17 through the NIV, the NKJV and NASB.  It reads:

New International Version

I will make justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line; hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie, and water will overflow your hiding place.

New King James Version

Also I will make justice the measuring line, And righteousness the plummet; The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters will overflow the hiding place.

New American Standard

"I will make justice the measuring line And righteousness the level ; Then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies And the waters will overflow the secret place.

For anyone like myself, the experience of being a carpenter makes this passage abundantly clear.  The NAS muddies thiings a little bit with their attempt, so I can assure you that the person translating could not have been a carpenter.  On a standard level today a person can use a level to measure the accuracy of construction on two planes.  The one is a horizontal measurement and the second is a vertical measurement.  In Isaiah 28:17, the plumb line obviously fits with the role of measuring the vertical axis or plane.  The "measuring line" could then fit with horiztontal plane.  I have seen pictures of devices used in Egypt that used the plumb line to determine the vertical axis and then using 90% could also plot the horizontal access.  I myself have used a "measuring line" with a level hanging from it to determine the accuracy of a horizontal measurement.  I am not sure of their device then, but this concrete analogy fits with the scholarly view of Weinfled that the two are distinct from each other. 

Let's now also look at the implications of this discussion of righteousness and justice for other portions in Scipture.  I want to look us to look at the 1st and 2nd greatest commandments in the Bible (not the 1st and 2nd greatest laws!).  It is found in Luke 10:27 and among the other Gospels.  It reads:

New International Version

He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "

New King James Version

So he answered and said, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and 'your neighbor as yourself.' "

New American Standard

And he answered, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND ; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

This cross section of versions is pretty agreeable in this case.  The greatest or first commandment is part of what the Jews call the Shema.  In that context, the Jews recite the words: "Hear O Israel, the LORD your God is one ...".   (The words "the LORD" substitute for the name of God, Yahweh.)   The key point for our purposes is the word "one".  If you have "one" God, it makes perfect mathematical sense to love him with "all" repeated four times for each of the vital members of oneself or yourself.   You can literally think of it along the lines of a plumb line.  If there is "one" axis point, then "all" 100% of the weight on the plumb is supported is supported from that one point.  If you add further gods, then no longer is "one" supporting "all" of the weight of the plumb line's weight fastened to its end, but two, etc. are now supporting the portions of weight.  If two, then 50%, etc. rather than "all".  If all of us could remember that one God is the right thing and herefore it makes good mathematical sense to then love him with our all, then this world could be a better place.

Likewise the second commandment can be explained fairly well by thinking of the level horizontal line 90% from the vertical line.  We are told to love our neighbors "as" ourselves.  That is not more than, not less than, not in contrast to, but equal to ourselves.  That seems pretty just to me.  If all of us could remember that is the just thing to do, this corld would be a better place. 

Now turning to holy, I think the famous anthropologist may have stumbled onto holy's best illustration in the Bible as is the carpenter's tools for justice and righteousness.  She found that in parallel texts that the Hebew word for "whole" stones is parallel to "holy" in a parallel context.  This is extremely significant.  That is because the Hebrew word for "whole" shows up a few times next to holy that makes it a potential parallel to holy in other passages.  I can't wait to check this all ou thoroughly.  Here is another great reason to not dread seeing this kind of movie all over again. 

So I am looking forward to the future or just the rest of today with anticipation.  If "holy, holy, holy" is more significant in Isaiah and Revelation and many other parts of the Bible than righteousness or justice, then there is a reason for anticipation.  We should not look for a future understanding of holy using linguistic analysis with dread, but with anticipation.   So threw away your holiday dread this holiday (holy day) season and instead have holiday anticipation.  Maybe it would be good to find Carly Simon's "Anticipation" song and play it to get you into that type of cheer. May God bless you this holiday  and Christmas (Christ mas) season. 

