I know you are likely checking out this blog to find the definition of holy. I won't disappoint, if you can wait until I give the issue some context and then give you a definition in the third paragraph.
You may have noticed lately that in the United States there is a mental health crisis. The mass shootings with a concluding suicide in our schools and elsewhere is only the tip of the iceberg. Insanity is much deeper in our society than meets the eye. I would conclude that 90% of the insanity is not even noticed except to the trained observer, who knows that what is happening above the surface and is obvious is only a small part of a bigger problem. I agree with those who say that health is the next big issue that faces us in the coming of age of our times. Mental health is only one part, but a significant part toward all types of health. Blessed and holy are words that actually have a lot to say about that bigger picture of health or being wbole, but it is being missed due to a poor job of defining both words. I do believe that this problem starts with poor mental health.
I think most of us would agree that a mentally healthy person is healthy both emotionally and logically. Likewise a mentally healthy person or sane person has more credibility than a mentally unhealthy or insane person who has little credibility. In fact, the significant feature we like in any person is that they are mentally credible. You can rely on what they say. The problem is that you cannot always rely on what is given as the definition of blessed and holy. I am not going to go into detail in this post, but let me state what I believe is the definition for blessed and then for holy that has the most credibility. Then I will give you some direction for finding that credibility. So the definition of blessed that I find is most credible is that of "I am who I am". It is a character trait of a person being who they are consistently. There is no variance. What people don't realize is that the popular definition of blessed of "blessings" is not the definition of blessed but its significance. If you are who you are, then will reap blessing as a consequence. "Blessed are the peacemakers" is because they are "peacemakers" and not war mongers. So how about the definition of holy that I find most credible. I find moral or ethical wholeness to be the best definition. What is missed is that meaning is not the same as definition. One of the meaning is that of significance and that is where "set apart" fits. But it is not the definition of the word, a different kind of meaning.
So where can you find evidence for what I am saying. Let me begin with this blog. In my past posts up until very recently, you will find a lot of arguments from biblical texts, etc. What they boil down to is that I am saying that the definition of "set apart" is illogical. It is not mentally healthy in that sense. It has as many holes as Swiss cheese. You will not find much on the emotional aspect that is also very important. I owe everyone an apology for that, because it is a key component of being mentally healthy and spotting mental illness.
Let me give you an example. I am going to leave out nay names to keep what I have to say anonymous, but what I am describing actually happened while I was a student in one of my three seminaries that I have attended. I wanted to present my argument for the definition of holy in all its grand glory in an Old Testament class. Fortunately for me, I had a very smart colleague in the class who warned me "not to put strange fire on the altar". Here's what he meant. I would not get a good grade and it would not be pretty in class if I were to present a definition for holy that was contrary to my professor's definition for holy. In other words, there would not be a great dialogue on this topic. He was exactly right. I did a much more tempered approach and got a reluctant OK from the professor. Emotionally, this is not a good sign. It should have been that I could present a well-reasoned argument that would get full consideration in a calm and peaceful atmosphere. I think my classmate was right to see that emotionally I was only going to get some level of anger for what I said.
This is not how it should be in seminary. I was not going to present a view that it anywhere near to some classical heresy. In fact, I would have been introducing a kind of classical orthodoxy from Luther to Spurgeon in the Protestant perspective, which is what this seminary belonged to at its core. So there was not an openness to a mentally healthy dialogue between competing views, but a sense of subtle suggestion that it would be treated like "strange fire on the altar".
From nearly the earliest part of my writing 10 years ago, I have known about the logical issues. But now I realize their are emotional issues as well that need to be faced and not ignored. We need healthy people who know the basics of mental health. They need to know the feelings of:
!) Acceptance versus shame
2) Joy versus grief
3) Emulation versus jealousy
4) Confidence versus fear
5) Peace versus anger
Now the second examples in each case are not in all cases to be avoided. We need those emotions too. But these are not ones we should take pleasure in. Remember that statement: "Rejoice not that your enemy has fallen, but that your names are written in heaven. Our joy becomes a double joy when we share it with others. That is a reason for pleasure. But what pleasure should there be in separation from an enemy. Should that predominate? I don't think so.
I think you also see this in Paul's advice in Ephesians where we are told to: "Be angry, and sin not". So how do we do that? We "do not let the sun go down on our anger". Instead, we go to be in peace rather than anger. So what is the benefit of that? We "do not give the devil an opportunity". See, if we cannot discuss definitions without negative emotions predominating, we are giving the devil a foothold. We are not helping one another.
I think it is good advice when people disagree on the meanings of words that we don't go to sleep with shame, grief, jealousy, fear, or anger. At some point we have to realize these are those emotions that while necessary, we should not get pleasure from them. This is what I think Luther realized, when he said that 'anger" was for God an alien thing. Sometimes God has to get angry, but we have to remember he does not enjoy it.
So I do think that to have a mentally healthy definition of blessed and holy, you have to consider not just the issues of logical versus illogical, but also the issues of emotional versus ill emotional. Was it right to consider in seminary a classic definition of holy as strange fire? I don't think it was. But behind it was an emotion of both fear for the students and anger for the teacher. At least, I think that his what my wise fellow classmate was trying to tell me.
Let's rise now to a healthy level. Let's rise to both healthy emotions and healthy logic. Then we can all take pleasure in mental health while we take not pleasure in mental illness. We also then too might get the definition of blessed and holy right as well as each definition's significance and meaning in that sense. Have a great night and remember healthy emotions before bed. Soak them up and sleep well. Ah, the devil will hate you for that. Pleasure only in the good? Take care.
In Christ,
Jon
Showing posts with label morally whole. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morally whole. Show all posts
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Both Better Through Isaiah 6 & Revelation 4 (Total - Part 3 of 5)
When it comes to language, it is important to realize that some words get used extremely frequently. Sometimes due to that frequency, we take them for granted. In reading the scholarly articles or books written about the Bible, you frequently find writers trying to find the next seldom used word that needs to be better defined. In the business world, they would call this looking for the unique rather than the common. I've come to the conclusion that sometimes we spend way too much time on the infrequently used words in the Bible text and way too little time on the frequently used ones. "Blessed" and "holy" are not themselves the most commonly found words in the biblical text, but does that have to mean we cannot ground their meanings in those that are the most common? I think that the correct answer is that we CAN ground the meaning of blessed and holy in common sense language. We just have to do it.
What this means is that I and many of us have to break some old habits in reading a text of Scripture. My tendency is to look for the key unique words in a text, but to ignore those that are more widely known or common. We see this too in an exhaustive concordance, where words like "and", "the", "but", "a" and many others like them are relegated to an appendix. We also see this in older lexicons (and maybe even some newer ones), where at one time in the history of their creation, only the less well-known words were included and the most commonly words were left out. The thinking was: "Why have a dictionary for those?". Even in a children's picture dictionary that I own, the word "strong" gets a picture dedicated to its definition, but the word "the" does not have a picture assigned to it. The authors seem to assume that a child will grasp the meaning of "the" from a couple of example sentences.
This situation reminds me of the Biblical principle that "the greatest shall be the least and the least shall be the greatest". It also reminds me of another principle where Jesus warned people that "what you have done to the least of these, you have done to me". These principles seem to apply only to people, but what if they also extend to our words? Are we paying a big price for not paying attention to the common words as much as the special words? Do those who read the Bible as scholars need a reprimand like the chiding Lincoln gave to the elite politicians that he understood the democratic principle to mean to pay attention to the common people, because there were so many of them? Do we need to do the same with the least of the words in the text that are so incredibly frequent? It is my view that we do.
