Holy: Understanding it Better through Awarness

For anyone coming to this blog, I am sure the #1 question is: "What is the meaning of holy?".  But I think there is also a second question behind the first question: "Why are there different definitions for this central word of the Bible?"  For example, this evening I heard a member of the Christian band, Petra, define holy as "totally unique" on YouTube.  It is maybe a more contemporary version of Rudolph Otto's definition of "wholly other" from early in the 20th century.  So, do I think these definitions are correct?  The simple answer is that I think they fall wide of the mark despite their agreement.  The lack that I see is a lack of awareness.  The more and more I research the topic of the meaning of qadosh (translated into English as holy), the more aware I have become of things that I was not aware of previously.  So let me tell you about some of these new discoveries. 

The first is that the quality of a Hebrew-English, Aramaic-English, or Greek-English lexicon is not improved by the number of them that agree with each other.  Rather this may rather indicate that one source is behind the many lexicons.  While the many agreeing is a positive quantity, the many does not change the quality of the first that is copied by all the others.  John A. L. Lee (A History of New Testament Lexicology) has probably argued this the best.  So Petra's agreement with Rudolph Otto does not mean that the quality of Otto's argument for his meaning of holy is improved. 

The second is that the etymology of qadosh in Hebrew is both over-rated and under-rated as a tool to learn the meaning of holy.   James Barr, as a scholar, really helped biblical scholarship by making a great argument for the need for the insights of linguistics and semantics.  In the case of what is called etymology (the true history of a word), though, he throws the baby out with the bathwater.  On the other hand, many scholarly articles begin with etymology and then after downplaying its value don't really downplay it in fact.  They do not test its meaning beyond that point, but rather use a plausible meaning from the etymology that is uncertain.  The best example of this is in Jo Bailey-Wells' argument that the etymology of qadosh as being "set apart" is no longer supported by recent scholarship and yet she uses that definition in the following discussion without a different kind of test to determine holy's meaning. 

The third is that the method needed for determining the meaning of holy goes beyond a lexicon.  A lexicon is an enormous project and falls under what is called lexicology.  The problem is that when a lexicon is constructed, it cannot look into every word entry with great depth.  What is needed for that is what is called a "word study".   Here though there is another distinction that must be made.  There are small-scale word studies and then there are in-depth word studies.  If you look on-line you will find numerous shorter word studies on qadosh (the Hebrew behind the English word holy) like that of the scholar, Dr. Allen P. Ross.  I studied under Dr. Ross and he is a top-notch biblical scholar, but the study he offers on-line is not on the depth of word studies like those offered by TDOT (The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament) and NIDOTT (New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology (William A. VanGemeren, General Editor).   What is needed is a focused study on the set of words that are translated into English as "holy".  These books mentioned have studies that have the right depth and length, but also need a solid method added to them.  What I now realize is that I need to use the method of doing a word study to really contribute something on the meaning of holy.  It will likely be in the 80-100 page category and so be enough in-depth to really contribute something to the discussion.  Unfortunately, most lexicons with the exception of Klein's do not mention the quality of the definition that is offered.  It would be nice to someday have a letter system like that associated with textual variants that makes explicit a quality rating. 

The fourth is that awareness is itself a very important value.  Lack of awareness is the primary reason for the need for education.  Yet with all the education that is offered, there can still be large gaps in awareness or the need to slow down and really consider what is taught.  Many of the things that I was taught at the university level, I did not realize until later what was meant.  In other words, I finally became aware of something that I was not aware of previously, though I was already taught the topic.  The need to really observe and keep observing as part of inductively studying the Bible was taught to me at the university level and then in Seminary by three great teachers: Tom Stellar, Dr. John S. Piper, and Dr. Daniel P. Fuller.  The latter is the one who most applied this principle of observation.  I was fortunate to have hung on to old notebooks from my college years, so I could re-read what I read before and have continued observation pay off.  I then got the pay off of greater awareness!

Finally, it takes awareness of all four of these to really have a great opportunity to understand the meaning of holy in our English translations.   They again are: 1) quantity though it comes before quality, does not replace it when it comes to lexicons, 2) that etymology has value though it must not be allowed to have undue influence on how holy is defined, 3) a word study of some length is what is needed at present to resolve the problem of differing definitions for qadosh, and 4) awareness is itself the value behind each of these things I have learned through "getting an education". 

I like to put awareness on the level of the traits of being "ready, willing, and able".  I say a person needs to be "ready, willing, able, and aware".    If any of these is missing, then a decision is likely to falter in the future.  If they are all present, then the future is likely to match with the present.  I hope what I have written today has at least raised your awareness about the meaning of holy.  I am presently working on sorting out which of three English words best defines holy: 1) pure, 2) set apart, or 3) moral wholeness.  Please check back to see my further work on my word study for this incredibly important word. I would also appreciate your prayers that I have ample time and that I use my time well to finish a large word study on qadosh and its translations down to the English language and beyond. 

Thank you.

In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Two Recent Books

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Linguistic Analysis

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

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

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

The Linguistic Analysis method consists of the following parts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Christ,

Jon

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

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

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



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

They can be pictured as follows:

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




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

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

Stephen R. Covey is rather famous for saying: "The main thing is to keep the main thing, the main thing."  In the process of studying the meaning of a passage through language tools (linguistics as the study of language) and through exegetical tools (biblical hermeneutics or exegesis), it is the main thing to be reminded from the beginning to the end of the total process and again in the middle to use all the major tools for grasping the meaning of a passage and not just one or two of them.  I call this the total process.  The total process is the main thing. 