In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Linguistic Analysis

The first question for anyone searching on the internet for the definition of holy is:  "What is the definition of holy as it is used in the Bible?"  Let me give first a short answer to that question.  It means one of three major possible definitions: 1) pure, 2) set apart, and/or 3) moral wholeness.  (These are listed in alphabetical order to avoid bias.)  I know you want the one definition.  So do I, but I have to complete my linguistic analysis before I can say its meaning has been re-discovered accurately in the 21st Century.

"There's a method in his madness".  The definition given for this saying is that there is often a plan or method hidden behind a person's apparently inexplicable behavior.  In my last entry, I explained that part of the method behind some of my entries was to remove both presuppositions and historical fallacies about what "holy" (quadosh or hagios) means.  This entry is to lay out explicitly what method I am going to use to define holy in its biblical context.  The method is called "Linguistic Analysis", if we use the terminology of Michael Gorman in his book Elements of Biblical Exegesis.

The first question is the right question: "What does holy mean?"  But another question is also important.  That question is this: "What is your method for determining the meaning of holy?"  You can go to many places on the internet and you will find a definition for holy in the biblical text, but you quite often are left in the dark as to how they re-discovered that meaning found in the Law of Moses and in Ancient Hebrew (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy).  So ltet's replace a little of the madness in trying to define holy with some clarity of method. 

The Linguistic Analysis method consists of the following parts:

1) Semantic Analysis
2) Discourse Analysis
3) Grammatical Analysis (another word for the method, included within Linguistic Analysis)
4) Syntactical Analysis
5) Lexical Analysis

The order in which these are placed and the breaking out of some of these into separate parts is not the work of Michael Gorman.  Instead, he provided me with a very good list from which I forged these 5 distinct parts in my method.  I re-worked all of Gorman's categories based on 5 classes of definition: 1) Amount, 2) Relationship, 3) Whole, 4) Action, and 5) Thing. 

Let me say a little about each part of my method.  In each case, I will be using insights from linguists like Eugene Nida and from biblical exegetes like D. A. Carson and others. Here is each of the methods separately:

1) Semantic analysis normally has focused on meaning.  I will be pursuing a course that considers first clarity and then second meaning.  This is a course correction from Nida's dynamic equivalence that primarily looks at meaning.  I will use his insights, but as a first step also take steps to preserve clarity where possible.  A balance of both needs to be maintained.  It is like using a plumb line for the vertical axis and then also using a level for the horizontal axis.  That analogy is in fact how I picture the relationship between clarity and meaning and in that order. 

2) Discourse analysis is used all the time by many linguists and biblical exegetes.  Linguistics usually refer to the method they use as structural analysis.  Biblical exegetes usually use a method that combines sentence diagramming and outlining.  I also am aware of the method called arcing that was first developed by Daniel P. Fuller and later made more popular by Dr. John S. Piper (today a well-known pastor known mainly through Desiring God Ministries on-line).   Arcing is mainly an off shoot from biblical exegesis and traditional grammar.  I prefer myself the method referred to as disourse analysis or structural analysis, because it is more comprehensive than the other methods.  It's main weakness in the past came from its prior step of semantic analysis.  I have already suggested what I will change in the previous paragraph on semantic analysis to correct the weakness there.

3) Grammatical analysis is all the other types of analysis combined.  Traditionally this was the method that was taught in most of our earlier years in learning "grammar".   Its traditional major categories or divsions are:

a) orthography
b) etymology
c) syntax
d) prosody

I was not taught about these major divisions when I was in junior high school, but I do know that there are much longer lists of what grammar includes and there is a lot  more detail.  This often tneds toward confusion!  I will be handling linguistic or grammatical analysis on the level of its major divsions as:

a) semantical analysis
b) discourse analysis
c) syntactical analysis
d) lexical analysis

These categories I consider to be much better major divisions for understanding grammar and they also include the older categories.  They are not necessarily anti-grammar as some suppose from reading things written by scholars like James Barr in Biblical Semantics.  I would say it this way:  "The problem with Barr is that he goes too far".  I mean this in the context of his criticisms of things like etymology.  While etymology has weaknesses for word study, it can be helpful as one part of the larger picture of grammatical analysis. 

