Holy: Understanding It Better Through Understanding Persuasion Better

We can all be really gullible sometimes.  The discussion surrounding the meaning of LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy all clearly demonstrate the danger.  This danger is aggravated or heightened by the fact that each of these words are critical to understanding God's Word as a whole.  When I ask people around me about how they discern an expert opinion from one that is not, they tell me they are very confused by all the different opinions.  I personally know the feeling, but I also know a way out from all the different views and how to find a viable agreement among the experts. 

Let me first remove some gullibility by explaining how you and I are persuaded by others.  When you know how people persuade you, then it dramatically reduces your gullibility and makes you able to make your own decisions.  How you are persuaded is not necessarily evil.  It is like someone who knows any skill.  It can be used or abused.  It can be used for people's own selfish ends or for ends that advance not only selfish ends but the other's ends as well.  Any skill can become something that conforms to love your neighbor as much as yourself.  So persuasion as a skill does not always have to lead to love myself more than I love my neighbor.  So what we need to know is when people are abusing persuasion skillfully and when they are using persuasion skillfully.

In The Complete Idiot's Guide to Persuasion, the author uses the analogy of a cascade to illustrate how persuasion works.  He identifies this sequence to bring about a communication cascade toward persuasion.  The steps are:

1) reception
2) processing
3) response, and
4) behavior.

So if these are the steps, let me give you the simplest explanation of each.  I will get you a one sentence definition of each.  Here is each one:

1) reception - it is the first dawn of awareness that there is something new out there and it needs to saturate communities with its message  (ex. 2004 is when I first heard something new about holy - that it can mean moral wholeness and I found it in lots of communities of faith)

2) processing - it is discerning whether the light bulb in your receiver's mind is bright or dim and realizing that sometimes people are highly willing (the light bulb burns brightly) and other times not so much so (the light bulb burns dimly), so you have to move the dimmer switch to burn more brightly before there will be willing processing to maintain and make time for what is needed (ex. for the next 10 years, I processed the idea of moral wholeness and other ideas related to holy)

3) response - it is that point when the processing turns to action through demonstrating a favorable outcome through key motivators like easy, fun, and popular.  The author here recognizes that we are adults, so the geek speak or adult equivalent for each of these is self-efficacy, attitude, and norms.  The message has to create strong intentions or goals and strong motivators.  (ex. it was easy [I could do it] using Eugene Nida's word classes to play around [attitude] with possible meanings for holy looking for the one that ought to be popular [fit the norm of biblical])

4) behavior - this is where a TACTful view is required according to this author by getting very specific about behavior, not just a generic response.  Unfortunately, the author is not specific enough to satisfy a high school level mind, so I will add to their "TACTful view" a more "TACTFUL VIEW".  Here it goes:

T) Target - who?
A) Action - how?
C) Context - where?
T) Time - when?
F) Fun - why?
U) Uncommon - which?
L) Label - what?
V) Vigorous - whole?
I) Intense - how many?
E) Enough - how much?
W) Way - all the way through all 10 of these or persuasion behavior will fail

Unfortunately, many people are persuaded even with huge gaps in answering these questions that the mind requires answers to before it finds what it is looking for ultimately.  So if you want to avoid gullibility, then avoid persuasion that leaves you feeling these are not questions they answer, but questions they leave out.  Even today, as I write, this one entry should not a case make.  You need to read other of my entries too (read the newest first!).  The only case I am making today that might be fully persuasive is that this is how persuasion works for the good (and unfortunately sometimes to the bad). 

So each step of the persuasion cascade is how our words as persuaders cascade all the way into full blown behavior on every level - heart, soul, strength, and mind.  So let me move from this common communication cascade of persuasion to one of the specifics of the meanings of LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy,  It does no good, if nothing if I am not specific at this point about my behavior.

As I look at things, I sense right now (and I am gathering wise counsel at this point) the need to write a book and a paper on the topics of the three most important words in the Bible - LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy.  The reason is because even though the internet is a wonderful way to gain reception in the world, it does not gain reception in some of the places that I would like my writing to gain reception.  I would like scholars to hear what I have to say.  I would like pastors to hear what I have to say.  I would like lay people to hear what I have to say.  Especially the last, since they are so numerous and I want heaven filled with people!  Reception is a little harder to get than just writing on the internet alone.  You also have to be persuasive! 