Some very scholarly writing from a cutting edge linguistic model called "cognitive linguistics", in paraphrasing their point, says that the words we see or hear more frequently than others become more entrenched in our minds and tend to shape more our way of thinking more and even effect things more at the expense of the less frequent and therefore the less entrenched in our thinking. In other words, these least words are the words that are greater than the greatest words. The great words, the last heard at the spelling bee or the words hardest to define on the ACT or SAT are in fact the least when it comes to grounding or entrenching our views.
So what I am going to begin doing overall is looking at a text through this set of words in English:
the, a(n)
on, as (so)
and, but (not)
with, at
I (be), to (not)
of (have), had
by (do), use
for, said
this, that
or, each
So what I am going to begin doing overall is looking at a text through this set of words in Greek:
So what I am going to begin doing overall is looking at a text through this set of words in Aramaic:
So what I am going to begin doing overall is looking at a text through this set of words in Hebrew:
This is how I will be able to approach a biblical text in a way that is not only healthy, but also incredibly grounded or entrenched (in a good sense!). the good news in all of this is that this will make the common person and all of those above them in expertise to have a common ground from which to begin. Right now what happens is the expert is given the advantage and also the loopholes to escape accountability for their ways of thinking.
[this deserves a lot more work and it will get it and so will Isaiah 6 ]
In Christ,
Jon
What this means is that I and many of us have to break some old habits in reading a text of Scripture. My tendency is to look for the key unique words in a text, but to ignore those that are more widely known or common. We see this too in an exhaustive concordance, where words like "and", "the", "but", "a" and many others like them are relegated to an appendix. We also see this in older lexicons (and maybe even some newer ones), where at one time in the history of their creation, only the less well-known words were included and the most commonly words were left out. The thinking was: "Why have a dictionary for those?". Even in a children's picture dictionary that I own, the word "strong" gets a picture dedicated to its definition, but the word "the" does not have a picture assigned to it. The authors seem to assume that a child will grasp the meaning of "the" from a couple of example sentences.
This situation reminds me of the Biblical principle that "the greatest shall be the least and the least shall be the greatest". It also reminds me of another principle where Jesus warned people that "what you have done to the least of these, you have done to me". These principles seem to apply only to people, but what if they also extend to our words? Are we paying a big price for not paying attention to the common words as much as the special words? Do those who read the Bible as scholars need a reprimand like the chiding Lincoln gave to the elite politicians that he understood the democratic principle to mean to pay attention to the common people, because there were so many of them? Do we need to do the same with the least of the words in the text that are so incredibly frequent? It is my view that we do.
Some very scholarly writing from a cutting edge linguistic model called "cognitive linguistics", in paraphrasing their point, says that the words we see or hear more frequently than others become more entrenched in our minds and tend to shape more our way of thinking more and even effect things more at the expense of the less frequent and therefore the less entrenched in our thinking. In other words, these least words are the words that are greater than the greatest words. The great words, the last heard at the spelling bee or the words hardest to define on the ACT or SAT are in fact the least when it comes to grounding or entrenching our views.
So what I am going to begin doing overall is looking at a text through this set of words in English:
the, a(n)
on, as (so)
and, but (not)
with, at
I (be), to (not)
of (have), had
by (do), use
for, said
this, that
or, each
So what I am going to begin doing overall is looking at a text through this set of words in Greek:
So what I am going to begin doing overall is looking at a text through this set of words in Aramaic:
So what I am going to begin doing overall is looking at a text through this set of words in Hebrew:
This is how I will be able to approach a biblical text in a way that is not only healthy, but also incredibly grounded or entrenched (in a good sense!). the good news in all of this is that this will make the common person and all of those above them in expertise to have a common ground from which to begin. Right now what happens is the expert is given the advantage and also the loopholes to escape accountability for their ways of thinking.
[this deserves a lot more work and it will get it and so will Isaiah 6 ]
In Christ,
Jon
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Exodus 34 (Total Wholes - Part 3 of 5)
PREFACE
Many people want to know what the meaning of holy is, because they are told how important it is to "be holy". That desire to know or see something is invaluable. It creates the opportunity to see something that has not be seen before or to see again something that has been forgotten. Throughout the writing of my blog, I have tried to help people see something that they have not seen before, but also to help them remember something that has been forgotten.
My prime example of this is the theory that biblical holiness in its definition and at its core means "moral wholeness". For most people that is an idea that is new to them. To others, it is a reminder of what the 5 greatest church reformers of the last 500 years taught before the arrival of the 20th ct.. It is an idea that might shed light on what has been lost in the dark for the church and also might give salt to preserve what has not been preserved.
I would be nowhere today in either shedding light on what needs to be seen or in preserving what needs to be preserved without one very helpful tool in my toolbox. It is the total tool that is at the core of everything that is communicated to me and that I communicate to others. That tool I call the ARWAT (pronounced "Are What?") method. It is an acronym for the first letters of each of the greatest aspects of the method I use. I use it for everything now. I never let my mind work without it, because to turn back to any of the methods that I used before is to risk damage to my mind.
To work the mind without ARWAT is like the fictional Sherlock Holmes' comment that it is like an engine racing. Like the engine that eventually explodes, so the mind eventually explodes without it. The only other option for some is to simply turn off their mind. ARWAT is based on common sense, so its proof is universal in nature. But also it is capable of addressing the specialized sense needed for different kinds of work. It deals well with both the knowledge of the common person and with the knowledge of the specialists.
Part 3 of the 5 step process I use, is the most important step. What you need to know is how I arrived at the concept of total with the 4 parts that combine to make the total, because you may fail to look at other things I have written to find out who the 5 T's work.
Behind my 5 T's that focuses on relationships or transfers, is the ARWAT method that applies to persons and to being whole.
APPLICATION TO EXODUS 34
[ Still in construction due to an odd week of demands from my other work. I hope to catch up some later this week. Thank you for your patience.
In Christ,
Jon
Many people want to know what the meaning of holy is, because they are told how important it is to "be holy". That desire to know or see something is invaluable. It creates the opportunity to see something that has not be seen before or to see again something that has been forgotten. Throughout the writing of my blog, I have tried to help people see something that they have not seen before, but also to help them remember something that has been forgotten.
My prime example of this is the theory that biblical holiness in its definition and at its core means "moral wholeness". For most people that is an idea that is new to them. To others, it is a reminder of what the 5 greatest church reformers of the last 500 years taught before the arrival of the 20th ct.. It is an idea that might shed light on what has been lost in the dark for the church and also might give salt to preserve what has not been preserved.
I would be nowhere today in either shedding light on what needs to be seen or in preserving what needs to be preserved without one very helpful tool in my toolbox. It is the total tool that is at the core of everything that is communicated to me and that I communicate to others. That tool I call the ARWAT (pronounced "Are What?") method. It is an acronym for the first letters of each of the greatest aspects of the method I use. I use it for everything now. I never let my mind work without it, because to turn back to any of the methods that I used before is to risk damage to my mind.