3) Syntactical analysis is very important and it is often shown using sentence diagramming.  This method is often useful, because it helps in isolating the actions or events of the text and those aspects that fit around that action in the form of a sentence.  But I also like to use another tool for analyzing action in a text that looks wider than the sentence level.  It does this by looking at the pre-state and post-state of an action.  I learned this method from James J. Odell.  He is a unique source, because he is neither a linguist nor a biblical exegete, but he is a very important computer search engine expert.  You can find some excellent things written by him on-line.   But the best way to understand this method will be the results from the fruit of t his method as I put this method into action on the meaning of qadosh and hagios as actions and in their usual translation of "sanctify".

4) Lexical analysis will be where the majority of work needs to be done including insights from etymology.  But etymology cannot be used alone separate from the other forms of analysis.  That has been the major weakness of etymology in the past as well as in the case of lexical analysis.  Word studies, as they are sometimes referred to in exegetical literature, often do not take seriously enough the need for accurate discourse analysis.  I see this especially, when words are seen as parallel without examiing the connective words in the text.  So no etymologies or word studies without context!  Context needs to be examined through discourse analysis! 

Now that I have  mainly layed out the positive methods I will be using, let me say a little about the weakness in previous methods in general.  The biggest issue has been the presumpotion of meaning using the traditional grammatical analysis method of etymology as opposed to a more complete  lexical analysis .  Lexical analysis includes etymology, but it is also on guard against errors made using this method.  In some cases, such as those of the Greek philosophers like Plato, there are some significant examples of errors from etymology alone.  Lexical analysis also does not stand alone nor should word studies and therefore also has more than just a contextual (discourse analysis) advantage over etymology.  It is designed to work with support from the other forms of analysis alongside of it.  In some cases, it is not necesary to do these others, but that is only when the other methods and results are already well-estbalished. 

So in conclusion, while I will be doing a study of the meaning of the words in the biblical text that are translated by holy, etc., I will be careful to include all the major forms or divisions in my study.  One of these methods or divisions by itself has value and can sometimes stand alone when the other parts are already well-established, but the checks and balances of the other methods are needed whenever there is a question of parallels or context or meaning or clarity, etc.  That is why my overall method is best called linguistic analysis for my fellow linguistis out there or grammatical analysis for my fellow biblical exegetes.  Please keep watching for my conclusions as my desire it to finish things by the late spring 2013. 

In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better By Matching the Method to the Issue

Yesterday, while working in my garage, I used a variety of tools depending on what I was trying to accomplish.  To remove most nails, I was able to use a standard finishing hanmer, but in some cases I had to use a heavier wrecking hammer to remove some of the more stubborn nails from the 2 x 4s..  In one case, I even had to switch to a long crow bar.  But besiders removing nails, I had to remove a few screws and for these I switched to a power drill.  To learn the meaning of words in the biblical text, it is also very important to match the method to the issue.  If I were to try to use the wrong tool, each of these projects would have resulted in wasted effort and time and maybe even failure.  This likewise can happen in biblical study.  One of the keys to understanding the meaning of holy is to use a method that fits the issue.  The issue is that there is uncertainty about the meaning of holy in the original language(s) of the Bible.

When striving to deal with uncertainty as to what holy means, it is a challenge to select the best method to use.  The method needs to address the issue of uncertainty directly or it won't be the very best.  There is not just the problem of people defining the word for holy differently.  The other is the difficulty that there are a number of exegetical (reading and interpreting) methods that different biblical scholars use.  But these difficulties are not a reason for despair.  The uncertainty can be addressed, just like the nails and the screws in my garage wall.  The only question is whether we have chosen the best tool for the project to be able to feel confident about success. 