In one distinct way this blog entry on Genesis 2:1-3, is not like the others.  It is a reminder of the main importance of seeing the other 4 entries (out of 5) as equal parts of the whole and that keeping them together as a total is of main importance through the entire process and not just at the beginning or the end.  That is why I place this entry about the total process in the middle. 

I can't tell you how many times I have read writings on the meaning or definition of holy and they rely almost exclusively on just one of a total of 4 separate methods to be used to understand the meaning of word in the text.  The one that gets the most use is the method of etymology (tracing a word's history or it's similar roots with other words with similar letters or graphemes).  I'm not against this method as some appear to be (James Barr), but I want us to see its limitations.  So let's begin by looking at a diagram of the total process.

My diagram of the total process is as follows:

Even though I have increased the image's size, I don't want to assume yet that it is all of the print is readable, so let me at least list off the main names for each stage from the arrows on your left hand side.  They are: 1)Translate, 2) Transfer, 3) Total, 4) Train, and 5) Teach.  You can also righ click on the image and choose "open this link" and it will appear in slightly larger print. 


I've begun all of their names with "T" just to make things more memorable.  It also happens to be the case that in English these 5 names work well together as a description for each stage. 

There is also a biblical precedant for this process as well.  It is found in Nehemiah 8 and especially in verses 1- 12.  The situation is one in which the audience cannot understand Hebrew as well as Aramaic, so they require some assistance.  This sets then a precedent for our own time in which Hebrew from that time is not our first language.  So let's flesh this out a bit. 


[This entry is in process.]

Sincerely,

Jon

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

“Words are like eggs dropped from great heights. You could no more call them back than ignore the mess they left when they fell" says Stephen R. Covey.  The same applies to "holy" as it is used in a Bible translation.  It is a bit messy historically as it has fallen to our own day.  There are many ways that people in the English speaking world define this one word as it is used to translate qadosh or hagios in our Bibles.  Some define it as "whole", some as "set apart", some as "pure", and some many other sometimes ridiculous ways.  So I want to look more deeply into the topic of translation and use it to enlighten people so that there is both more clarity and more meaning in this word. 

I'm sure translators have sometimes regretted their choices in their translations, but it is hard to pull back from those words once they are published, even if they created a mess.  To expand Coveys' analogy, they are as hard to call back as the shell of Humpty Dumpty after his great fall.  This blog entry will deal primarily with the text containing the Hebrew word for "made holy" from the standpoint of word choices used to translate the ancient Hebrew words of Moses' day.  I will also dive a little bit too into meaning categories (semantic classes that are boader or semantic domains that are narrower).  

I will discuss what makes a good translation and then I will present a translation of Genesis 1:1-2:3 that I think best fits those principles.  This is a very important first step in interpreting a text correctly.  The latter part of this same step will be to dive into what words in that context might fall into the same meaning categories as the word translated "holy". 
An important part of the entire process of understanding "made holy" is choosing a cohesive section of text and not breaking apart that unit on the level that we are examining.  I am not examining the very large entire book of Genesisor all the Law of Moses, but I am looking mainly at 2:1-3.  That by itself though is not a cohesive unit, so I had to expand my examination a little further.  As a result we will be looking at the translation of Genesis 1:1-2:3. 

Scholars sometimes use a technical term for a section like this, called "pericope".  It is simply a technical word for cohesive unit relationally within a text.  There are clues that indicate either continuity and change so that a single unit can be determined. 

The reason again that I am examing these verses together is that I and others consider these verses to be part of a cohesive unit of text including Genesis 2:1-3.  This is significant, so that the context can be considered complete enough in order to be able draw conclusions for Genesis 2:1-3.  In other words, Genesis 2:1-3 belongs to the unit of Genesis 1:1-2:3 and should not be cut off from it on that level of textual units. 

The primary issue is this: "How do I know I am reading the right translation?"  As a person, who has formally studied both exegetical methods in Bible classes and linguistic methods in the general study of language, I have heard a lot of theories about what criteria measures a good translation.  A popular discussion of the possible criteria is found in So Many Versions by Sakae Kubo and Walter F. Specht.  There is also a more recent title that I have not read as a whole, but that sounds promising, if you are curious to learn a lot more than I will cover here. 

I will limit my discussion to my views on what is called "dynamic equivalence" translation.  I'll limit my discussion to this theory as my starting point, because it is discussed by both sides of the pond - both biblical scholars and linguists.  But also I want to discuss it because my teachers have been both biblical exegetes and linguistic scholars. 

The main proponent of this view was Eugene Nida, a brilliant linguist and language scholar.  For this view, he has both great fans and equally strong opponents.  (Unfortunately, he died just last year).  I will simply say to begin that I find the "dynamic equivalence" approach to be incomplete.  It lacks another dynamic that is equally important, even while it does a very excellent job of performing the task of dealing with meaning.  Please here me out on this. 

I am persuaded that the very best translation tries to accomplish two things: (1) clarity and (2) meaning.  The second is where I believe Nida's method shines.  Dynamic equivalence is excellent in method for finding meaningfulness.  But let's look at both principles. 

I base my two principles on Nehemiah 8:8 (as my mom taught me, "chapter and verse"), where we read in the NIV:

They read from the Book of the Law of God,
making it clear
and giving the meaning
so that the people could understand
what was being read.

You will notice here two things are actively happening: (1) making it clear and (2) giving the meaning.  You will notice also one purpose: (1) so that the people could understand what was being read.  In other words, if either of these principles falls down, then the people will not be able to understand.. 