To work the mind without ARWAT is like the fictional Sherlock Holmes' comment that it is like an engine racing. Like the engine that eventually explodes, so the mind eventually explodes without it. The only other option for some is to simply turn off their mind. ARWAT is based on common sense, so its proof is universal in nature. But also it is capable of addressing the specialized sense needed for different kinds of work. It deals well with both the knowledge of the common person and with the knowledge of the specialists.
Part 3 of the 5 step process I use, is the most important step. What you need to know is how I arrived at the concept of total with the 4 parts that combine to make the total, because you may fail to look at other things I have written to find out who the 5 T's work.
Behind my 5 T's that focuses on relationships or transfers, is the ARWAT method that applies to persons and to being whole.
APPLICATION TO EXODUS 34
[ Still in construction due to an odd week of demands from my other work. I hope to catch up some later this week. Thank you for your patience.
In Christ,
Jon
Monday, March 31, 2014
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Levitics 19 (Translate Amounts - Part 1 of 5)
Leviticus is one of the most overlooked books in the entire Hebrew Scriptures. To the Jews traditionally, this is the most important of the 5 Books of the Law. Yet in Christian circles today, it is the most forgotten book of all the 5 Books of the Law and maybe even of the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures. When was there a rush to the Christian bookstores to get the latest commentary on Leviticus? Did I miss it?
How is it that the most important Book of the Law of Moses can become the least? Pastor Ray Stedman, a number of years ago, tried to explain this in a commentary on Leviticus titled The Way to Wholeness (published posthumously). His explanation of the lack of interest in Christian circles had to do with the popular understanding of holy as set apart rather than as wholeness. While most scholars would disagree with his definition, most scholars agree with Stedman that holiness is a key concept in the book of Leviticus. So what does it mean?
Where there is a difference between Stedman and the majority of scholars is the translation of the Hebrew qadosh (holy in most translations). The current difficulty with holy is that it is amendable in English to either the idea of "set apart" or to the idea of "whole". There is a silly argument that the scholar James "Too Far" Barr once tried to present that holy in the Bible does not mean "whole", based on the English etymology where it clearly is connected to hale, healthy, and whole. First, in all of my reading on holiness (and it is extremely extensive), I have never read someone argue that because an English word means something in its etymology, therefore the Hebrew means the same.
I think it what we used to call a "wet paper sack" ("he can't even fight his way out of a wet paper sack") argument. Who would ever think that? It is absurd.
The logic does not go this way:
Holy is the translation for qadosh (the original in Hebrew) and hagios (the original in Greek),
therefore if holy means whole in English,
then therefore qadosh and hagios mean whole in their respective languages.
No, that logic does not work and none of those like Ray Stedman, Leonard Ravenhill, or Charles Haddon Spurgeon ever would have dreamed up such a notion. What they are trying to say is something that does make sense. Here is what I think they are trying to argue when the point out that holy means or is connected to whole. One of their major premises is being skipped over by Barr.
Their logic does go more like this:
The King James translators (and English translators before them) chose the word holy primarily to translate qadosh from Hebrew and hagios from Greek into our language.
The King James translators chose the word holy, because they believed that qadosh and hagios had connections to moral wholeness.
When we point out that holy means whole in its etymology, we mean to point out what was obvious to earlier translators when they chose holy as the word for their translation into English of qadosh and hagios.
Therefore, since I am not questioning their translation of qadosh and hagios from their respective languages by these earlier translators, then I am supporting their translation into my language that holy means moral wholeness.
What Barr does not make explicit in the other parties' argument is the highlighted line and also his own line that:
We, as Biblical scholars, do not take seriously earlier Biblical scholarship or translation work relying or dating back at least to the Middle Ages.
That is what the argument is really about with regard to the translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. It is about the reliability or quality of earlier translation work. Without really making it an explicit premise, there is an assumption than older scholarship is inferior.
I, as a translator, take a much more objective view now that it is possible to stand apart from the arguments about scholarship that were at their peak near the end of the 1800's and continued throughout the entire 20th century. I don't by default automatically consider an older viewpoint the inferior view. Rather I like to look at the evidence for both sides in arguments over a translation. I keep my choices open and then only by the evidence do I close doors to those choices.
I think that David J. A. Clines, the editor for the most up to date Hebrew dictionary called The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, possesses a keen mind when he says two things about the challenges for making an adequate Hebrew dictionary:
First, he says, regarding the challenges of constructing a Hebrew dictionary including Biblical Hebrew: "It takes a long time to make a Hebrew dictionary that is more than a recapitulation of dictionaries of the past" (p. 88). This is a critical point. The number of dictionaries that say the same thing about the meaning of Hebrew qadosh does not mean that each dictionary has evaluated the work of the previous dictionary. Instead, due to time constraints, it may only be "a recapitulation of the dictionaries of the past". This totally makes sense, since they are trying to cover some 300,000 words in Biblical Hebrew alone according to Cline (p. 90). That does not even consider the next 100,000 Non-Biblical Hebrew words that Cline also mentions. It would be a massive task to re-evaluate every word's meaning and translation.
Second, he says regarding one further challenges for more recent Hebrew dictionaries including Biblical Hebrew :
How to draw upon the rich resources of mediaeval Hebrew lexicographers [dictionary
makers], which are almost totally absent from all our contemporary lexica. I do not
mean to suggest that all philological [linguistic] observations by these mediaeval
authors deserve a place in a modern dictionary of Hebrew, but that some undoubtedly do.
The systematic evaluation of such proposals would be a highly technical undertaking, and
stands as a challenge to lexicographers of the future (p. 92).
Here I believe that Cline is much more objective than James "Too Far" Barr, who in all likelihood would see no value in the task that Cline has suggested. Notice too how careful Cline is to avoid two errors and not just one error as in the case of Barr. He avoids saying that "all [linguistic] observations by these mediaeval authors deserve a place in a modern dictionary of Hebrew". But he also thinks that "some undoubtedly do".
This leaves the door open then to considering the work of people like Johannes Reuchlin, the influential Hebrew scholar in the case of Martin Luther's and Phillip Melancthon's scholarship. It does not by default register an endorsement, but rather an evaluation. That is what I want to plead for in the case of trying to decide the meaning of holy. Too often older scholarship by default registers the opposite of an endorsement, a denial.
I also want to support Cline's statement that this "would be a highly technical undertaking", because I have tried to do this on the just the meaning of holy and knowledge of Latin is a major requirement, besides the fact that footnotes were not popular with the Reformers like Luther, who do not always point out whether it was Reuchlin, one of the Kimchi's, or Nicholas of Lyra who was his source. The difficulty of the job, however, does not mean it should not be undertaken, but rather undertaken with a due sense of qualifications for doing it well.
Having said all this about translation, you probably have guessed already that I will be focusing primarily on statement from Leviticus 19:2 New King James Version (NKJV):
2 “Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy."
The key words to look at in terms of translation in this passage are the following:
1) "all" - more properly translated as "the whole of" in this verse
2) "holy" - no surprise here: "What does it mean in the original text?"
3) the LORD - more properly translated as "Yahweh", the question is: "Why is it not transliterated as Yahweh as found in the original text?"
So my personal translation of this verse would read:
“Speak to the whole of the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘You shall be holy, for I Yahweh your God am holy."
