I firmly stand on the principle of Scripture alone in the sense of what is in Scripture has a unique quality of truth compared to the writings outside of it. I think this is terrifically relevant to the discussion on the meaning of holy. The danger though is that we limit not just truth to being found only there, but also we limit ourselves to only one biblical principle.
A valuable principle in addition to Scripture alone and the broader principle of truth is the principle of concrete things and the broader principle of good. Recently, in watching a DVD about the Aztecs and one of their monuments, the narrator said that at one time the majority of their evidence for the chief monument buried under Mexico City was documentary evidence, but now that had changed through archaeological evidence in finding the ancient monument itself.
I don't think that the shift from documentary evidence to the actual thing itself as evidence is harmful. In fact, it is a concrete good. When I defend the principle of truth in Scripture, I hope I do not turn a blind eye to the principle of good in the evidence of real things.
This is why finding a picture of holiness in some text next to the word for holiness would go a long way toward solving our problems with its definition. Likewise, better yet would be to find the concrete objects themselves as described in both a text and the picture. This would nail the definition of holy to the wall for good.
On the flipside, in the last few days I was searching commentaries on Romans for the authors' definitions for holy. It was a sad state of affairs. They all took a slightly different angle on the word. Their meanings were not the same, though in some cases they did overlap or agree.
We can find the concrete evidence we need and still uphold the principle of Scripture alone. Abstract documentary evidence is not passe. It is not a thing of the past. It still contributes truth. What is also a present concern is the matter of a targeted quest toward concrete evidence that should be available somewhere. I pray God will help us all find it. He's already helped me find a concrete biblical picture in a verbal description of righteousness and justice. The same can happen again for all of us on the meaning of holy.
In Christ,
Jon
Showing posts with label heilig. Show all posts
Showing posts with label heilig. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Holy Means Whole: According to the Forgotten Ways
When I first discovered the idea that holy means whole, I was a bit startled by its seeming novelty. I had never heard the idea before November 2004. That was until I researched the way the word for holy was translated in the King James Version, using Strong’s Concordance. There showed up the translation of the original for holy as wholly. This was what originally initiated my search. Since then, I have discovered that the idea was not novel, but forgotten.
Somehow the far right, the far left and the mushy middle forgot to pass it on to those of us who were born in the twentieth century. I’ve been asked how this could have happened or did happen. I think I can now venture a good idea as to how this happened. But before I say how it happened, I think it is important to point out that it happened for both unintended and intended reasons.
Sometimes crisis events prevail over accurate definitions. In the late 1800s, there are two crisis events that in turn changed the definition of holy. The first was a quest for clarity and a scientific basis for the meaning of biblical words. The second was a response to the quest to be clear and scientific.
I have to simplify the story, so I will make it about just two historical characters. The first is Julius Wellhausen. The second is Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Both are villains and heroes, depending on who you talk to and who knows who they are. Wellhausen is sometimes credited with first establishing credibility for the critical study of the Bible. Spurgeon is sometimes credited with first establishing a beachhead in response to critical study. Let’s live with these oversimplifications for our purposes.
Wellhausen had a pretty significant event in his life, when he had a falling out with his theological mentor, Ewald. From the climate of that time in Germany, there was a strong emphasis on being scientific. One had to have clear ideas in order for something to possess intelligence, to paraphrase Wellhausen. He did not find that in Ewald’s approach to the Bible.
Further, Wellhausen’s efforts had to be objective in order to be scientific. Part of this, was the conviction that a person must study, not just Hebrew religion and Christian religion, but also the other religions of the Ancient Near Eastern world. In this way, by demonstrating objectivity in at least initially treating all religions in that time and place as equals, one could establish credibility in the scientific realm.
Yet the implications were greater than that, because with this objectivity, there also was a belief that there might be themes that all religions held in common. One of those themes was believed to be a distinction between the taboo items of life and the ordinary items of life. Taboo things were things restricted to the sacred and the ordinary things were the common items of everyday life. The idea of holy in Judaism and Christianity supposedly were restricted by taboo and therefore sacred. They were set apart. The profane were the things not under restriction and therefore secular.
Being scientific about the meaning of holy in the original writings is a little more complicated than it is with many words. Some have what is called a clear etymology or a clear line from one word to another that helps us determine its meaning. For holy this is controversial rather than clear. This is the admission of every serious scholar. So into this vacuum stepped the insight of what was discovered in other religions, that there are items which are taboo or set apart and that there are items which are profane or common. So much for one part of our story. This is the root story for the far left side of the tracks.
Spurgeon’s efforts had to have credibility as well. He was not opposed to being objective, but he questioned some of the objectivity of Wellhausen and others, who felt comfortable with some critical views on Scripture that Spurgeon could not agree was objective. This came to a head, while he was part of what was called the Baptist Union.