As an undergrad, I was trained initially in two methods of biblical study: (1) inductive biblical study and (2) linguistic analysis.  My primary method today is a blend of both of these methods.  The inductive method that I learned initially was that of Dr. Daniel P. Fuller, who also was a mentor of Dr. John S. Piper and I had the good fortune of studying under Piper during my undergrad years and Fuller during my seminary years.  I found the inductive method to be very helpful for gathering fresh insights.  Yet I also found inconsistencies between it and the linguistic analysis that I learned from Dr. William A. Smalley during my undergraduate years and Dr. Daniel P. Shaw during my seminary years.  The advance for me today is that I now have brought both these methods full circle to where those inconsistencies are no longer present and the organization of my method is primarily responsible for removing any supposed inconsistencies.  This did not happen overnight!

So lets talk more about matching a method to the issue.   The first thing to realize is that there are not shortcuts you can take, but there is a very real path we can all take.  Besides the authors or teachers above, I have seven very valuable books (and some were also my teachers) on exegesis or Bible study on my shelf.  They are from easiest to most difficult:

1)  Rick Warren's Bible Study Methods:12 Ways You Can Unlock God's Word by Rick Warren, 2006
2)  How to Study Your Bible: The Lasting Rewards of the Inductive Approach by Kay Arthur, 1994
3) Living By the Book by Howard G Hendricks and William D. Hendricks, 1991
4) Methodical Bible Study by Robert. A. Trainia, 1980
5) A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules by Robert H. Stein, 1994
6) Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., 2009
7) Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers, Revised and Expanded Edition by Michael J. Gorman

(The only one that I am really not sure how to rank is Kay Arthur's book.  Somehow it is more complicated than it looks on the surface.)

 The method I am going to use to define holy in my post-graduate studies and for my post-graduate paper is clearly on the level of Gorman's book or should I say has to be on that level.  (In my blog and in this entry, I try to drop nuggets from more than one level.)  I find his method to be very well-organized and that might be his main advance over the others.  I do though think his method needs to be supplemented.

First, he needs to realize that while he outlines a very complete method for interpreting the text, he is not equally complete in his method of laying writing a paper or structuring a sermon.  He leaves that side to be supplemented by the materials written by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. who deals equally with "text" and with "sermon" sides or both sides of the bridge. 

Second, his main strength is in the "elements" of the process of exegesis, but he is not equally effective in putting together the whole.  Related to my last suggested supplement, his outline is not balanced, so that the whole picture gets obscured.  I mainly correct this also through my "Linguistic Analysis" tools that I learned and studied.  For this, I credit Dr. William A. Smalley (and Dr. Donald N. Larson, his colleague) and Dr. Daniel P. Shaw.  They are how I will be able to create a better outline of my exegetical (read and interpret) method. 

The main point I want to make for people on all ewvery levels is that the method that is chosen is not just a matter of ease or difficulty, it is also a matter of directly addressing the issues involved.  A very easy method like Rick Warren's might address the issues or a very difficult one like Michael Gorman's might as well, but the question remains: "Do they address the central issue?"  The central issue is that there is a measure of uncertainty even among top scholars as to what holy means.  (I'll explain later (again) the interim method to follow while the uncertainty exists).

Warren's book could deal with this topic through his section on character qualities.  Uncertainty would likely fall under his banner of negative character qualities.  This would be a great place for the simplest person to begin to understand the issues.  Gorman's more complex book also does address uncertainty, but I am not real happy with his discusion, because in the end he does not aim to reduce uncertainty, but to accept it as somewhat natural or positive (Gorman, p. 131-137).   I think he overstates his case and I think people like Walter C. Kaiser Jr. from my list above would also be troubled by his overstated view. 