The remaining question will be, during the 5 steps of 1)translation, 2)transfer, 3)total, 4)train, and 5)teach; whether holy should be understood as 1) morally whole, 2) pure, or 3) set apart. As I go through the series of steps, I hope at each step the issues will be clearer and clearer as to which definition the text supports. Remember to keep your choice of definition open long enough to evaluate the evidence. Also an additional word to watch for is the Hebrew word for blessed. I will be examining that also in the context of holy. May you have a great finish to the rest of your day.
In Christ,
Jon
How is it that the most important Book of the Law of Moses can become the least? Pastor Ray Stedman, a number of years ago, tried to explain this in a commentary on Leviticus titled The Way to Wholeness (published posthumously). His explanation of the lack of interest in Christian circles had to do with the popular understanding of holy as set apart rather than as wholeness. While most scholars would disagree with his definition, most scholars agree with Stedman that holiness is a key concept in the book of Leviticus. So what does it mean?
Where there is a difference between Stedman and the majority of scholars is the translation of the Hebrew qadosh (holy in most translations). The current difficulty with holy is that it is amendable in English to either the idea of "set apart" or to the idea of "whole". There is a silly argument that the scholar James "Too Far" Barr once tried to present that holy in the Bible does not mean "whole", based on the English etymology where it clearly is connected to hale, healthy, and whole. First, in all of my reading on holiness (and it is extremely extensive), I have never read someone argue that because an English word means something in its etymology, therefore the Hebrew means the same.
I think it what we used to call a "wet paper sack" ("he can't even fight his way out of a wet paper sack") argument. Who would ever think that? It is absurd.
The logic does not go this way:
Holy is the translation for qadosh (the original in Hebrew) and hagios (the original in Greek),
therefore if holy means whole in English,
then therefore qadosh and hagios mean whole in their respective languages.
No, that logic does not work and none of those like Ray Stedman, Leonard Ravenhill, or Charles Haddon Spurgeon ever would have dreamed up such a notion. What they are trying to say is something that does make sense. Here is what I think they are trying to argue when the point out that holy means or is connected to whole. One of their major premises is being skipped over by Barr.
Their logic does go more like this:
The King James translators (and English translators before them) chose the word holy primarily to translate qadosh from Hebrew and hagios from Greek into our language.
The King James translators chose the word holy, because they believed that qadosh and hagios had connections to moral wholeness.
When we point out that holy means whole in its etymology, we mean to point out what was obvious to earlier translators when they chose holy as the word for their translation into English of qadosh and hagios.
Therefore, since I am not questioning their translation of qadosh and hagios from their respective languages by these earlier translators, then I am supporting their translation into my language that holy means moral wholeness.
What Barr does not make explicit in the other parties' argument is the highlighted line and also his own line that:
We, as Biblical scholars, do not take seriously earlier Biblical scholarship or translation work relying or dating back at least to the Middle Ages.
That is what the argument is really about with regard to the translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. It is about the reliability or quality of earlier translation work. Without really making it an explicit premise, there is an assumption than older scholarship is inferior.
I, as a translator, take a much more objective view now that it is possible to stand apart from the arguments about scholarship that were at their peak near the end of the 1800's and continued throughout the entire 20th century. I don't by default automatically consider an older viewpoint the inferior view. Rather I like to look at the evidence for both sides in arguments over a translation. I keep my choices open and then only by the evidence do I close doors to those choices.
I keep my choices open
and then only by the evidence
do I close doors to those choices.
I think that David J. A. Clines, the editor for the most up to date Hebrew dictionary called The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, possesses a keen mind when he says two things about the challenges for making an adequate Hebrew dictionary:
First, he says, regarding the challenges of constructing a Hebrew dictionary including Biblical Hebrew: "It takes a long time to make a Hebrew dictionary that is more than a recapitulation of dictionaries of the past" (p. 88). This is a critical point. The number of dictionaries that say the same thing about the meaning of Hebrew qadosh does not mean that each dictionary has evaluated the work of the previous dictionary. Instead, due to time constraints, it may only be "a recapitulation of the dictionaries of the past". This totally makes sense, since they are trying to cover some 300,000 words in Biblical Hebrew alone according to Cline (p. 90). That does not even consider the next 100,000 Non-Biblical Hebrew words that Cline also mentions. It would be a massive task to re-evaluate every word's meaning and translation.
Second, he says regarding one further challenges for more recent Hebrew dictionaries including Biblical Hebrew :
How to draw upon the rich resources of mediaeval Hebrew lexicographers [dictionary
makers], which are almost totally absent from all our contemporary lexica. I do not
mean to suggest that all philological [linguistic] observations by these mediaeval
authors deserve a place in a modern dictionary of Hebrew, but that some undoubtedly do.
The systematic evaluation of such proposals would be a highly technical undertaking, and
stands as a challenge to lexicographers of the future (p. 92).
Here I believe that Cline is much more objective than James "Too Far" Barr, who in all likelihood would see no value in the task that Cline has suggested. Notice too how careful Cline is to avoid two errors and not just one error as in the case of Barr. He avoids saying that "all [linguistic] observations by these mediaeval authors deserve a place in a modern dictionary of Hebrew". But he also thinks that "some undoubtedly do".
This leaves the door open then to considering the work of people like Johannes Reuchlin, the influential Hebrew scholar in the case of Martin Luther's and Phillip Melancthon's scholarship. It does not by default register an endorsement, but rather an evaluation. That is what I want to plead for in the case of trying to decide the meaning of holy. Too often older scholarship by default registers the opposite of an endorsement, a denial.
I also want to support Cline's statement that this "would be a highly technical undertaking", because I have tried to do this on the just the meaning of holy and knowledge of Latin is a major requirement, besides the fact that footnotes were not popular with the Reformers like Luther, who do not always point out whether it was Reuchlin, one of the Kimchi's, or Nicholas of Lyra who was his source. The difficulty of the job, however, does not mean it should not be undertaken, but rather undertaken with a due sense of qualifications for doing it well.
Having said all this about translation, you probably have guessed already that I will be focusing primarily on statement from Leviticus 19:2 New King James Version (NKJV):
2 “Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy."
The key words to look at in terms of translation in this passage are the following:
1) "all" - more properly translated as "the whole of" in this verse
2) "holy" - no surprise here: "What does it mean in the original text?"
3) the LORD - more properly translated as "Yahweh", the question is: "Why is it not transliterated as Yahweh as found in the original text?"
So my personal translation of this verse would read:
“Speak to the whole of the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘You shall be holy, for I Yahweh your God am holy."
The remaining question will be, during the 5 steps of 1)translation, 2)transfer, 3)total, 4)train, and 5)teach; whether holy should be understood as 1) morally whole, 2) pure, or 3) set apart. As I go through the series of steps, I hope at each step the issues will be clearer and clearer as to which definition the text supports. Remember to keep your choice of definition open long enough to evaluate the evidence. Also an additional word to watch for is the Hebrew word for blessed. I will be examining that also in the context of holy. May you have a great finish to the rest of your day.
In Christ,
Jon
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Holy: Understanding It Better Through Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a (Teach Things - 5 of 5 parts/days)
This post may be the most important of the five posts for Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a. Despite or perhaps because of the level of education available in the United States, the more important part of education has been neglected. I like to call that part "common sense". Now note carefully my choice of "more important" and not most important. My reason is because the most important thing is common sense together with a specialized sense. The ideal education is both of these together. The creation story itself supports this distinction. What was really missing for me, as I came up through the educational system called school, is the more important part called common sense. That is where I want to begin to define three key words in the passage I am examining, but first let's examine the big picture in picture form.