Spurgeon ended up leaving the Baptist Union, following his accusation that some of its members were on a downgrade path in regard to Scripture. So the controversy became known as the Downgrade Controversy. Spurgeon’s favorite call to others of like mind was to “come out and be separate.”
This battle cry from the midst of a crisis, appears to have replaced Spurgeon’s earlier definition of holiness as wholeness. As he says in one of his sermons about holiness means wholeness, “as I have said many times.” Instead, following the controversy and even more his death not many years after, the definition for holiness took on the idea of “be separate.” So much for another part of this story. This is a root story for the far right side of the tracks.
The evangelicals at this time, were regarded by people like Spurgeon as weaker comrades in the battle against any kind of downgrade. The movement on the issue of holiness seems to have tried to steer a middle course in this controversy. It seems to have contributed very little, except perhaps wedding the idea of set apart to that of be separate. That was their so-called weaker course of peace. They later appeared more comfortable with the pursuit of being scientific in the twentieth century. So much for the final part of this story. This is a root story for the evangelical middle of the tracks.
What was lost in all of these movements and events was that the meaning of holy shifted. It shifted from primarily meaning whole according to Luther, Calvin (see later Jonathan Edwards), (Richard) Hooker, Wesley?? (see his favorite commentator, John Bengel), and Spurgeon. They did also recognize a secondary meaning of separate.
It did not matter whether losing the idea of whole as the primary definition was intentional or not. It got lost and forgotten. I want to recover our forgotten ways.
A forgotten idea may seem novel, until it is realized it was forgotten. It is no longer totally new when it is in fact old. If you want to see the tip of the iceberg of what was lost, please see my earlier posts, especially the oldest. We badly need renewal. A movement with ties to the past (re=again), with ties to the present (new) and ties to the future (al=for all of time). We need to continue improvements, yet we need the past too.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Somehow the far right, the far left and the mushy middle forgot to pass it on to those of us who were born in the twentieth century. I’ve been asked how this could have happened or did happen. I think I can now venture a good idea as to how this happened. But before I say how it happened, I think it is important to point out that it happened for both unintended and intended reasons.
Sometimes crisis events prevail over accurate definitions. In the late 1800s, there are two crisis events that in turn changed the definition of holy. The first was a quest for clarity and a scientific basis for the meaning of biblical words. The second was a response to the quest to be clear and scientific.
I have to simplify the story, so I will make it about just two historical characters. The first is Julius Wellhausen. The second is Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Both are villains and heroes, depending on who you talk to and who knows who they are. Wellhausen is sometimes credited with first establishing credibility for the critical study of the Bible. Spurgeon is sometimes credited with first establishing a beachhead in response to critical study. Let’s live with these oversimplifications for our purposes.
Wellhausen had a pretty significant event in his life, when he had a falling out with his theological mentor, Ewald. From the climate of that time in Germany, there was a strong emphasis on being scientific. One had to have clear ideas in order for something to possess intelligence, to paraphrase Wellhausen. He did not find that in Ewald’s approach to the Bible.
Further, Wellhausen’s efforts had to be objective in order to be scientific. Part of this, was the conviction that a person must study, not just Hebrew religion and Christian religion, but also the other religions of the Ancient Near Eastern world. In this way, by demonstrating objectivity in at least initially treating all religions in that time and place as equals, one could establish credibility in the scientific realm.
Yet the implications were greater than that, because with this objectivity, there also was a belief that there might be themes that all religions held in common. One of those themes was believed to be a distinction between the taboo items of life and the ordinary items of life. Taboo things were things restricted to the sacred and the ordinary things were the common items of everyday life. The idea of holy in Judaism and Christianity supposedly were restricted by taboo and therefore sacred. They were set apart. The profane were the things not under restriction and therefore secular.
Being scientific about the meaning of holy in the original writings is a little more complicated than it is with many words. Some have what is called a clear etymology or a clear line from one word to another that helps us determine its meaning. For holy this is controversial rather than clear. This is the admission of every serious scholar. So into this vacuum stepped the insight of what was discovered in other religions, that there are items which are taboo or set apart and that there are items which are profane or common. So much for one part of our story. This is the root story for the far left side of the tracks.
Spurgeon’s efforts had to have credibility as well. He was not opposed to being objective, but he questioned some of the objectivity of Wellhausen and others, who felt comfortable with some critical views on Scripture that Spurgeon could not agree was objective. This came to a head, while he was part of what was called the Baptist Union.
Spurgeon ended up leaving the Baptist Union, following his accusation that some of its members were on a downgrade path in regard to Scripture. So the controversy became known as the Downgrade Controversy. Spurgeon’s favorite call to others of like mind was to “come out and be separate.”