To deal with this same issue on the same level as Gorman (no offense to Warren), I have found a supplement in the writings of David G. Ullman who has written a number of articles and books on the subject of "Robust Decisions".  He has this to say about robust decisions:

Robust decision making extends ... to general decision making with uncertainty considered from the beginning: controlling what uncertainty you can and finding the best possible solution that is insensitive as possible to the remaining uncertainty.  A robust decision is the best possible choice, found by eliminating all the uncertainty possible within available resources, and chosen with known and acceptable satisfaction and risk.  www.realinnovation.com/content/c070122a.asp

What I like is that Ullman sees nothing wrong with the effort to "minimize uncertainty" (while Gorman might) and at the same time he is not ignoring uncertainty from the beginning of a process as though a negative trait does not exist, but rather he faces into it like a robust sailor facing into the wind.  There has been a dual problem in dealing with the meaning of holy: 1) one side assumes the postive quality of certainty and 2) another side assumes the negative quality of uncertainty.  Many biblical exegetical (reading and interpreting) methods assume certainty rather than buidlling it through a process that seeks to minimize posssible uncertainty.  . 

I think uncertainty can be reduced to a very satisfactory level, but it is good to know how this is done.  It is also important to realize the different types of uncertainty.  Ullman outlines four types of possible conditions with information.  It can be: 1) uncertain, 2) incomplete, 3) evolving (I prefer "changing", because it lacks scientific baggage), and 4) conflicting.  If all these conditions are present without any reductions in them, it means the situation is quite risky.

The reason why these types of conditions are important is precisely because we don't want to be taking excessive risks with who it is we worship and whether we have eternal life or not.  We want an alternative with "known and acceptable satisfaction and risk".  This goes beyond Michael Gorman's satisfaction point.  So I will be using a method that addresses the issue: the issue of uncertainty.  I cannot side-step it by simply reading a popular lexicon (foreign language dictionary).  

Finally, the big task in front of me is to finish my thesis or dissertation paper for seminary, because by using that method (largely outlined in Gorman), I can successfully reduce the amount of uncertainty about the three most probable definitions of holy: 1) set apart or separate, 2) pure or 3) whole. 

In the meantime (until I or someone else finishes our scholarly work), as I say elsewhere, do as the ancient Jews did when facing uncertainty as a reality with the precious ancient biblical Hebrew (and Aramaic) manuscripts.  They recorded the most likely alternative in the body of the text and any variants in the margin, until some later time in which new information might later eliminate alternatives. 

That is what I am doing now in order to keep me from prematurely latching on to one alternative without giving the others their just opportunity.  This is one of the great blunders in decision making or in interpreting the meaning of a word.  It is the premature acceptance of an alternative without the testing of others. 

So when working in the garage, you might be able to get the job done using a regular finishing hammer while I may need a heavier wrecking hammer.  It does not matter as long as the tool fits the issue.  So make sure whether you use a simple method like Warren's or a tougher one like Gorman's method that you don't avoid the negative quality of uncertainty, but rather you deal with it.  Method needs to fit the issue(s).  May God grant the entire human world greater certainty on what holy means!  And may we also use the best methods available to us to face the issues! 

Sincerely,

Jon





 

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

This final step is every bit as important as the 4 prior ones.  Here I will explore analogies to compare to the Hebrew word for holy, qadosh, and other Hebrew words for things like divide, separate, set apart, whole, etc.  Analogies are the art of great teachers.  Jesus' parables are a classic examples for how he earned the right to be called rabbi.  This will be critical for knowing which class the Hebrew word for holy best fits.

This will be the final step.  In many cases in the past it is the first and only step taken relying heavily on the area of etymology and the relationship between words that use similar lettering.  That was the likeness relied upon.  Here I will rely upon word classes and other words that are clear examples from that class.



There is also the importance of separating out the different steps from classifying to placing a word in a semantic domain (a set of words that have things in common).  The diagram below shows those sub-steps as critical parts of this final step.

They can be pictured as follows:

This diagram will also help in defining where etymology fits exactly.  It is a method that is often described differently and I hope to resolve that fuzziness. 