For the sake of clarity and meaning, let me diagram this for you.  It appears as:

In contract to this happening in step one, there is the opposite.  It appears as:

Now some will argue with the use of the NIV (1984) at this point.  You will say this is a circular argument, because I am using a translation to argue for the principles of translation .  First, let's be clear on one thing.  All translations that I have read so far have two actions and one purpose.  So clarity is not the issue on that point.  So where they differ seems to be in meaning.  They do vary in what they think is most meaningful.  I hear you.  Yet I think this issue belongs in a footnote (your comments and my responses) rather than in this part of my writing, because my main concern is to deal with Genesis 1:1-2:3, not Nehemiah 8:8 (not that it is unimportant!).  But I do have to deal with space limits and my main point must remain my main point.  Comment on this piece if you would like to and there we can debate the merits of the NIV (1984)!

I also think that an easy way to think of the difference between clarity ("making it clear") and meaning ("giving the meaning") is to ask two different questions.  For the sake of clarity, it is important to aks the question: "How many?" (Quantity).  For the sake of meaning, it is important to ask the question: "How much?" (Quality).  Let me illustrate.

If I speak from a podium and instruct the crowd as I randomly split them up into three parts to say three different things like "yes," or "no" or "maybe" simulaneously, then what is heard is quite unclear.  I only have a clue from my podium because I gave the instructions.  But if I asked a person who just came out of a sound proof room to tell me what they said, she would somewhat puzzled.  It sounds like gibberish.  It lacks clarity.  One is clearer than three, so the quantity of one produces the most clarity. 

Likewise, if I were to choose a newer English word like "health" and ask an adult to give me its meaning, chances are they would reasonably succeed at that task.  On the other hand, if I chose an older English word like "hale" and ask an adult to define it, they would likely fail.  It has less meaning that healthy even if there two meanings overlap in history.  One is newer than the other, so the quality of one produces more meaning. 

The problem with most translating theories is that they answer only one of the two questions really well, while answering the other a little more weakly or in some cases a lot more weakly.  That is why I prescribe the NIV (1984) or the NKJV to most of the people who ask me the question, because they do one of the tasks better than the other, but the other task they only do a little more weakly.  What the NIV has over the NKJV in meaning, the NKJV has over the NIV in clarity.   Maybe that explains the success of both as the most popular contemporary translations in sales (I believe this still holds).

So now let's move to Genesis 1:1-2:3 and look at it from a translation standpoint. 

spare entry: one of many as related to "How many" and how clear. 
spare entry: equal or equivalent to the original as related to "How much?" and how meaningful. 

 [This entry is in development.  You need to understand these are the hard ones to develop and yet also the most important!]

Sincerely,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Emotional Intelligence

The odds today (3/30/12) of someone winning the current lottery jackpot is incredibly small and yet many people are willing to gamble their hard-earned money for its potential payoff (around a half-billion).  I will not state my personal views on gambling, because then people "will not see the forest for the trees" and they will get caught up in the issue of whether this form of gambling is morally corrupt or not.  Setting that tree in the forest aside for now, there are two important people who have influenced people's view of what to do in the face of uncertainty like that found in gambling.  One of them suggests that the wise wager for the person with uncertainty is to consider the possiblitity that the claims of the Bible and God are in fact true, since the implications at the end of life can be catastrophic, if in fact they end up true.  This is the argument of Blaise Pascal, who is known for "Pascal's Wager".   The other of the two suggests boldness in the face of uncertainty, so a person must take a leap into the face of uncertainty.  This is the  argument of Soren Kierkegaard, who is known for his "leap of faith".   I think the current state of biblical scholarship on the definition of holy is more like a "leap of faith" than a "Pascal's Wager". 

This is important, because this general outlook toward risk and uncertainty is very important in many areas of life including scholarship.  It is likely behind the sticker on some pickup trucks that reads: "No Fear".   The current "No Fear" attitude among some scholars to the possibililty that the original Hebrew and Greek words for holy may not mean "set apart" is somewhat telling.  It is important do as Edwin H. Friedman, author of A Failure of Nerve, suggests.  He recommends that we do not look at just the intellectual aspect of an issue, but also the emotional processing connected with it.  Uncertainty and its emotional component of fear or no fear is therefore extremely important. 

People and some scholars today seem to have "No Fear" even when probability and statistics suggest that they ought to fear.  For Pascal, it was not viable to take a "leap of faith", but rather he suggested that a person hedge their bet toward God because of the relative possible outcomes.  This is not a radical leap of faith. It is not a person "with both feet firmly planted in the air."   It was a moderate option to protect a person against the worst possible outcome.  This is an important shift in emotional processing that works alongside the mind's intellectual aspect.  It is part of the combination that makes up emotional intelligence of one kind.  The leap of faith is a different kind of emotional intelligence.  It dares against even against fear.  That is a different kind of emotional intelligence.  They both are combating "a failure of nerve", but in different ways.  They view probability differently and handle it differently. 

At one time (not necessarily a better time) biblical scholarship favored the approach of Pascal as it handled uncertainty in manuscipts or in interpretation by preserving both options in the face of uncertainty.  In this way, a person made sure that at least one of the two choices they preserved was in all probability the right one.  They thought it was dangerous to eliminate the less probable or minority position as long as uncertainty remained.  This also follows the ancient practice of preserving marginal readings in manuscripts, even if in greater probability the one preserved in the main text was correct. 

