Holy: Understanding it Better Through Genesis 2:1-3, Part 4 (of 5)

"The first choice we make everyday is will we act upon life or will be acted upon", according to Stephen R. Covey.  Likewise understanding the actions within a unit of biblical text is very significant.  It is not just though a matter of active or passive, it is also a matter of examing both the pre-state before an action and the post-state after an action that tell a person a great deal about two primary aspects of action.  Both the means by which the state of life is changed and also sometimes the natural or passive motive or the active motive behind the action. 

This part will focus on the actions within the text.  It will look at charting what are referred to as the pre-state and post-state of actions.  It is helpful for seeing how something is done, but also why it is done.  I learned this from a great expert in the area of computers, James J. Odell, who used it for different a different purpose having to do with search engines.  I have found this tool to be invaluable for focusing on the actions in the text. 

If you wish to know more about Odell's ideas, I suggest picking up his book, Advanced Object-Oriented Analysis and Design Using UML.   The book I am drawing from is from 1998.  He should not be held liable for my use of his ideas in dealing with a biblical text, but he should be credited for anything new I am able to contribute.  I find his way of seeing things to be truly unique and beneficial. 

This uniqueness may end up making this my most exciting entry on Genesis 2:1-3, just because you may have never seen this approach before.  Also an analogy from Stephen R. Covey may help clear up why God is staid to "make holy"/"Sanctify" the seventh day and also why God blessed it as well. 

Until I am able to update this entry further, please enjoy the following chart inspired by Odell's work:

Blessed and sanctified

                                                     Pre-state                                     Post-state

Finished                                    Unfinished                                                 Finished (complete action)

Ended                                       Not over                                                    Ended (complete action)

[Work]                                      Working                                                    Work (complete action)

Had done                         Had not done (incomplete action)               Had done (complete action)

Rested                                      Worked (completed action)                  Rested (complete action)

[Work]                                     Working                                                    Work (completed action)

Had done                               Had not done                                            Had done (complete action)

Blessed                      Becoming fruitful, multiplying, and filling        Fruitful, multiply, and fill

                                   (becoming fruitful, not yet                                 completed action by his other                                    multiplying, not yet full)                                     actions being complete)

Sanctified                  Becoming set apart or whole                            Is set apart or whole

                                                                                                                  (completed action by his other                                                                                                                   actions being complete)

if set apart, then   (day not separate from the other six)           (day separated from other six)

if whole, then        (partial day of incomplete rest)                     (whole day of complete rest)

Rested                      worked                                                               rested (complete action)

                                                                                                               (didn’t rest the next day)

[Work]                      Working                                                              Work (complete action)

Had created            Creating                                                               Created (complete action)

Had made                Making                                                                Made (complete action)

The problem with the idea of separate is that there is no immediate direct reference to the other days of the week in this discussion in Genesis 2:1-3.  Instead the focus in the more immediate context is not on separating days or on separating work from rest, but instead on complete action versus incomplete action.  Of course, there is a distinction between (a separation of)  pre-state and post-state, but the point is to describe and identify the post-state, not to focus on this very natural separation.  The idea of separation is natural to the context, but it is not the focus of the context.  In fact, as Andrew Murray implied many years ago there are other Hebrew words that point to the idea of separation as biblical and so be holy or sanctified would not have to be one of them. 

Jon Westlund                                                                                             1/1/11                                                                                                         (revised slightly since this date)

I'm hoping to use "smart art" in this entry.  I will try to take what I have charted above and make it even more clear though the use of this application within Word 2007.  If I am able, you will enjoy the clarity of the lay out for how the different actions relate to outcomes, purposes and other actions.  [This entry is in process, awaiting when I have substantial time to complete it.

Holy: Understanding it Better by Distinguishing Status from Proof

At present, the definition of holy as "set apart" enjoys the greatest status as far as possible definitions of holy.  Prior to its rise in the late 1800s and its continuing rise in the 1900s (the 20th century), the definition of holy as "whole" held the same higher status (with "set apart" as only its secondary or narrow definition).   So it becomes very important for every serious scholar to not substitute status for evidence. 

Status should follow after evidence and it should follow proof.  Status should not itself be proof or evidence.  This sounds quite obvious to anyone acquainted with science or scholarship.  Yet it is easily forgotten.  Luther once said that he preached a theology of the cross, not just a theology of glory.  Good ideas also can suffer for a time. 

Sometimes sitting down with scholars to discuss the definition of holy, I have often (but not always) noted a bias toward "set apart" that is heavily ingrained.  This is likely because of the status of that definition at the present time and because of the status of the scholars that hold that position.  The problem is that status can bias even some of the better scholars against testing two options equally. 