A more popular book for pastors is where I think I should begin, since that type of speech communication comes easiest to me.  The next would be the write to the scholarly community, because they are critical in a discussion of who really has expertise.  And by expertise, I hope part of it is persuasive expertise.  Finally, I want to speak anytime I can and write to the average person, because there is a lot more of them than the first two categories making them immensely important.  But I think that they have the right to see me earn my wings of expertise too.  It does no good if they see me ducking the tough (fun!) road of ministry professionals and seminary scholars.  There may be other means, but so far it appears those two pieces are needed to be specific enough to get the job done. 

In the meantime, keep in your mind the three major scholarly opinions for the biblical meaning of holy: 1) moral wholeness, 2) purity, and 3) set apart.  Treasure all three and do not let anyone take any one of the three from your mind of discovery.  Receive it don't let anyone steal any of them.  I'll need something a little longer to make my case for the biblical understanding of holy (and the others), but Lord willing it is coming given time.  May God bless your day.

In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Two Recent Books

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understandin the SAFEty of Each Definition

In my previous entry, I discussed an analogy for rating the possible biblical definitions of holy.   The top three candidates (in alphabetical order to avoid bias) are: 1) pure, 2) set apart, and 3) whole.  I now want to also discuss each definition from the standpoint of the SAFEty of each definition.  I want to use safe in two senses.  First, for its usual meaning as in safe versus dangerous option and then also as an acronym for how safety is produced in the case of definitions. 

If I were to suggest that I could help you be healthy, then I would have four goals for your physical health.  They are:

1)  Stable
2)  Aware
3)  Flexible
4)  Energetic

The first letter of each is where the acronym SAFE comes from as you can now easily see.  In the case of a healthy body it is likely that no one would argue with the value of each of these outcomes.  Well, let's see how that works out when comparing the 3 most likely candidates for the meaning of holiness or sanctification. 

First, I want to re-arrange this list to point out how I see each of these on the most basic level of the kinds of different meanings.  Those classes of meaning are: 1) whole (I will not comment on this, but assume it as a combination of the other four), 2) amount, 3) relationship, 4) action, and 5) thing.  (If you want to understand each of these better, please see my communication basics blog or search on-line for the TEAR method made popular by the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), Dr. Eugene Albert Nida of the United Bible Societies, or by Wycliffe Bible Translators.)

1)  Stable - I see this as related to amount.  An ankle for example you want to have a certain range of motion, but also not too much or too little.  The first suggests a sprain or tear and the second suggests an ankle that is now supported by a brace or by the presence of inflammation that holds an injured joint in a condition of rigidity.  Neither a sprain nor rigidity is helpful. 

2)  Flexible - I see this as related to relationship.   Every professional athlete understands the need for stretching.  It is not just important that joints have a range of motion, but also that muscles not be bound too tight and that they maintain some flexibility.  Now here again, flexibility can be overly pursued at the expense of muscle development or muscle development can be pursued with a lack of flexibility.  For movement from one place to another and at all speeds that means the changing of one's relationship to other objects.  Let's not over-pursue strength or flexibility, so we can move from one position to another in a way that is helpful.

3)  Energetic - I see this as related to action.  Professional athletes know the importance of healthy carbs for performance.  Their bodies need fuel to play or compete at the highest level.  We can overdo it with carbs and leave our body in a state of excess energy which goes to waste in the form of excess fat.  The body also needs protein to energize the building of muscle.  In an anabolic state muscle can grow effectively without robbing other muscles.  In a catabolic state the body feeds on other muscle to get the muscle building capability it needs elsewhere (this is not good).  We can also fall into a deficit state during competition, because of all the demands for energy that our body must meet.  Let's not be guilty of excessive carbs or a lack of sugars to energize or power our bodies.

4)  Aware - I see this as related to thing.  My reasoning is this.  The athlete at any level must know or be aware of the game they are playing.  The rules of soccer and the rules of basketball are different.  In one you use your hands primarily and in the other you use your feet primarily.  That also means that being aware of how to kick a ball into a net may not be very helpful for sinking a ball through a hoop and net in basketball.  But also there are fundamentals that are helpful.  Working hard, playing as a teammate rather than a ball hog, etc.   Let's not then assume that all of our awareness is helpful for a different kind of thing or on the other hand that none of it is helpful.  Both of these views show a lack of awareness. 