At a later time (not necessarily a better time) biblical scholarship moved more (yet not entirely) toward the approach of Kiekegaard and challenged uncertainty with greater boldness.  The most extreme form is not seen in bilical scholarship so much as in the existential call to "be bold" in the face of uncertainty about one's own identity.  What you see in biblical scholarship is that you can still find the marginal readings in a Greek text of the New Testament.  Some readings may be ranked on their probability as very low and yet they are still preserved.   Still at another level the argument as to which manuscript tradition is more reliable is more like the idea of setting one option aside and going with just one option.  Having brought up this as only as example to illustrate my point, don't get caught in this tree and miss the forest.  My point is to simply say that part of and not the whole of what has been done in action with regard to ancient Greek manuscrips is more like the emotional processing of the "leap of faith".  If an emotional wager approach like that of Pascal is used, I think biblical scholarship on the texts would shift or change. 

The key is to realize is that with the wager approach versus a leap approach, emotional uncertainty is dealt with differently.  Peace is preserved not by eliminating an option or setting it aside dramatically in proof of a person's nerve and boldness, but rather by keeping both options on the table until further evidence gives proof that one option is no longer possible.  It is somewhat like the statement that when all other options are made impossible, the the one that remains (however improble it may have once looked) is the right one.  In other words, ambiguity is sometimes acceptable and only eliminated when another option becomes impossible. 

I consider most of the possible meanings for the biblical word we translate as holy as now impossible.  They are rightly eliminated.  But also I believe we are still left with two possibilities.  This ambiguity is not as threatening as some scholars may think as long as we wager correctly and keep both options on the table and especially are careful that the one with greatest implications is not eliminated.  I think holy means whole has the greater potential implications for our understanding of God and our living of life.  That is the one that most scholars have gambled on eliminating, because as the most renowned in the twentieth century (Rudolph Otto and Norman Snaith) of their company have said in the past they realized that "wholly other" and "set apart" are based on a probability, not on certainty.

It is only later that the issue of probability is set aside as seen the Evangelical Quarterly in 1979 when Brian Daines supposedly warns against playing games with biblical words and his example is that of the interrelation of the Engish terms holiness, wholeness and health.  This leads to the full elimination of the option that holy means whole that just a generation before was still an option, even if then only a secondary option.  But it is only in the abstract for his writing that this position is suggested.  It is not in the heart of his own article.  The abstract for his article boils it down to the fact that "the implications of semantics for biblical study have been set forth at a high academic level by such writers as Professor [James] Barr and Dr. [Anthony] Thiselton, ...."   It seems that the writer of the abstact took two scholars refered to in Daines' footnotes and placed one of the postions of these scholars, Barr's position, in the place of Daines' postion.  Daines says:

... some of the mistakes made by expositors....

a) That we can get the meaning of a word by examining its Hebrew or Greek root or even the root of the English translation.

It is a popular view that the 'true' or 'correct' meaning of a word is in some sense the original one, the oldest that can be traced. In fact the present uses of words often bears little relation to older ones. The original meaning of "history" was "investigation" and the English word "nice" originates from a Latin word meaning "ignorant". The same applies to the biblical languages. Even if the Hebrew word for "holy" came from a Semitic root meaning "to be separated" (which in itself is open to dispute) this does not imply that the Hebrew word as used in the Old Testament means this any more than if I say you are nice I mean that you are ignorant.

The meaning of a word can only be found by studying its contemporary use. Looking at an older state of the language simply sets up ideas that have to be modified or disregarded. An even worse error is to try to understand the meaning of Greek or Hebrew words by referring to the root meaning of words in the English translation. Therefore "holy" is claimed to mean "clean" in the Bible because
that was an early meaning of the English word. Such turns of argument fall into double error. The older meaning has nothing necessarily to do with present usage of "holy" in English let alone
the way words were used in another language thousands of years ago.   (p. 210 The Evangelical Quarterly)

I have two comments I want to make.  First, as a student of semantics (the study of meaning within the broader study of language [linguistics]), I disagree with the abstract's assessment, but I agree far more with Daines' balanced assessment on the meaning of holy.  I also agree with the general principle that he and James Barr promote with regard to contemporary use.  We have to be cautious with the use of root meanings and with etymological arguments.  It can only be a part of our process in trying to learn the meaning of a word.  Daines' example from Latin meaning of nice is valid.  I have never heard anyone ever argue that holy at its root means clean.  He does overstate, however, the idea of a "double error".  Some though not all, who clarify the meaning of a word in English translation, are not making the argument for what the original means from a translation, but rather clariying what the translation was meant to communicate when the word was chosen by its contemporary translators.  Charles Spurgeon I would place in this group and likely Ray Stedman years later.  They are only clarifying an earlier contemporary meaning for earlier translators, not proving that the Hebrew means what they thought it meant.  That is a separate issue.  Their argument is an argument against those who later want to re-assign a meaning to an earlier use of the word holy.  This does not exclude the separate issue of what the word means in the original Hebrew or Greek.  For example holy, in English, did not mean "set apart" exclusively, unless we want to now assign it that meaning.  It does not have that central meaning in its early use in English translations.  That is a valid use of a root meaning and it does not lead to a double error as long as a scholar understands that this does not prove what is right, but what earlier translators thought was right.  Daines seems to miss that point.   Or maybe he applies his statement to broadly to include "all" as making this mistake when they refer to the earlier meaning of "holy" in English translation.    