[I had problems with the picture for this post. I think I have resolved it and will finish this post on Monday. I had to help out someone today which was a good thing, but I ran out of time today.]
Sincerely,
Jon
[I had problems with the picture for this post. I think I have resolved it and will finish this post on Monday. I had to help out someone today which was a good thing, but I ran out of time today.]
Sincerely,
Jon
Friday, March 28, 2014
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Genesis 1:1-2:4a (Training - Day/Step 4 of 5)
The thing that cannot be overlooked is that the meanings of words can in fact determine what we must do practically as well. If "blessed" in the Bible means prosperity, then we will take someone's prosperity to mean that they are "blessed" and we will flock to hear them speak. If "blessed" in the Bible instead means integrity, as in a person being consistent between their perception of themselves and who they actually are, then we will flock to hear the person who demonstrates integrity the most.
Likewise with the meaning of "holy" in the Bible. If it means set apart, we will flock to meet or hear the person that demonstrates a morality that is out of this world. If it means moral wholeness (holy consists of more than righteousness, but also includes truth, etc.), then we will try to live morally healthy lives consisting of more than one moral character trait. If on the other hand, it means pure, we will practice keeping ourselves pure from contamination as one of our highest goals and activities.
My next post (planned for tomorrow) will point to what blessed and holy are. In this post, I will assume [if you are uncomfortable with assuming temporarily. then jump to the next post] the meaning of "blessed" as being integrity, based on a working definition. A specific example of this is: "I am who I am". In this post, I will also assume [again, jump ahead if you like] the meaning of "holy" as being moral wholeness. The next post will answer the question of definition, but for this entry I hope you will allow me some indulgence in working out the practical actions with regard to treating the beginning days of generations and the six days of work and the Sabbath rest appropriately.
The first thing in deriving practical applications from this unit of Scripture is to be aware that this is primarily a relationship text. In turn, this also means it has a large portion of the text that is narrative. Genesis as a whole is laying out for us the beginnings and endings of some things and also the ongoing relationship of many generations in places and times. In telling us about the opening days of generations for the heavens and the earth and ourselves, it tells us also what God did and also what we should do.
Besides the practical relationship advice a person can pick up from the stories of Biblical characters in Genesis, there is in this story of creation the opening of work or action by God. He both creates and makes. So here is where we might be able to learn some great action lessons.
First, I wonder, if the creation story does not mean that each time we work we are creating and we are making and that without our working, the world reverts back to a kind of chaos and void. Is that perhaps why the world of neglected buildings tells a story of reverting back to chaos and nothingness to the point of needing even demolishing? Is our work part of the necessary part of sustaining creation beyond its beginning? Are we in any way supposed to be imitators of God and pumped up about going to work rather than reluctant to get to it? What obviously separates us from God is that we in no way started things at the beginning. Rather we ourselves are a part of the beginning. But should we see human work in a much more positive manner?
Let me give you a classic example from my own love of nature as to how work has become a negative rather than a positive. When I was in my junior high years, I acquired a book from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. That pamphlet is my Bible on trout stream habitat. In there, it showed how to do thing with regard to developing trout habit and how not to do things. But in the last decade or more, the DNR has taken a much less active role in creating trout habit in trout streams. As a result, just the other day, I witnessed a former trout brook that no longer supported even one trout in its entire stretch of water. I mean not even one! The entire day that I spent walking (not fishing) the stream, as I scouted this stream for good opportunities to fish later, I never witnessed one fish darting from my approach. What I did see were three major and old "log jams" that I knew would prevent trout from being able to survive in the stretch that I was investigating. By doing no work on this stream, rather than basic regular maintenance, it had led to the death of that stream in terms of trout. It was an instance where our fear of working and of making a mistake on behalf of the trout had led to our entire failure to work and therefore create and make habit for a species who would thrive in these waters. That is a great illustration of why work needs to be seen more positively, like what I saw in playing football where doing something correctly was supposed to replace doing something incorrectly rather than either being replaced by doing nothing.
Second, I think this passage teaches a relationship component, when it comes to work. There should be a limit on the work week or better perhaps a line drawn between weeks. Work it appears is not supposed to be endless. The other day, I ran into a person who bragged to me that she worked every single day. She was a great person and I admire her hard work ethic. But I think one danger is like the danger for Jack in the old saying, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy". Another danger is that one becomes a slave. Working all seven days in ancient times was considered to be the mark of a slave. Right now, this person is being enslaved without seeing it.
A further danger is the obvious danger of burnout. For me, working six days a week for about seven hours per day seems to be the best schedule. That one day break is just enough to re-invigorate me and also only seven hours per day allows me other things in each day besides work. I don't have any idea that I would ever work something like ten to eleven hours per day for four days and take the next three off. I find that when I work that long each day, things like my capacity for quality work diminish. I can work, but the mind is not there. So I think that God's work pattern should be ours. Six days on, one day off is my personal favorite and I think I like it because God liked it. Again, I love work as much as I loved playing football. As long as I accomplish something in reasonable time, leaving time for other things every day, what is not to like? And this little vacation each week maybe is the pattern for all the longer ones as well. Check out the Hebrew Old Testament sometime for all their times off. I think ample time off is part of the practical outcome of the creation story.
Third, because God blesses and makes holy the Sabbath Day, we should do the same. If bless means to call a person by a name that fits them (or has integrity with who they are), then that action likely needs to be part of our day. I would think that it would have the effect of what we call affirmations. God in this day, called his rest day by a name that means rest day. Maybe we should be more thoughtful in choosing names for children or nicknames for friends.
Also in making the day holy, if holy means moral wholeness, this would then mean observing the whole day as a day of rest without any mixture of work in it (impurity), and as seeing it as distinct (set apart) from the others in that they are work days while this is a rest day the entire day and maybe not just the better part of it like our work days. I think the idea of keeping the Sabbath a Sabbath for the entire day can do the whole of who we are a lot of good. God seemed to be pleased by it in not doing any work that day. He did not seem the least displeased with having to end his work for the week, before moving on to the next week. I got a feeling God is not done working or making each week until his own Sabbath arrives. The question is not what God is doing now however, but what are we doing. Do we work and rest? Or do we work and work? Or do we rest and work? Or do we rest and rest? Are we like God in our actions?
So ask yourself first, "Do I love working - creating and making?" Ask second, "Do I know when to work and when to take a break?" Ask third, "Do I affirm others in a way that fits with who they are? And do I not work at all for a whole day as far as my wage earning job is concerned? "
I hope you have answer affirmatively to some of those questions, because then you are living out this passage, not just reading it and never looking in the mirror at yourself. Take a good look. Do you have God's demeanor when it comes to creating and making? Get out there and do something!
In Christ,
Jon
Likewise with the meaning of "holy" in the Bible. If it means set apart, we will flock to meet or hear the person that demonstrates a morality that is out of this world. If it means moral wholeness (holy consists of more than righteousness, but also includes truth, etc.), then we will try to live morally healthy lives consisting of more than one moral character trait. If on the other hand, it means pure, we will practice keeping ourselves pure from contamination as one of our highest goals and activities.