I've laid out each of these analogies, as I have, in order to now speak to the issue of the three major options for defining holy.  Let's look at each in the same order

1) Stable as an amount - In our day, it is clear that the last 100 years have been predominately controlled by the idea that holy in the Bible means "set apart".  It has been the one option!  Please keep in mind that this is only the last 100 years and not for all time (it is found in parts of the Rabbinic tradition as well).  Before that and for at least 400 years (I'm still researching the prior 1500 years), the predominate definition was "whole" and "set apart" was seen as the secondary definition of holy in Protestant and Christian circles.  "Pure" was also in the same time period in Reformed, Presbyterian, or Puritan theology (but not always, including Calvin and Edwards), more than in any other denominational tradition.   The amount of time and the amount of people who held these definitions teaches an interesting lesson.  If we are to measure each in terms of their stability and hold on people's interpretations, the new order would be historically from most stable to least stable based on Protestant history): 1) whole, 2) set apart, and 3) pure.  Remember this is only a measure of stability in terms of amount of adherents and staying power (both forms of stability).  We cannot from this alone say that one definition is safer than another as far as likelihood of being the right or justified definition.  What it does do is put our judgment into a right framework.  Also we must avoid either too great of a range of motion (likely the case with set apart in liberal circles) or the rigidity of range of motion to protect a supposed sacred position (likely the case of conservatives since the late 1800s related to the infamous "Downgrade Controversy".) 

2) Flexibility as a relationship -  In our day, set apart is usually the meaning giving to holy without much give as to a secondary meaning.  Many other words are used also as words to define holy like consecrate, sanctify, separate, hallow, etc. depending on the context.  Normally, there are 5 major contexts including holy persons (names), holy things (temple), holy actions (sanctify), holy places (sanctuary, holy of holies), holy amounts (holier).  So this definition does show ample flexibility.  Likewise holy defined as whole had flexibility, even to the point of a secondary definition depending on the context.  There was a broad definition of holy that applied to contexts in which both sanctification and justification appeared (Lutherans primarily promoted this view).  But there was also a narrow definition that applied when there was not a context of justification.  I find this flexibility very awkward and it is likely a flaw in understanding, since it is hard to see how the core idea of whole is flexible enough based on context to mean set apart.  A flexibility based on context would have to be constructed differently for whole to be a possible definition for holy.  This can be improved.  Purity has flexibility much like set apart, so I will not say too much on that.  One thing about context though is very important.  This definition relies heavily on the presence of the meaning of pure in other words in the context of the biblical words usually translated as holy.  So I would conclude that whole as a definition has the most struggles with context in the older 500 year tradition, but this may be amendable, so that it can be considered along with the other 2 options as flexible in context.  Remember we are looking for a core definition that can be flexible when needed, but only based on context (not on arbitrary ideas). 

3) Energetic as an action - In our present time, set apart is a double-edged sword, when it comes to energy.  There is no question that this definition has a lot of energy behind it in its research and in its proclamation both from the pulpit and from books in the last 100 years.  For many evangelicals, this kind of holiness is needed for revival.  The other side of that sword is that it has had ample time and investment (including money) to where it should have produced results by now.  It by far dominates the lives of Christian believers around the globe as their paradigm and perception.  The question arises:"W hat would happen on an energy level were the other options given the same resources and energy?"  Let's say for example, that holy means moral wholeness.  During past revivals from Luther to Spurgeon, this was the predominant definition (with set apart secondary) and we see revivals of historic and classical proportions.  Purity on its side has set off smaller revivals like that among the Puritans in particular.  It never had the larger scale effect, but in its narrow sphere it energized believers.  The question is how much time will be committed to set apart to see a revival come again or rather should more time be dedicated to it?  Should we be considering other options for an energetic revival or reformation? 

4) Awareness as a thing - Maybe, it would be better to say awareness of things (or awareness of possible definitions).  I grew up with almost no awareness of what holy meant as a young Christian.  I do recall at least one instance of being bored as the pastor droned on and on about being holy and I had no idea what he meant.  I wasn't usually bored in church, but when you have no idea what they are talking about, it is hard not to be bored.  I also really had no awareness of moral wholeness as a definition (the combining of righteous and just, true and humble, love and perfect, and goodness and maturity).  I also had no awareness of the idea that hesed (Hebrew for steadfast kindness) might also be a rich form of whole kindness (the combining of mercy, grace, compassion and slowness to anger - see Exodus 34, etc.).  That awareness began for me in 2004 with my eyes opening to qadosh in Strong's dictionary and in finding many advocates on the internet (both past and present).  Set apart I think was a given in my Christian experience, though the connection with holiness was not real clear.  I grew up in an occasional fundamentalist atmosphere that certainly pursued being "set apart" from sinners.  Some adults around me were among those who lived by the banner of "come out and be separate", which was the banner of the Downgrade Controversy in the late 1800s.  This view is also supported in the older Jewish Rabbinic traditions supported by Rashi.  I will not say that all Jews agreed with this definition, since some have protested and presented other views.   Purity was in my awareness, once I hit college.  It was then that I was introduced to the Puritan tradition and to theologians like Charles Hodge (his father by the way, believed holy meant moral wholeness while Charles thought it meant pure).   One of the major reasons for my blog in the beginning was just to create awareness that there are two (later three) major options, not just one and also to diminish the excessive number of possible definitions and calm people's minds about the other 17 or more options (you can see all the other options I found in one of my entries in either 2011 or 2012). 