Second, Barr is fairly well-known to be given to exaggeration and is guilty of sometimes being hypercritical in making his points.  I wish he were still living, so I could address him directly by email or phone.  He certainly brought forward some great points from semantics and linguistics to biblical scholarship, but that does not make all that he says equally valid.  With him you sometimes have to throw the bathwater out to find the baby.  Thistelton is another admirable scholar, but I still have some reservations where I find he is not solid either.  I have not run across his comments directly on the topic of holy, while I have those of Barr.  Barr refers to this issue in his 1961 book on Semantics.  Barr's argument is an overstatement of what he actually proves, because he is missing the point that is being made in many cases and so accuses some people of a double error that they are not making.  I think he is accusing some people of ignorance in cases where they are not ignorant.   For a play on words from Daines' example: He should be nicer than that. 

So I suggest that in terms of wagering or emotional intelligence and processing that we keep both on the table till one of the two can be eliminated by its sheer impossibility.  This is not easy, because both have some plausibility.  My firm task is the eliminate one of the two by using the tools that Barr suggests and even a few more.  I think the emotional processing of Blaise Pascal is more healthy than that of Soren Kierkegaard.  I  consider it more emotionally intelligent.  Please pray for my emotional processing and intellectual processing to come together and to make greater sense of biblical words we translate as holy. 

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy: Understanding It Better Through the Classic Argument

I think I finally understand one of the classic biblical arguments for holy meaning whole.  By biblical, I mean that it tries to argue from the context of Scripture rather than from an extra-biblical source or from some form of derived etymology.  The argument may even be central for earlier scholars, who believed that holy in the original languages meant whole.  It primarily is a grammatical argument and also seems to follow a simple logical form.  It moves from the nature of personal names to the nature of the word holy as a character trait or quality.  That is its primary logic or argument. 

The argument is that a name is a comprehensive word for a person.  That is the nature of a name.  From this nature of a name, it is argued that its substitute also has that same nature.  That becomes the point of comparison in the metaphor of "holy is his name" in comparison to "Yahweh is his name". 

The key here is how "holy" can replace the name "Yahweh".  How can it be put in a parallel location to Yahweh?  With a parallel location as a substitute, what is the meaning that God's name and God's character have in common?

No other word that functions as a ethical or moral quality is substitued for the personal name like holy.  In grammar, many learned that a noun replaces a noun.  That is one reason why the parts of speech are taught.  It is because what is learned is what can substitute for another and what cannot.   So it is a kind of figure of speech to substitute an adjective or quality for a noun or name.  The question that then follows is what is the point of comparison between these two that they share in common that makes the comparison possible? 

A name like Yahweh is generally placed by grammar in the category of nouns.  The particular characteristic that is assigned to a name is that it is considered a way of expressing some quality or characteristic or descriptive in this case of a person.  To put a quality like holy in the place where we would normally would expect to find a name would highlight the comparison of quality or character. 

One of the character traits of a name is that it is a way to speak comprehensively about a person.  If someone calls me by the name "Jon", they are usually referring to all or everything about me.  They would not refer to my my leg amputated from my body as "Jon".  They would instead call it "Jon's leg" or a part of who I once was.  My name speaks to my whole person. 

This comprehensiveness appears to be the quality that the classical argument sees as the primary point of comparison between a name and the quality of holy.   In other contexts, the point of comparison may be different.  This is not the only kind of comparison that is possible, but rather what past writers have considered made the most sense based on the context. 

I am not making here an evaluative judgment on the effectiveness of this argument, but only a statement that I think this is how they arrive at holy being compared to a name at the point of wholeness or comprehensiveness.  I do, however, think that the argument has merit and deserves to be tested as one possible biblical argument for the meaning of holy.  Combined with other arguments it may be helpful in confirming the meaning of holy, provided we truly understand the nature of names. 

From everyday speech, we might say:

Kermit (the frog) is his name.
______ is his name. (points out a placement for a possible substitute)
Green is his name. (could be a point of comparison for trying to make a point of a character trait of Kermit)

The statments in Scripture that make the point of comparsion both consist of those where God's name is explicitlyYahweh and where we find a substitute where we would expect to see the name Yahweh.  So in Scriptue we read:

His name is Yahweh.
His name is _______.  (points our where the substitution happens)
His name is holy.
Holy (hallowed) be his name. (another similar statement where a quality replaces a name)

Interestingly in contrast we do not read:

His name is righteous (and just).
His name is true.
His name is loving.
His name is good.

These qualities are not put in the place where we would expect to find his name.  The point of comparison cannot be made to work with them.  Certainly God is righteous (and just), true, loving and good according to the Scriptures, so they must lack the point of comparison where holy succeeds.  Since each of these character traits are distinct from each other, the reason they may not work is that they are not comprehensive like God's name of Yahweh or like the character trait of holy which might include them all under its single heading.  Here I am evaluating the possible merit of the argument. 

So finally the point in the classical argument for the meaning of holy is that holy and God's name must share some common characteristic.  What earlier biblical scholars (like Johann/John Bengel) determined was that the common point of comparison was that of being comprehensive.  I think this argument was one of the classic supports for the idea that holy means whole.  This is pershaps why you see John Howe or Jonathan Edwards later calling holy "an attribute of attributes".  We might call it the "quality of qualities".   I leave it up to you to decide or comment on the merits of their argument and I hope you understand that the type of argument that they made has determined the way I have written this entry.  I could not use a lot of stories or narrative in the case of an argument that depends a lot on grammar and simple logic.  That is why I remained quite logical in trying to make their case:

His name (for the whole person) is Yahweh. 
His name (for the whole person) is ______.  (a substitute or parallel to fill the blank)
His name (for the whole person) is holy. 