My next post (planned for tomorrow) will point to what blessed and holy are. In this post, I will assume [if you are uncomfortable with assuming temporarily. then jump to the next post] the meaning of "blessed" as being integrity, based on a working definition. A specific example of this is: "I am who I am". In this post, I will also assume [again, jump ahead if you like] the meaning of "holy" as being moral wholeness. The next post will answer the question of definition, but for this entry I hope you will allow me some indulgence in working out the practical actions with regard to treating the beginning days of generations and the six days of work and the Sabbath rest appropriately.
The first thing in deriving practical applications from this unit of Scripture is to be aware that this is primarily a relationship text. In turn, this also means it has a large portion of the text that is narrative. Genesis as a whole is laying out for us the beginnings and endings of some things and also the ongoing relationship of many generations in places and times. In telling us about the opening days of generations for the heavens and the earth and ourselves, it tells us also what God did and also what we should do.
Besides the practical relationship advice a person can pick up from the stories of Biblical characters in Genesis, there is in this story of creation the opening of work or action by God. He both creates and makes. So here is where we might be able to learn some great action lessons.
First, I wonder, if the creation story does not mean that each time we work we are creating and we are making and that without our working, the world reverts back to a kind of chaos and void. Is that perhaps why the world of neglected buildings tells a story of reverting back to chaos and nothingness to the point of needing even demolishing? Is our work part of the necessary part of sustaining creation beyond its beginning? Are we in any way supposed to be imitators of God and pumped up about going to work rather than reluctant to get to it? What obviously separates us from God is that we in no way started things at the beginning. Rather we ourselves are a part of the beginning. But should we see human work in a much more positive manner?
Let me give you a classic example from my own love of nature as to how work has become a negative rather than a positive. When I was in my junior high years, I acquired a book from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. That pamphlet is my Bible on trout stream habitat. In there, it showed how to do thing with regard to developing trout habit and how not to do things. But in the last decade or more, the DNR has taken a much less active role in creating trout habit in trout streams. As a result, just the other day, I witnessed a former trout brook that no longer supported even one trout in its entire stretch of water. I mean not even one! The entire day that I spent walking (not fishing) the stream, as I scouted this stream for good opportunities to fish later, I never witnessed one fish darting from my approach. What I did see were three major and old "log jams" that I knew would prevent trout from being able to survive in the stretch that I was investigating. By doing no work on this stream, rather than basic regular maintenance, it had led to the death of that stream in terms of trout. It was an instance where our fear of working and of making a mistake on behalf of the trout had led to our entire failure to work and therefore create and make habit for a species who would thrive in these waters. That is a great illustration of why work needs to be seen more positively, like what I saw in playing football where doing something correctly was supposed to replace doing something incorrectly rather than either being replaced by doing nothing.
Second, I think this passage teaches a relationship component, when it comes to work. There should be a limit on the work week or better perhaps a line drawn between weeks. Work it appears is not supposed to be endless. The other day, I ran into a person who bragged to me that she worked every single day. She was a great person and I admire her hard work ethic. But I think one danger is like the danger for Jack in the old saying, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy". Another danger is that one becomes a slave. Working all seven days in ancient times was considered to be the mark of a slave. Right now, this person is being enslaved without seeing it.
A further danger is the obvious danger of burnout. For me, working six days a week for about seven hours per day seems to be the best schedule. That one day break is just enough to re-invigorate me and also only seven hours per day allows me other things in each day besides work. I don't have any idea that I would ever work something like ten to eleven hours per day for four days and take the next three off. I find that when I work that long each day, things like my capacity for quality work diminish. I can work, but the mind is not there. So I think that God's work pattern should be ours. Six days on, one day off is my personal favorite and I think I like it because God liked it. Again, I love work as much as I loved playing football. As long as I accomplish something in reasonable time, leaving time for other things every day, what is not to like? And this little vacation each week maybe is the pattern for all the longer ones as well. Check out the Hebrew Old Testament sometime for all their times off. I think ample time off is part of the practical outcome of the creation story.
Third, because God blesses and makes holy the Sabbath Day, we should do the same. If bless means to call a person by a name that fits them (or has integrity with who they are), then that action likely needs to be part of our day. I would think that it would have the effect of what we call affirmations. God in this day, called his rest day by a name that means rest day. Maybe we should be more thoughtful in choosing names for children or nicknames for friends.
God in this day, called his rest day
by a name that means rest day.
Also in making the day holy, if holy means moral wholeness, this would then mean observing the whole day as a day of rest without any mixture of work in it (impurity), and as seeing it as distinct (set apart) from the others in that they are work days while this is a rest day the entire day and maybe not just the better part of it like our work days. I think the idea of keeping the Sabbath a Sabbath for the entire day can do the whole of who we are a lot of good. God seemed to be pleased by it in not doing any work that day. He did not seem the least displeased with having to end his work for the week, before moving on to the next week. I got a feeling God is not done working or making each week until his own Sabbath arrives. The question is not what God is doing now however, but what are we doing. Do we work and rest? Or do we work and work? Or do we rest and work? Or do we rest and rest? Are we like God in our actions?
So ask yourself first, "Do I love working - creating and making?" Ask second, "Do I know when to work and when to take a break?" Ask third, "Do I affirm others in a way that fits with who they are? And do I not work at all for a whole day as far as my wage earning job is concerned? "
I hope you have answer affirmatively to some of those questions, because then you are living out this passage, not just reading it and never looking in the mirror at yourself. Take a good look. Do you have God's demeanor when it comes to creating and making? Get out there and do something!
In Christ,
Jon
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Holy: Understanding It Better Through Gen. 1:1-2:4a (Total)
PREFACE
The definition of holy has certainly seen its share of conflict and controversy in the last 100 plus years. But also it has high level of importance in the Bible and in terms of personal interest and its potential connection to a very timely topic - healthy. The personal interest is seen in its close connection with a person's name, as for an example, God's name of Yahweh. "Holy be your name" is part of the opening in the Lord's Prayer. The topic of being whole or being healthy is currently one of major importance. With the possible definition of "moral wholeness", it could tie directly into healthy as one of the hot topics of the 21st century. So the overall or total approach to determining a word's meaning is looking at all four areas of interest or concern: 1) translate to an equal, 2) transfer from and to a location and time, 3) total to avoid need gaps, 4) train in the skills for application, and 5) teach what is what.
So far in my entries this week, I have dealt with translation and transfer. Today, I will be spending some time beefing up 1) translate and 2) transfer. I will also use today to look ahead to 3) training and 4) teaching elements. This is what I call the total. It keeps me from leaving gaps in my attempt to persuade others of the meanings for Yahweh, blessed, and holy.
In the Western world, we usually associate the total of something with the opening and closing of what we say, but I want to take a more Eastern approach and place it primarily in the middle. This approach I learned from Mary Douglas, a rather famous anthropologist, who has written on the different structural pattern found in Hebrew writings in the Bible. This does not mean that I will not also have the total of all the parts in the opening and closing, as is usually found in the West. Rather it means I will keep my eye on the whole of the process also in the middle of my writing like the Hebrews.
I value the total so much, because without it things are not complete or total and can therefore easily fail. One writer in speaking of the persuasion cascade pointed out that his method would not work, if it was not completed through the whole of the steps. He understood that there would then be gaps in the persuasion process which then could lead to persuasion failure. I think this also applies to defining words and trying to make a good case for a particular view.