So now that I have covered the SAFEty of each option, I hope you will consider the safety of your choice for the definition of holy.   I have done my very best to try to be as fair as I could be to each one.  I am currently working on a paper on the meaning of holy, beginning with ancient Hebrew all the way up to its translation of hagios in the Septuagint and in the New Testament.  My goal is to make the choice of a definition among the top 3 options safer in both senses that I started with in the beginning of this blog entry.  May you feel safer already and may God grant me success in making the choice for the meaning of holy even safer!  Thank you so much for reading my humble views on the meaning of holy.


In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Sound Method and Key Biblical Texts

I am willing to guess that you are visiting my blog to learn the meaning of holy.  I will not disappoint you.  The first question is how many (quantity) possible definitions are there and then of those which one is the right one?  The second question is how much (quality) is the support for each definition and can one gain all the support while the others lose their support?   My answer to the first question is three (out of twenty+) that deserve consideration: "set apart", "pure", or "whole".   The answer to the second question of how much (quality) is the support for each of these definitions is why I am writing posts for this blog.  The quality of support for one of these three definitions I believe can be higher.  I also am convinced that through a better exegetical method or word study or linguisic analysis, one definition can be presented with a higher quality of support rather than the worst case scenario of the wrong one, a little better option of still having three possibilities, or better still just two possibilities.  The one with high quality support is what I want.  This post will begin to answer the question of the definition of holy in the Bible at a higher level of quality by introducing the outline or arrangment of my method of exegeis or analysis that will increase the support for one of these three definitions. 

One of the five canons (rules) of rhetoric for public speaking is arrangment.  In grammar, the parallel rule for writing or journalism is outlining.  Mrs. Buchberger tired to teach me English grammar in junior high and Mr. Rass tried to straighten me out further on outlining in high school.  Today, I want to introduce a probable arrangment or outline for the thesis I am currently writing.

It is as follows:

Preface: The How Many and How Much

     The Scope of this Paper: Using One Method over All the Others

Part One: Method - The How and the Why

     Introduction

          Looking at the Total Picture: It is About More than Translation

               Nehemiah 8

     Unit One  

          Translation  and Semantic Analysis

     Unit Two
  
          Transfer and Structural Analysis

     Unit Three

          Total and Linguistic (or Grammatical) Analysis

     Unit Four

          Train and Syntactic Analysis

     Unit Five

          Teach and Lexical Analysis

     Conclusion: A Total Method is Superior to a Translation Method


Part Two:  Biblical Texts - The What and the Which: Testing Three Theories Not Just One

     Introduction: We Cannot Rely So Much on One Method

          Etymology is in the Bible?

          Introducing Complete Linguistic Analysis

     Unit One: The Linguistic Analysis of Isaiah 6 (and Revelation 4)

     Unit Two: The Linguistic Analysis of Genesis 2:1-3 (and Deuteronomy 5)

     Unit Three: The Linguistic Analysis of Leviticus 19 (and 1 Peter 1)

     Unit Four: The Linguistic Analysis of Exodus (?) (and Acts (?))

     Unit Five: The Linguistic Analysis of Deuteronomy (?)

    Conclusion:  One Definition from Multiple Possible Definitions for Holy


Part Three: The Significance and Implications - The Where and the When (Relevance)

     Introduction: The Defining of Significance and Implications
    
     Unit One: The Significance and Implications for Our Priorities

     Unit Two: The Significance and Implications for Relevance

     Unit Three: The Significance and  Implications for Yourself and Life

     Unit Four: The Significance and Implications for Work

     Unit Five: The Significance and Implications for Learning

     Conclusion: One Definition that is Biblical Can Change Many Things


Epilogue: The Who and the Whole

     Who is the Holy One (what is His name)? 

     Who are the Saints (the Holy Ones)? 