That is how I think they saw it.  A name was the way to speak of the entire or whole person.  It was once said about a person: "The criteria for being a person ... are designed to capture those attributes which are the subject of our most humane concern with ourselves and the source of what we regard as most important and most problematical in our lives".   Notice the concern that the criteria of a person be made up of attributes or qualities.  Certainly being holy as an attribute of a pesron ranks as one of the most important concerns. 

The chief merit in the classic argument is that it is an attempt to use the context of Scripture to determine the meaning of a word from an exact parallel.  This is one basic argument in its starkest or simplest form.  Now the big question is, how do you see it?  Do you agree with their argument? 


In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Expertise

It is very important to understand my expertise in writing on the definition or meaning of holy, because it helps you to know whether you can trust what I say is true or not.  It is also important to understand both what I can contribute to the discussion, and also what I cannot contribute. 

I have to remain humble.  There are many experts in the scholarly world that I cannot compete with on their terms, because their type of expertise is better than mine in their specialty area.  Yet, I think, I still have something to contribute that is significant to the discussion. 

The way to visualize what I contribute is to imagine that most scholars on the meaning of holy contribute along a vertical axis of depth at the same time I contribute along a horizontal axis of breadth.  Our strengths can be complementary in that I can rely upon them for depth, while I am more of a generalist, who can spot parallels between the different specialists.  These parallels are where I get most of my insights on the topic of holy. 

Let me explain all of this further.  In Matthew 7:15-20 in the NIV, we read: 15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Here the non-prophet can recognize or know a "false prophet" from a true one through "bad fruit."  These instructions are not just for specialists in the field of prophesy during Jesus' day.  Everyone in his day needed to know how to recognize the true from the false.  Likewise I think the analogy of the tree can be used by everyone to discern false experts from true ones.

Let's look at ourselves through Jesus' analogy.  We are not all tree experts or good tree growers, yet we can know a good tree from a bad one by the fruit we eat from the tree.  So we are not all technical experts, but we are all friendly users of apples for food.  We all can recognize user-friendly "APPLE" technology, even if we cannot create a high tech "APPLE" gadget to speak of computer technology in the same way. 

My educational experience allows me to be somewhat of a technical expert, but I do not claim to be a technical expert on the level of some of the experts that I rely upon for their expertise in Hebrew, as one example.  I have abilities in the area of preaching, translating, teaching and transferring; but I do not have the depth that those who only preach or only teach, etc. have.  What I am able to do is to discern across these specialities certain parallels that help me discern what translators or teachers, etc. I can trust.  One of the primary areas to rely upon is that of preaching, because the primary measure here is its effect or fruit. 

I am a preacher (though not on the level of Warren, Keller and Swindoll, etc.) and so from the beginning of my work on the meaning of holy, I have been concerned about the fruit in ministry from the popular meaning of holy in the last 100 years versus the fruit from the popular meaning of holy in the prior 600 years (and the combined prior 1900 years that I am more recently investigating more thoroughly).  From the prior 600 years up to about 1900, the massive effect of the preaching of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley and Spurgeon is something to weigh against the effect or preaching by Warren, Keller, Swindoll, etc.  I first became aware of this as a young child under the preaching of Lowell Anderson.  I witnessed the fruit of his preaching as compared to other pastors.  As a college student, I was introduced to the major Protestant reformers by John S. Piper (now a preacher himself) and James E. Johnson, who helped me broaden Piper's perspective.  Warren W. Wiersbe's book Walking with the Giants took me a step further.  It was primarily through them that I was introduced to the fruit of preaching in the past.  The fruit, or what we now call effect, matters.  The effect can be something as simple as being friendly in the case of user-friendly technology.  I take exception to those who make the exception the rule in biblical history, when people do not respond to a preacher (like in the case of Jeremiah).   I am well aware of the danger of not seeing the exception, like some ear tickling preachers do not.  Luther's broad definition of holy as tied to whole or Spurgeon's were not from ear tickling types of preachers.  Nor is the prior 1300 years before the reformers from preachers of that kind.  (I will be developing this material more in the future after the enlightening teaching of Steven A. Peay).  So some of my blog entries do raise the question of whether less effective results from the now popular understanding of holy should not be part of the test for whether we have the meaning of holy correct.  These entries usually pull in the views of people like Luther, Calvin, etc. in their headings, because of the effect of their preaching with a different understanding of holy.   The effect or fruit is after all, how you tell a good tree from a bad tree. 