This battle cry from the midst of a crisis, appears to have replaced Spurgeon’s earlier definition of holiness as wholeness. As he says in one of his sermons about holiness means wholeness, “as I have said many times.” Instead, following the controversy and even more his death not many years after, the definition for holiness took on the idea of “be separate.” So much for another part of this story. This is a root story for the far right side of the tracks.
The evangelicals at this time, were regarded by people like Spurgeon as weaker comrades in the battle against any kind of downgrade. The movement on the issue of holiness seems to have tried to steer a middle course in this controversy. It seems to have contributed very little, except perhaps wedding the idea of set apart to that of be separate. That was their so-called weaker course of peace. They later appeared more comfortable with the pursuit of being scientific in the twentieth century. So much for the final part of this story. This is a root story for the evangelical middle of the tracks.
What was lost in all of these movements and events was that the meaning of holy shifted. It shifted from primarily meaning whole according to Luther, Calvin (see later Jonathan Edwards), (Richard) Hooker, Wesley?? (see his favorite commentator, John Bengel), and Spurgeon. They did also recognize a secondary meaning of separate.
It did not matter whether losing the idea of whole as the primary definition was intentional or not. It got lost and forgotten. I want to recover our forgotten ways.
A forgotten idea may seem novel, until it is realized it was forgotten. It is no longer totally new when it is in fact old. If you want to see the tip of the iceberg of what was lost, please see my earlier posts, especially the oldest. We badly need renewal. A movement with ties to the past (re=again), with ties to the present (new) and ties to the future (al=for all of time). We need to continue improvements, yet we need the past too.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Holy Means Whole: According to John (Johann) Albert Bengel
I am now fulfilling an earlier promise to publish what is very valuable material on holy's meaning, but which has been inaccessible to the average English reader. I owe a great debt in this regard to a person who wishes to stay anonymous and who lives in Sheboygan County. That person did the hard work of translating. My role has simply been that of trying to locate where Bengel has published some of his richest material on the subject of holiness. I finally did find a portion of that, in Bengel's commentary on the book of Revelation, which was separate from his most famously translated work which is referred to as the Gnomon. By the way, I will also have to get more things translated later, based on what you will read below.
I must mention, as a side note, that the major portion of what Bengel has to say was never published and is called The Holiness of God. I will be making efforts to see if it is laying somewhere in a dusty room in Germany and to see if it could be published some day. But I am afraid without funding, this could be a long way out from happening, if it is even possible. Now on to the translation of Bengel's comments relevant to holiness in Revelation 4:8.
It reads in part:
1. (Holy, Holy, Holy) in Hebrew and Greek, we find that there are two very different words, which we however both use in German as holy. Namely Hebrew (Kadosh) which is holy and we are considering here and the Greek (Hagios) which is grace or favor. The difference between the two words will be explained at a separate time in Chapter 16, which has been observed at many levels and is correct.
2. Then (merciful) is what God is called when we observe his works, which combine his justice and mercy. But intellectuals, who understand that there is so much more, call Him holy.
3. I have previously authored some writings about (The Holiness of God), and I am not alone as there have ben reports of various others reaching the same, and intellectuals have made speeches on the subject, that God's majesty comes from Him, therefore I am obligated, to include the thoughts of forenamed readers, and I want to bring it out here and in other places of Revelations and the remaining books of the New Testament.
4. The words of praise about His godly majesty in the entire writing, is this, that God is called holy by even those who are there with Him, and His holiness is the sum of all the praises brought to the Almighty Creator, for all that He does, and makes Himself known, until the new suffering, that will bring out the wider interepretation for deliverance.
5. (Holy) in Hebrew, Greek, Latin and German is approximately similar and when God is named Holy, which means that His whole excellence, and His godly characteristics flow together and illuminate His works from within, everything from Him is a dim brilliance, and that He is and remains removed not only from all, that are dishonest, but from all creatures, and His manner is incomparable or unique or incomprehensible.
6. God is separated from everything. He is and works alone, by Himself, for Himself (His pleasure) and through Himself of His own will. For that reason, He is the first and the last, the only one and the eternal one, the living and the blessed, unending and unchanging, almighty, all knowing, wise and truthful, just and true, merciful and compassionate.
There is much more of Bengel that could be quoted, but this is a helpful place to end, because it gets to the very heart of his defining holy. It also makes clear from the use of the word "and" that there is two conjoining meanings of holy in Bengel's mind, with one that links to our concept of whole and the other that links to our concept of separate. In part 5, Bengel focuses mostly on the wholeness aspect, but he also links both meanings in that section. In part 6, he focuses on the separation aspect.