This I believe is the arrangement thats is growing within my thesis paper.  Throughout this blog you will be able to read preliminary parts and pieces of what eventually will be a complete mosaic or tapestry on the definition of holy.  Right now these bits and pieces do not have the advantage of full arrangement, but I am looking forward to the day to say that the above is complete.  In this blog, I am also trying to produce a better definition of holy in the sense of better support.  But part of that is keeping all the top possibilites on the table until my thesis paper is complete and reviewed by a committee.  May God grant me speed in this process!


In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding It Better Through Territory and Map

You may have heard the saying, "The map is not the same thing as the territory".   You also may have heard someone else say: "This sure would be a lot easier, if only we had a map".   Life can be a lot easier, if we maintain the distinction between territory and map on the one hand and if we have a map to use on the other.  We don't want to live like the pre-reformer Martin Luther did for a long time, having to always learn things the hard way, due to his misunderstanding of the Bible as his map.  That is the way he describes his learning until his breakthrough in understanding the map of the Bible and that after having traveled down so many real life dead ends.  We also don't want to live a life of dead orthodoxy that came about after Luther's death, where the map came to mean more than the territory.  The same goes for understanding that key biblical word that is translated as holy.   It is supposed to be a word map that helps us understanding real life territory.   The question is whether the current popular definition of holy as a part of the map does that or not.   Does "set apart" fit the map and the territory?

 

The picture above is a world map and one of the most incredible things in history is all the changes that have been made to maps and how useful maps are in our smaller much-travelled world,   We have even changed some of the terminology.  If you went to Google Maps you would see different optional boxes in the upper right corner.  For our purposes the two names closest to territory and map would be earth and map.  You could explore the earth using a satellite or you could examine it using a map!

Using the analogy of earth and map (or territory and map) the meaning of holy can be explored in two ways: 1) by using the territory and 2) by  using a map.  You could make the terminology even more comtemporary by using the words from Google Maps: Earth and Map.  Through satellite, you can view the territory or terrain of the earth.  Through its maps, you can use the line drawings of map experts.  The best way to do the exploration of its meaning is to test the possible definitions for holy through both means and not just one or the other.  You could call it a hybrid method.  I am speaking here of testing: 1) the meaning of set apart, 2) the meaning of whole and 3) the meaning of pure.  These are the top 3 meanings scholars, teachers, pastors and lay people suggest for the central idea of qadosh (Hebrew transliteration) or hagios (Greek transliteration), both of which are transalated as holy (or sanctified or hallowed) in an English Bible. 

The first test for our knowledge is the test of the territory.  How do each of these meanings fit with real life territory?   First, we have a consensus that whatever meaning this word carries, it should be a high priority thing in reality.  "Holy, holy, holy" is not said repreatedly for no particular reason.  Rather it is said like that to point to the pinnacle of God's character.  Not many scholars should disagree with that indication in the map of the Bible. 

So then, does "set apart/separate", "whole", or "pure" rise to the highest place in the reality of God's character?   One thing is certain, they all are ideas that fit reality.  What is an unique test is whether these ideas are more significant than others in the face of reality. 

Before we answer the question, let's expand each idea a little bit.  First, some believe that the main thing missing in addressing reality is that there is not enough separation between Christians and sin or Christians and the world.  They believe that is the missing reality.  Second, others believe that what is missing is moral wholeness as opposed to moral reductionism.  They believe that what would change reality is to recognize the importance of seeing the whole of God's character rather tthan reducing it to one trait like for the example of reducing God's character to just love.  Third and finally, some believe that the reality that is missing is that Christians are not pure like they need to be.  They are too intermixed with the sins of the world.  They believe that the introduction of a new level of purity would change the church. 

My loose ends -

exploring the territory with wholeness
knower learner

exploring the map with wholeness
tearher studier

tremendously effective in territory
through streets versus dead ends


tremendously effective in map
through streets versus dead ends
remaining issues only with the map


exploring the territory with set apart (separate)
exploring the map with set apart (separate)

somewhat effective in territory (plausible)
somewhat effective in territory (plausible)

exploring the territory with purity
exploring the map with purity
dead ends versus through streets

somewhat less effective in territory
somewhat less effective in map


Closing illustration since paper maps are becoming more and more obsolete though mapping itself (someone has explored this area before) has not. 

Global positioning devices (mapping)
Tom Tom (territory match due to sufficient updates) vs. Dumb Dumb (not a territory match due to lack of updates)

{This will be completed fairly quickly with some time available hopefully next week - but you can already see some of my direction in these loose pieces}.

Sincerely,

Jon