I am a translator in a limited sense, and by no means to be compared to the great translators or translation team members on earth.  I have not published a translation like J.B Phillips nor am I associated with a team of translators like those that worked on the NIV.  Instead, I value their expertise.  Most of my acquaintance with translation is through the materials of Wycliffe Bible Translators, but I have not served overseas on a translation team.  In the English tradition of translation, I value the views of John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, James Strong and many translation experts including those who worked on the King James Version as well as those who come much later right up to the present.  What distinguishes my views on translation comes from Nehemiah 8:8, where there are the twin qualities of clarity and meaning.  From these twin quality principles, I discern my choice of translation.  That means I am not only a meaning for meaning or a dynamic equivalence translator, because I place clarity as a principle that is equal to meaning.  That means I balance these two qualities in discerning what is a good translation.  I also think that the quality of clarity is being compromised by the multiplicity of translations as opposed to one translation.  In addition, I think the use of the word "holy" in its day was a wise choice by the older translators for its clarity and meaning.  Yet from the beginning of its use in English, if there was a problem with this choice, it was a problem of clarity.  In the English language, the one word in Hebrew and its one word Greek replacement was replaced by multiple words in English translation like holy, sanctify, hallow, consecrate and saints, etc.   This copiousness ("many ways to say the same thing"), pushed perhaps by the influence of Erasmus or maybe still later Shakespeare, made things complex rather than simple.  The word also was understood to have a dual meaning that was broadly defined as whole and narrowly defined as set apart.  Clarity is best achieved through one word as was done by the Greek for the Hebrew, when the sense of the original word is not changed.  The more options that are available, then the less is the clarity.  To illustrate, if everyone in a room of 99 people shouts yes together, then you can hear clearly what they say, if equally among them some also say no and others say maybe, then the message is less clear.  So you will see that some of my entries deal with translation principles, as they relate to holy.   I try mainly to clarify things from the complex of confusion that has developed due to differing translation conclusions.  I didn't create the lack of clarity, I only try to point it out, and I try to argue that we need to replace it with the clarity of one central meaning.  Clarity and meaning are the qualities of a good translation like an expert on trees can assign the primary qualities of a good tree. 

I am a teacher in some measure.  Usually people say I have this gift along with others.  Yet I am not a teacher, like some of those who I have had as teachers in seminary or who I had in my undergraduate years.  They are true specialists in teaching.  I think of Walter C. Kaiser, Allen P. Ross, Gary V. Smith, Daniel P. Fuller, etc. here.  They are expert teachers, who know what things are being referred to by a word in a foreign language or know how to precisely pronounce it.  They know their original languages on a higher level than I do.  Yet I do not stop with their insights, as valuable as they are and as much as I value their direct teaching of me in the classroom.  I also have sought out other experts like them, who are members of top ten research universities.  I am thinking here of Ronald S. Hendel, University of California, Berkeley; (Margaret) Mary (Tew) Douglas [now deceased], Oxford University; Saul M. Olyan, Brown University; Ralph W. Klein, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago [that I think is connected with the University of Chicago]; and Gordon J. Wenham, Trinity College, Bristol [formerly a student at Cambridge] and others.  All of these people mentioned in this list have either past or current associations with a top ten research school  I think research is very important and the very best of research is important.   So that is why in some of my entries, I bring up the expert teachers out there, who work at some of the best research facilities.  I am considering the possibility of finishing up my post-graduate studies at one of the top ten schools myself, if necessary and helpful.  If I avoid their work, then I think I am shrinking from the challenges of the best teachers.  Likewise I would never ask a fruit taster for their mastery of tree science or tree farming. I remember my dad going to the eperimental [research] farms to get his soil tested. He knew that a tree or a garden plant needed their special nutrients in the soil depending on the type of plant.

I am a missonary of sorts, but certainly not on the level of a foreign missionary with overseas experience.  Some might say I am a home missionary.  I am able to transfer things from one place and time to another.  My directional orientation is going out and is not coming in.  I enjoy moving from one culture to another.  Yet what I am doing is examining the move from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek culture into English culture.  In many ways, my steps on the meaning of holy are re-tracing the work of the earliest missionaries to the English-speaking world and asking questions about how the transfer from one culture to the next went.  Has it gone well or has it gone not so well in connecting Hebrew culture to the nations that speak English?  I was deeply influenced in this specialty by specialists like William A. Smalley, R. Daniel Shaw, Paul G. Hiebert, Tom Correll, James Hurd, Donald N. Larson, Betty Sue Brewster, Kenneth L. Pike, etc.  Through their direct influence, I read also in the areas of anthropology and worldview study.  This includes again Mary Douglas among others.  I also studied under David A. Rausch, E.William Bean, Larry R. Brandt, Avi Snyder (occasionally) and Daniel Lancaster (D. Thomas Lancaster) to better understand Jewish roots.  This latter list drew from rabbinical literature.  All of the people in my earlier list have direct experience as missionaries in foreign contexts.   They all taught me about the relationship of transferring from one place and time to another place and time.  How does one connect in a new place and time?   That was their pursuit and they taught it to others like me as they moved from practitioners to mentors.  In Nehemiah 8, this transfer referred to the transfer of regulations or culture from one place and time to another.  This is the ability to connect with others across the cultural barriers of place and time.   When it comes to Hebrew, are we allowing that place and time to speak for itself or are we bringing in outside influence, when it is the root and we are the branches grafted into the tree?  Sometimes supposed Hebrew scholarship lets a later time speak for an earlier time as in the case of some later Hebrew rabbinical writings.  Sometimes supposed scholarship also allows another culture like Arabic culture to speak for it.  I am more concerned to let Hebrew culture from the most ancient time of then and there, when it was penned, to speak for itself and then let it speak to us in the here and now.  Then it is going from then and there to all the nations including those speaking English.  So that is why some of my entries deal with cultural connections, as I am concerned that the going is coming from the that place and time to our place and time.  That is why the etmology arguments also get my attention, since some of these arguments that are only probable are treated as definite and sometimes the significance of the letters in the original word for holy are undervalued.  We have to know the truth of whether our understanding of holy is connected to the past and place assigned found in Scipture, not elsewhere.  The test here, as it is for trees, is to know the truth or falseness of claims.  Is there a connection or not between the fruit and the tree or between the text and the claims? 