 [This entry is also in development, waiting for me to have ample time.  I wish I didn't have to do other things to earn my way in life.  Knowing the meaning of this word with certainty could potentially have big implcations]

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Staying on Course

"There is no shortcut. But there is a path. The path is based on principles revered throughout history. If there is one message to glean from this wisdom, it is that a meaningful life is not a matter of speed or efficiency. It's much more a matter of what you do and why you do it than how fast you get it done."  This quote on wisdom and method is from Stephen R. Covey.  I quote it, because the path to understanding holy is filled with pitfalls that can be described as shortcuts.  But also I am convinced that there is a very reliable path to understanding holy that will raise the level of certainty about its meaning to a new level. 

In this entry, I will outline the five steps in that process and follow up with short descriptions.  I have mentioned these steps before, but I now understand them better and I have a new commitment to this method after hearing and then reading Covey's quote.  They are: 1) Translating, 2) Transfering, 3) Totaling, 4)Training, and 5) Teaching. 

Please don't get overly hung up on terminology.  These five could also be called the following names, based on terminology drawn from biblical study and linguistics: 1) Comparing translations, 2)  Textual displaying, 3) Exegesis 4) Action and Post-Action charting, and 5) Universal classifying of words.  I have tried to use the most everyday language and the most principle centered language that I found in the literature of biblical exegesis and interpretation or in the literature of linguistics (the scientific study of languages).  To varying degrees, the steps are universal to all the major books on exegesis. 

Let me use one book as a specific example from the field of linguistics.  It is: Translating the Word of God by John Beekman and John Callow.  On the contents page (p. 7), they outline their principles of translation.  I would like to grade their book like a teacher does an assignment based on each of the five steps above. 

1) Translating: C+  (reason why: they do not balance both meaning and clarity as equals)

2) Transferring: B+ (reason why: they add to the traditional science of sentence diagramming)

3) Totaling: C+  (reason why: this is largely left implict rather than explicit, but they do practice it)

4) Training:  C+ (reason why: this is not covered in any real depth in this book)

5)  Teaching: A (reason why: the analysis of the universal classes of meaning is superb)

The book's overall score is: B.   It has for years been a very valuable addition to my library.  I could even upgrade it's overall score to B+, based on the fact that the teaching portion could be given an A+ (if I added that to my scale). 

Let's look again at the purpose for this entry on my blog.  It is to clarify and commit to how I am going to approach the meaning of holy.  It is only fair that my readers understand the principles of the method that I am using to get the results that I will arrive at. 

There are many tempting short cuts to avoid. The first is reading a greater volume of contemporary lexicons on Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to be sure the meaning of holy is correctly understood.  The second is to read the greats of church history to make sure that the meaning of the word holy has not been lost in moving from a period of revival to a period of decline.  The third is to keep digging deeper into the etymology of the word for holy in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  These are all good, but they can become the enemy of the best method for determining the meaning of holy. 

So going forward, even while I will use these other methods on occasion, I have to make sure that my focus is on the 5 step method that I proposed at the beginning.  Again, the terminology may differ, but the method is universal.  This method may also be better in some books than others.  Again, what matters most is staying with the method rather than getting side-tracked.  I feel like I could have used my blog entries better in the past with the 5 steps being more of a primary focus.  Again, this does not say the other methods are bad, though it may still mean they are enemies of the very best.  So while I will still use these methods, I hope to use them more sparingly. 

In addition, I think each passage I write about will have to be broken up into each of these 5 steps, so that my each of my entries is not too long.  That is one of the limitations in communicating by blog rather than by article or book.  So please be aware that in the near future that I may be dividing my entries up in this way in order to keep things short enough for those who want a quick answer, but also long enough through labeling for the person who wants to go into greater depth. 

Returning to part of my earlier quote: "If there is one message to glean from this wisdom, it is that a meaningful life is not a matter of speed or efficiency. It's much more a matter of what you do and why you do it than how fast you get it done."   Reading lexicon entries is fast, dictionaries entries are even faster; but I am in this to solve the problem of a fair level of uncertainty, and not to gloss over any uncertainty.  Here we go in embarking on a path, rather than on a short cut!

In Christ,

Pastor Jon