The greatest example of the opposite of what I am saying is the view that the context is THE key to understanding the meaning of a word. Now that the etymology of holy in the Hebrew, the Aramaic, and the Greek is seen as a matter of conflict and controversy; context is now being promoted as THE way to resolve its meaning. I find that very unsatisfactory. It is only one part of at least four perspectives in the total reading and understanding process of reading the Scripture.
That is critical to understanding my approach. Context alone for defining a word will not work in my view. It requires a much more comprehensive approach. Then from that larger perspective, a person can see the convergence of perspectives hopefully all pointing to the same thing.
My goal through this blog is to give people another choice in the area of meaning that they have not previously been aware of as people, who desire to know the meaning of key words in their Bible. I am trying to shed light on the topics of God's name, blessing, and holy that have been hidden in the darkness. Beginning with a choice is critical in reaching the ultimate goal of celebration.
The 5 step persuasion process is like this for the one trying to persuade others:
1) choice by helping people see,
2) chance by enabling people to do,
3) connect by a willing opportunity,
4) change by filling empty hands to satisfaction, and
5) celebrate by people enjoying the experience of not having gaps in fulfilling their needs.
My goal through these 5 steps is to get people to seeing, able, willing, and ready. It takes all of that to reach full blown personal eagerness.
Here's another way to express in words what is desirable for those seeking answers to questions:
1) A choice that you see,
2) A chance for you to be able,
3) A connection that you willingly embrace,
4) A change that fills you up to ready, and
5) A celebration that is all that you need rather even one need short.
Here's Jesus' purpose and goals for similar kinds of things (in Luke 4:18):
1) to restore sight to the blind, who are those not seeing,
2) to free the oppressed, who are those unable,
3) to liberate the captives, who are those unwilling,
4) to tell the gospel to the poor, who are those unready, and
5) to fulfill the whole of the purposes or goals (ex. Jesus' bucket list or ministry goals), and not even one less than this to those suffering, who are those not eager due to a purpose gap.
If you are not eager, then you are suffering. If every one of the criteria is met: seeing, able, willing, and ready, then suffering is relieved. The point is that you only have to be missing one of those things to suffer and not be eager.
So why are you not eager for work? Have you ever thought about it lacking one or more of these goals or purposes? Why are you not eager to go to church? Could it be that this organization that is supposed to be built around Jesus' goals has lost its bearings?
If you fulfill all these things on Jesus' bucket list of goals, then you will eliminate or at least alleviate suffering. So you might ask this: "So how do I become eager?" It is through finishing the goal list that Jesus laid out.
If we changed all things to the direction of Jesus' goals, then I believe people will be so eager they will be breaking down the doors to churches. We can then return to standing room only and people waiting outside to get in.
Here's how you can become eager (based on the rewards for not just you but others equally):
So now, let's lay out the choices :
20th ct. choice - the definition of holy is set apart, and it has less to do with purity or with wholeness compared to what was previously thought.
21st ct. choice - the definition of holy is moral wholeness, the implication is purity, and the significance is that this is what sets us apart (the definition and the implication altogether).
Let's lay out the chances:
20th ct. chance - not much of a chance, but the only real chance we have to draw people back to the church is through being contemporary in terms of music and technology.
21st ct. chance - the practical aspect of making things morally whole or physically whole means that we can do things that were impossible previously
Let's lay out the connections:
20th ct. connect - the various denominational and non-denominational teams on the landscape will continue to be tied to the same leaders of the past in Protestantism and there will be little future hope of reconnecting in a tightly formed team
21st ct. connect - there will now be a real chance to join together in a way that is tightly bound to one another rather than in a loose alliance
Let's lay out the changes:
20th ct. change - the continued changes in technology will drive us to the greatest changes we are capable of making
21st ct change - the change will happen on a personal level with human beings and their moral character resting on a new quality standard and accomplishment.
Let's lay out the celebration:
20th ct celebration - the best of that optimism happened in the 1950s and is unlikely to be revived to a higher pitch going forward
21st ct. celebration - the biblical stories of "it felt like we were dreaming" will be the same kind of reason we are celebrating.
So as I go forward the next couple of days I hope I can demonstrate the value of training and teaching in terms of new capabilities and possibilities and also new sight and a reduction in blindness. May God bless the remainder of your day and please visit all 5 blog entries this week to grasp the whole picture.
In Christ,
Jon
The definition of holy has certainly seen its share of conflict and controversy in the last 100 plus years. But also it has high level of importance in the Bible and in terms of personal interest and its potential connection to a very timely topic - healthy. The personal interest is seen in its close connection with a person's name, as for an example, God's name of Yahweh. "Holy be your name" is part of the opening in the Lord's Prayer. The topic of being whole or being healthy is currently one of major importance. With the possible definition of "moral wholeness", it could tie directly into healthy as one of the hot topics of the 21st century. So the overall or total approach to determining a word's meaning is looking at all four areas of interest or concern: 1) translate to an equal, 2) transfer from and to a location and time, 3) total to avoid need gaps, 4) train in the skills for application, and 5) teach what is what.
So far in my entries this week, I have dealt with translation and transfer. Today, I will be spending some time beefing up 1) translate and 2) transfer. I will also use today to look ahead to 3) training and 4) teaching elements. This is what I call the total. It keeps me from leaving gaps in my attempt to persuade others of the meanings for Yahweh, blessed, and holy.
In the Western world, we usually associate the total of something with the opening and closing of what we say, but I want to take a more Eastern approach and place it primarily in the middle. This approach I learned from Mary Douglas, a rather famous anthropologist, who has written on the different structural pattern found in Hebrew writings in the Bible. This does not mean that I will not also have the total of all the parts in the opening and closing, as is usually found in the West. Rather it means I will keep my eye on the whole of the process also in the middle of my writing like the Hebrews.
I value the total so much, because without it things are not complete or total and can therefore easily fail. One writer in speaking of the persuasion cascade pointed out that his method would not work, if it was not completed through the whole of the steps. He understood that there would then be gaps in the persuasion process which then could lead to persuasion failure. I think this also applies to defining words and trying to make a good case for a particular view.
The greatest example of the opposite of what I am saying is the view that the context is THE key to understanding the meaning of a word. Now that the etymology of holy in the Hebrew, the Aramaic, and the Greek is seen as a matter of conflict and controversy; context is now being promoted as THE way to resolve its meaning. I find that very unsatisfactory. It is only one part of at least four perspectives in the total reading and understanding process of reading the Scripture.
That is critical to understanding my approach. Context alone for defining a word will not work in my view. It requires a much more comprehensive approach. Then from that larger perspective, a person can see the convergence of perspectives hopefully all pointing to the same thing.
My goal through this blog is to give people another choice in the area of meaning that they have not previously been aware of as people, who desire to know the meaning of key words in their Bible. I am trying to shed light on the topics of God's name, blessing, and holy that have been hidden in the darkness. Beginning with a choice is critical in reaching the ultimate goal of celebration.
The 5 step persuasion process is like this for the one trying to persuade others:
1) choice by helping people see,
2) chance by enabling people to do,
3) connect by a willing opportunity,
4) change by filling empty hands to satisfaction, and
5) celebrate by people enjoying the experience of not having gaps in fulfilling their needs.
My goal through these 5 steps is to get people to seeing, able, willing, and ready. It takes all of that to reach full blown personal eagerness.