So now you know more about my general expertise as compared to the special deeper expertise of others that I rely upon.  Somehow through the course that God has set for my life and sometimes despite me, I have become the kind of broad expert that I am.  The deeper experts above are not responsible for all my views, since sometimes I use one speciality to correct another through a parallel point of view whether it be from preachers, translators, teachers or missionaries.  Those parallel insights I have to take responsibility for, but the experts I learned from do get a major portion of credit that I can never take.  You cannot trust me, if I am not humble in this way.  You also can only trust my insights on holy as far as it fits with the idea that "a good tree is known by its fruit".  A good tree can be known by a fruit eater. 

What I am eventually hoping for from this blog or maybe from an eventual book, Lord willing, is an impact from the definition or meaning of holy that makes a real difference.  The impact word for Luther was righteousness and likewise holy is another quality word that may be the word that is needed to really turn things around for the church.  The same was true in the case of Calvin where his measure was that of humility as a sub-set of the quality of being true.  He focused like Luther on another quality term.  That is one of the reasons for why I think "holy" is so important.   The same goes for the other major Reformers in the last 600 years all the way to Spurgeon.  We need a new announcement like was made in their respective times.  Could the meaning of holy be that quality that makes the difference the church needs?

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy: Understanding its Definition better Through Using a Process

This entry in my blog steps back from directly defining holy to talk more broadly about my views on methods to define holy.  In my view the weakness of some of the writing on holiness is a lack of awareness on how important their method is to determining the outcome of their definition of holy.   

My point is to say that the process we use to determine the meaning of holy is very important.   Our methods have implications and can cause us to draw either correct or incorrect conclusions.  My other point is that biases can get in the way of accepting relevant methods for defining it. 

The process is important to the effect or outcome, whether it is the process for determining a meaning for a word or whether it is a process for shooting a basketball.  The "how" is relevant alongside the "why".  If making a basket is my motive, my reason why, then the method, my how I shoot, is relevant.  It is the same in determining the meaning of holy. 

Now using the basketball analogy, there is room for differences in the method, but not differences that are dramatic.  It  is one thing for the best shooters to have subtle stylistic differences, but it is far different to violate the four basic fundamental parts of shooting.  Whether you take Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan or LeBron James; they all share the same fundamental strengths in the art of shooting.  However, all of them do not shoot exactly the same. 

Next, it is important to understand some of the attitudes we carry to the table, when it comes to method.  I remember this from my days as a coach and I see the same thing in the arena of being a pastor.  There are certain biases against method that are even greater in the church than they are on the basketball court. 

The first bias, I will call the Holy Spirit objection.  It is very simple, we don't need a method, because we have the Holy Spirit.  To me, this response lacks balance.  I like what St. Augustine said once about prayer and about balance: "Pray as though everything depended on God, work as though everything depended on you."  I think the same applies here.  I believe wholeheartedly that everything depends on God's Holy Spirit when it comes to interpretation, yet I don't believe this excludes method.  The reason I don't think it excludes method is because in the book that records things that people like David said by the Spirit, there methods are described.  We are told actions to take. 

I cannot live by the Spirit and not do what the Spirit has spoken.  I believe in Nehemiah 8, the Spirit has given us a process: teach, translate, total, train and transfer.  I believe balance is needed which means having regard for this process that was outlined by the Holy Spirit.  By the way, the five words that begin with "T" are my simple way of remembering the HolySpirit's process.  The Spirit uses other specific words for these ideas.  See my earlier blog that deals with this process for greater detail. 

The second bias, I will call the historical objection.  It is very simple, we don't need a method, because we have freedom.  To me, this method also lacks balance.  Many people are trapped in the formerly relevant rules or freedom of a previous period of history.  Sometimes the emphasis of some of our ancestors was right on for their time, but not right on for our time.  I think our time needs balance in its process as compared to an overemphasis to correct an imbalance to only one side.   

This means I find the biases toward a process for defining a word irrelevant at times.  I have found a lack of balance between rule and freedom.  St. Augustine once wrote three books to define his process for understanding the biblical text.  He saw the need for rules.  I think we need to think through our process as well and yet allow freedom for improvements in our process.  In other words, we need to keep things in balance.  I don't think using Nehemiah 8 as a basis for a process is either  too restrictive or too free.  It can keep a balance. 

One of my teachers once said he was overemphasizing his point to correct something.  While that may have been a good teaching method at one time, I don't think it is helpful at our present time.  Now I think we have to keep a balance to make our point, because otherwise things veer off to one extreme or the other, because of our present times and context.  We now have twin dangers to avoid that maybe were not present earlier like they are now. 

So I really think we must keep a balance in our process to define words based on the need for relevance.  I think the rules of 1) teach, 2) translate, 3) total, 4) train and 5) transfer are very helpful.  These rules have a relevance to move things in a helpful direction from the prior processes, like those of Augustine, to determine meaning that are often too limited by rules or too free to be useful. 

I wish I had time to develop the full argument here, but I thought I should at least let people know that my method in defining holy is intended to be a balance Spirit & method and rule & freedom.  It takes relevance very seriously.  It recognizes the dangers on both both sides of its method, because of what is happening in our contemporary times rather than what has happened in the past. 

In my next entry, I want to again step back a little bit and talk about my expertise.  This will also be relevant to explaining the different kinds of entries you will find on this blog.  It will help you understand both what you can hope to find here and what you will not find here.  The point is that I want to contribute what expertise I have to defining holy, but also I do not want to mislead people either as to what my expertise is.  Thank you for taking a few minutes to read this entry. 

In Christ,

Pastor Jon