Historically, I think I can say that holiness was defined in this way, with both meanings recognized, from at least the 1500s through the 1800s with wholeness and separateness going their separate ways mainly in the 1900s. In that latter era, the 20th century, the separateness concept has been predominate whether among liberal scholars or fundamentalist separatists. This is ironic, since Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the greatest Baptist, in the late 1800s was making wholeness its primary meaning, when he said: "holiness is wholeness."
So I want to say that I am not sure the right choice was made in the 1900s between the two meanings handed down by traditional scholarship and by Johann Bengel. I think a choice needed to be made, based on the possible roots for the Hebrew word that is translated as holy, but I think we chose incorrectly. I am willing to face into the wind, if that is what it takes for us to reconsider and make sure that we are grounded in reality and not in our own assumptions. God's Word requires that lofty standard. God's blessings on you.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
I am now fulfilling an earlier promise to publish what is very valuable material on holy's meaning, but which has been inaccessible to the average English reader. I owe a great debt in this regard to a person who wishes to stay anonymous and who lives in Sheboygan County. That person did the hard work of translating. My role has simply been that of trying to locate where Bengel has published some of his richest material on the subject of holiness. I finally did find a portion of that, in Bengel's commentary on the book of Revelation, which was separate from his most famously translated work which is referred to as the Gnomon. By the way, I will also have to get more things translated later, based on what you will read below.
I must mention, as a side note, that the major portion of what Bengel has to say was never published and is called The Holiness of God. I will be making efforts to see if it is laying somewhere in a dusty room in Germany and to see if it could be published some day. But I am afraid without funding, this could be a long way out from happening, if it is even possible. Now on to the translation of Bengel's comments relevant to holiness in Revelation 4:8.
It reads in part:
1. (Holy, Holy, Holy) in Hebrew and Greek, we find that there are two very different words, which we however both use in German as holy. Namely Hebrew (Kadosh) which is holy and we are considering here and the Greek (Hagios) which is grace or favor. The difference between the two words will be explained at a separate time in Chapter 16, which has been observed at many levels and is correct.
2. Then (merciful) is what God is called when we observe his works, which combine his justice and mercy. But intellectuals, who understand that there is so much more, call Him holy.
3. I have previously authored some writings about (The Holiness of God), and I am not alone as there have ben reports of various others reaching the same, and intellectuals have made speeches on the subject, that God's majesty comes from Him, therefore I am obligated, to include the thoughts of forenamed readers, and I want to bring it out here and in other places of Revelations and the remaining books of the New Testament.
4. The words of praise about His godly majesty in the entire writing, is this, that God is called holy by even those who are there with Him, and His holiness is the sum of all the praises brought to the Almighty Creator, for all that He does, and makes Himself known, until the new suffering, that will bring out the wider interepretation for deliverance.
5. (Holy) in Hebrew, Greek, Latin and German is approximately similar and when God is named Holy, which means that His whole excellence, and His godly characteristics flow together and illuminate His works from within, everything from Him is a dim brilliance, and that He is and remains removed not only from all, that are dishonest, but from all creatures, and His manner is incomparable or unique or incomprehensible.
6. God is separated from everything. He is and works alone, by Himself, for Himself (His pleasure) and through Himself of His own will. For that reason, He is the first and the last, the only one and the eternal one, the living and the blessed, unending and unchanging, almighty, all knowing, wise and truthful, just and true, merciful and compassionate.
There is much more of Bengel that could be quoted, but this is a helpful place to end, because it gets to the very heart of his defining holy. It also makes clear from the use of the word "and" that there is two conjoining meanings of holy in Bengel's mind, with one that links to our concept of whole and the other that links to our concept of separate. In part 5, Bengel focuses mostly on the wholeness aspect, but he also links both meanings in that section. In part 6, he focuses on the separation aspect.
Historically, I think I can say that holiness was defined in this way, with both meanings recognized, from at least the 1500s through the 1800s with wholeness and separateness going their separate ways mainly in the 1900s. In that latter era, the 20th century, the separateness concept has been predominate whether among liberal scholars or fundamentalist separatists. This is ironic, since Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the greatest Baptist, in the late 1800s was making wholeness its primary meaning, when he said: "holiness is wholeness."
So I want to say that I am not sure the right choice was made in the 1900s between the two meanings handed down by traditional scholarship and by Johann Bengel. I think a choice needed to be made, based on the possible roots for the Hebrew word that is translated as holy, but I think we chose incorrectly. I am willing to face into the wind, if that is what it takes for us to reconsider and make sure that we are grounded in reality and not in our own assumptions. God's Word requires that lofty standard. God's blessings on you.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