Here's another way to express in words what is desirable for those seeking answers to questions:
1) A choice that you see,
2) A chance for you to be able,
3) A connection that you willingly embrace,
4) A change that fills you up to ready, and
5) A celebration that is all that you need rather even one need short.
Here's Jesus' purpose and goals for similar kinds of things (in Luke 4:18):
1) to restore sight to the blind, who are those not seeing,
2) to free the oppressed, who are those unable,
3) to liberate the captives, who are those unwilling,
4) to tell the gospel to the poor, who are those unready, and
5) to fulfill the whole of the purposes or goals (ex. Jesus' bucket list or ministry goals), and not even one less than this to those suffering, who are those not eager due to a purpose gap.
If you are not eager, then you are suffering. If every one of the criteria is met: seeing, able, willing, and ready, then suffering is relieved. The point is that you only have to be missing one of those things to suffer and not be eager.
If you are not eager,
then you are suffering.
So why are you not eager for work? Have you ever thought about it lacking one or more of these goals or purposes? Why are you not eager to go to church? Could it be that this organization that is supposed to be built around Jesus' goals has lost its bearings?
If you fulfill all these things on Jesus' bucket list of goals, then you will eliminate or at least alleviate suffering. So you might ask this: "So how do I become eager?" It is through finishing the goal list that Jesus laid out.
If we changed all things to the direction of Jesus' goals, then I believe people will be so eager they will be breaking down the doors to churches. We can then return to standing room only and people waiting outside to get in.
Here's how you can become eager (based on the rewards for not just you but others equally):
So now, let's lay out the choices :
20th ct. choice - the definition of holy is set apart, and it has less to do with purity or with wholeness compared to what was previously thought.
21st ct. choice - the definition of holy is moral wholeness, the implication is purity, and the significance is that this is what sets us apart (the definition and the implication altogether).
Let's lay out the chances:
20th ct. chance - not much of a chance, but the only real chance we have to draw people back to the church is through being contemporary in terms of music and technology.
21st ct. chance - the practical aspect of making things morally whole or physically whole means that we can do things that were impossible previously
Let's lay out the connections:
20th ct. connect - the various denominational and non-denominational teams on the landscape will continue to be tied to the same leaders of the past in Protestantism and there will be little future hope of reconnecting in a tightly formed team
21st ct. connect - there will now be a real chance to join together in a way that is tightly bound to one another rather than in a loose alliance
Let's lay out the changes:
20th ct. change - the continued changes in technology will drive us to the greatest changes we are capable of making
21st ct change - the change will happen on a personal level with human beings and their moral character resting on a new quality standard and accomplishment.
Let's lay out the celebration:
20th ct celebration - the best of that optimism happened in the 1950s and is unlikely to be revived to a higher pitch going forward
21st ct. celebration - the biblical stories of "it felt like we were dreaming" will be the same kind of reason we are celebrating.
So as I go forward the next couple of days I hope I can demonstrate the value of training and teaching in terms of new capabilities and possibilities and also new sight and a reduction in blindness. May God bless the remainder of your day and please visit all 5 blog entries this week to grasp the whole picture.
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better on the Map (the Bible)
So you are exploring the meaning of holy as it is found in the Bible. That is wonderful. It is extremely important, as is pointed out by those famous words in Isaiah: "Holy, holy, holy ...." Perhaps the best way to think of words is to think of them as tools to map out the territory. In tandem, the territory equals real life. Imagine having to go to new locations all the time with no map let alone without your GPS! Worse yet, let's say your map was dated a bit and MapQuest did not show the street that you were looking for but instead a close equivalent! I know the experience with MapQuest personally. It can be frustrating, because it was supposed to make the trip easier rather than more difficult. If we misunderstand the meaning of holy, then frustration and difficulty will be the outcome. That is why the meaning of holy is not only important, but also relevant. What if we are losing our way? Let's look at the maps that are available for finding your destination.
Well, there are three maps out there that have been used for the last 500 plus years. The first map put in the bin historically grew out of the Protestant Reformation. The definition of holy on that map is that holy means morally whole, but there is also a secondary definition. The primary (or broad) definition is moral wholeness. The secondary (narrow) definition is set apart. The second map to be put in the bin historically was made mostly by Puritans. The definition of holy on that map is pure. The third map was made popular at the end of the 1800s and became more popular during the 1900s (20th century). The definition of holy on that map is set apart. This map also remains the most popular at the present moment. That is what you find in most of the books and on most of the internet as you search. There are other maps available with other definitions, but I have given you only the top three to simplify your decision-making.
Understanding the Bible correctly is very important, when you consider that the effect of errant maps. You can get lost, frustrated, or arrive late. It is important to know the implications or effects isn't it? This is the "why" behind my blog. I believe the Bible clearly teaches that even the best of us will face affliction. Life is difficult enough without adding to the territory of life a bad map!
So please know that these three maps are out there. I am presently testing each one for accuracy. The one that I have tested the most experientially since 2004 is the idea that holy means whole. Before that and from my childhood, I was given the map that said holy means set apart. So I was unintentionally testing that option the entire time. I guess that I also tested the idea that holy means pure in my first 3 years of college. I am also testing these three maps through writing a scholarly paper, where I will be using a linguistic and grammatical synthesis as my method.
Please pray that God would grant me more resources to finish this task yet this spring (before May). Then I will announce to everyone the results of that work. Don't threw out any of the above maps away quite yet. There are elements of truth in each one. I'll let you know when you can settle in with the best one or a better replacement than any of the three. Do wisely as the ancient Jewish copyists did. Place one definition as central in your life and keep the other two in your life's margin. Thank you for reading this post.
In Christ,
Jon
Well, there are three maps out there that have been used for the last 500 plus years. The first map put in the bin historically grew out of the Protestant Reformation. The definition of holy on that map is that holy means morally whole, but there is also a secondary definition. The primary (or broad) definition is moral wholeness. The secondary (narrow) definition is set apart. The second map to be put in the bin historically was made mostly by Puritans. The definition of holy on that map is pure. The third map was made popular at the end of the 1800s and became more popular during the 1900s (20th century). The definition of holy on that map is set apart. This map also remains the most popular at the present moment. That is what you find in most of the books and on most of the internet as you search. There are other maps available with other definitions, but I have given you only the top three to simplify your decision-making.
Understanding the Bible correctly is very important, when you consider that the effect of errant maps. You can get lost, frustrated, or arrive late. It is important to know the implications or effects isn't it? This is the "why" behind my blog. I believe the Bible clearly teaches that even the best of us will face affliction. Life is difficult enough without adding to the territory of life a bad map!
So please know that these three maps are out there. I am presently testing each one for accuracy. The one that I have tested the most experientially since 2004 is the idea that holy means whole. Before that and from my childhood, I was given the map that said holy means set apart. So I was unintentionally testing that option the entire time. I guess that I also tested the idea that holy means pure in my first 3 years of college. I am also testing these three maps through writing a scholarly paper, where I will be using a linguistic and grammatical synthesis as my method.
Please pray that God would grant me more resources to finish this task yet this spring (before May). Then I will announce to everyone the results of that work. Don't threw out any of the above maps away quite yet. There are elements of truth in each one. I'll let you know when you can settle in with the best one or a better replacement than any of the three. Do wisely as the ancient Jewish copyists did. Place one definition as central in your life and keep the other two in your life's margin. Thank you for reading this post.
In Christ,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