Status itself is not wrong or harmful.  Status is an excellent thing like glory, when it follows from evidence or proof.  But current status is not proof that the definition of holy is correct.  The order cannot be reversed.  I would argue that the number of scholars that hold one definition versus another is something that deserves attention, because in itself it is not wrong.   Yet greater than status is the merits of the argument that resulted in the status. 

This is why in some of my blogs, I point out that some of the evidence from some scholars of status is shaky or probable at best by their own admission.  So their personal status as scholars and their endorsement of a definition for holy cannot rest on their recognized scholarly status. 

The reason my previous blog is so important and why it is taking extra time to complete is because it is an example of my attempt to set aside status from before the year 2000 and before the year 1900 (both are approximate dates for the status change for both definitions).  I want to fully test both of the views alluded to above side by side using recognized units from within Scripture and each unit's immmediate context as the best test for the meaning of holy.  May the better definition and its merits get the status it deserves following the year 2000 (again approximate)!

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy Means Whole: According to Proof, Proof, Proof

If you read through my blog you will notice in the titles "according to." The reason is because the purpose of this blog is to offer evidence for the meaning of holy. It offers all different kinds of proof. It essentially offers four separate kinds that combined form a very strong proof for why I think holy means being morally whole. They are: scriptural, traditional, experiential and reasonable.


Scriptural means that I have a high regard for the rule or measure of Scripture. I regard that measure as the standard in all things. It is a standard that stands alone.


Traditional means that I have a high regard for connections with other Christians over time. In other words, I would consider it very strange if I could not find Christians since the time of Christ/Messiah, who held the same viewpoint I am expressing. I would find it especially troublesome, if I could not find my views being held by fellow believers in Christ/Messiah during times of renewal as opposed to periods of degeneration.


Experiential means that character produces outcomes. It says in Scripture: "If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, then I will heal their land, etc." The condition of certain actions produces certain outcomes. I am troubled by our lack of good outcomes at present and it causes me to ask the question whether our understanding of God's character, and therefore what we imitate, is correct. Could it be that our definition of holy that is instrumental to character could be flawed?


Reasonable means that reason has a role. We are not to throw out our minds, but use them. We are to be as diligent for proof as the myriad of popular shows like CSI Miami. We are to desire proof from the evidence of our senses. We are to avoid nonsense. At present we are in trouble because the standards of proof are being lowered, not raised. I want to keep the standard up and look for proof that is valid to our minds. That is why I use tools related to language and not tools that fail to take language into account.


The troubling issue right now is that proof has fallen into disrepair when you look at the evidence for the ideas that holy means set apart or holy means separation (to). First, it does not have a myriad of evidence from many witnesses, but primarily from one witness. Second, it is not persuasive in the sense of conclusive, but instead is in a state of controversial when it comes to the evidence.


On the first point, I would like to quote Richard Hooker, the great Anglican writer, who once said: "Though ten persons be brought to give testimony in any cause, yet if the knowledge they have of the thing where they come as witnesses, appear to have grown from some one among them, and, to have spread itself from hand to hand, they are all in force but the one testimony" (Richard Chapman, Law and Revelation: Richard Hooker and His Writings, Norwich, UK: Canterbury Press, p. 28).


The great number of lexicons, who give witness to separation or set apart, fall under this problem. They are but one witness in most cases, because they have fed off of one source. The other witnesses that have tried primary investigation, also admit that their position is "controversial." This includes people like Rudolph Otto (author of The Idea of the Holy) and Norman Snaith (author of The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament). It is also admitted by the writer on qadosh (holy) in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. (The latter does attempt a further proof, the other two did not).


On the second issue, I would like to quote Richard Hooker again: "... inasmuch as if it [that God's spirit did reveal] did come of God and should for that cause prevail with others, the same God which revealed it to them would also give them power of confirming it to others, either with miraculous operation, or with strong and invincible remonstrance of sound Reason, such as whereby it might appear that God would indeed have all men's judgments give place to it; whereas now the error and unsufficiency of their arguments do make it on the contrary side against them a strong presumption, that God has not moved their hearts to think such things as he has not enabled them to prove" (Chapman, p. 102-3). The last part is the most powerful in this quote: "to think such things as he has not enabled them to prove."


This really spoke to me when I read it, because it challenged me to consider what God has enabled me to prove. It also challenged me to think through what all writers on the subject of holy have been able to prove. It is a real challenge for parties on both sides. The right response is to meet this challenge rather than shrink from it. It does not solve the problem to avoid the problem. That is my issue with too much of what is written in the last 100 years. With little more than a controversial proof, big assumptions have been carried forward.


I think the better posture is to hit our knees, humble ourselves before God and ask him for the proof of what holy means. I myself desire greater proof for the point of view I have argued for. I realize I need further revelation from God that might convince a greater number of people that the proof is there in Scripture and that it is consistent with the other kinds of proof. Pray to God with me that he would bring the consequences of "proof, proof and proof" to our land.



In Christ,


Jon