By Michael A. Harbin
[Michael A. Harbin is Chair of the Biblical Studies, Christian Ministries, and Philosophy Department, Taylor University, Upland, Indiana.]
Abstract
The Hebrew root קדשׁ, “holy,” is commonly thought to carry the idea of separation. This is an attractive concept, but problematic. This study proposes that the word primarily denotes the morally pure relationship of the three Persons of the Trinity. While physical items such as a location or a building may be set aside or dedicated to God and thus termed holy, that would be a derivative meaning.
* * *
Throughout the Bible, holiness is presented as the standard toward which God’s people should aspire.[1] For Israel, this was made clear on the day God gave that motley collection of refugees from Egypt a statement of purpose, declaring that they were to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6).[2] God reinforced the idea continually over the next forty years as he gave the Israelites their foundational national document, today called the Torah or Pentateuch. The books of Exodus through Deuteronomy hammer this purpose home using the term “holy” some two hundred times. After the conquest, the theme of holiness appears regularly throughout the records of the nation’s existence, even when it went into exile.[3]
The New Testament picks up the theme. Toward the end of the New Testament period, several decades after the resurrection, Peter told believers that the standard for God’s people remained the same—they who at one point were not a people or nation were now the people of God’s possession. Echoing the admonitions presented in Exodus, Peter declared that the followers of Jesus are now a royal priesthood and a holy nation (1 Pet. 2:9–10).
The theme of holiness is so pervasive in the Bible that it is difficult to provide an exact number of uses, although it is clearly in the hundreds.[4] This massive quantity alone would suggest that holiness is an important topic; that it is set forth as the standard of living for God’s people (Lev 19:2) sets it off as an imperative.[5] The present study focuses on one important aspect of this topic: the reason holiness is demanded. God does not demand an arbitrary standard of moral perfection. Rather, God repeatedly asserts that he demands holiness because of who he is. Specifically, as stated in Leviticus 19:2, God’s people are to be holy because God is holy.
This declaration, repeated in various forms (Lev 11:44; 20:7; 20:26; 22:2, 32; Isa 43:3, 15; Ezek 36:22; 39:7; Hos 11:9; and 1 Pet 1:16), should cause the reader to consider, “What does it mean to be holy?” More specifically, “If I am to be holy because God is holy, what does that mean? How is God holy?” Though most readers have a somewhat intuitive understanding of the concept, defining what it actually means to “be holy” is difficult. As Wenham puts it, its “precise significance is elusive.”[6]
Since the admonition to be holy is God’s challenge to the nation of Israel, this study will focus on the primary Hebrew term used to describe God’s holiness—the root קדשׁ. Lexicons generally translate words built on this root using words or phrases such as “sacred,” “consecrated,” “dedicated,” “withheld from profane use,” and of course, “holy.” Brown, Driver, and Briggs suggest that the word goes back to an original root that carried a connotation of “to be set apart.”[7] Gentry notes that this is based on the work of the German scholar Baudissin, who “surmised that the original root was a biliteral קד meaning ‘to cut.’ ”[8] This etymology seems to be predicated on the assumption that language develops from the concrete to the abstract, such that a concrete sense of physical separation would be the basis for the abstract concept of holiness.[9] Because of the widespread use of Brown, Driver, and Briggs over the past century or so, this proposed etymology has colored much of the study of holiness up to the present, especially within more popular publications. For example, Mark Fackler states, “ ‘Holy’ is one of the most common terms in the Bible. Its appearance in the Old Testament signals the separateness or specialness of the person or thing called by the term.”[10] More recently, Jack Wellman wrote, “The Hebrew word for holy is ‘qodesh’ and means ‘apartness, set-apartness, separateness, sacredness’ and I would add that it should also be ‘otherness, transcendent and totally other’ because God is totally above His creation and His creatures, including us.”[11]
But the same concept appears in a variety of scholarly materials. Allen Ross states, “By definition one can say that God’s holiness means that he is set apart. Specifically, he is distinct and separate from all created beings and false gods; there is no one like him in any way or in any place.”[12] Similarly, Anthony Hoekema writes, “The origin of the Hebrew root qadash (the Hebrew word for holy) is obscure; its basic meaning, however, seems to be that of apartness. Thus God’s Holiness means first of all that He is other than the creature.”[13] In his commentary on Leviticus, Noordtzij weaves the concept of separation throughout his discussion of holiness. For example, he states, “The Old Testament also uses the word holy in a cultic sense to refer to external separation from the profane sphere of everyday life.”[14]
Likewise, Jay Sklar defines holy as “to be set apart as distinct in some way.” He then argues that when people or objects are made holy it involves what he calls “dependent holiness,” which he distinguishes from the holiness of God. He states, “The Lord is set apart as distinct because of his very nature. True, others are called to set him apart and treat him as holy (Lev. 22:32). But this is not in order to make him holy; rather it is in order to recognize the holiness he already has.” Sklar anticipates the question this obviously raises: How is God distinct? Sklar answers that question by focusing on two aspects—God’s power and his moral purity.[15] This will be addressed below.
One more example comes from Jacob Milgrom’s monumental commentary on Leviticus. While discussing the dietary laws, Milgrom states, “Israel’s attainment of holiness is dependent on setting itself apart from the nations and the prohibited animal foods.” The way he describes it, holiness is not so much the being set apart but a result of it. Milgrom contrasts this with the polytheism of Israel’s neighbors, whose gods are “never wholly separate from and transcendent to the realm of man.” He concludes then that holiness is an “extension of [God’s] nature; it is the agency of his will.” As such, Milgrom argues that in addition to “separation from,” holiness means “separation to.” But like Sklar, Milgrom anticipates the obvious when he asks, “What is God that men may imitate him?” Milgrom concludes, “The emulation of God’s holiness demands following the ethics associated with his nature.”[16] Again, this will be addressed below.
To sum up, the conventional understanding is that holiness primarily denotes a sense of separation from the routine or the common. A typical example might be a vessel that is set apart from normal household use and reserved for divine rituals.[17]
Problems With The Conventional Understanding Of Holiness
On the surface this conventional understanding is enticing, but several issues need to be evaluated. While many users of Brown, Driver, and Briggs build the abstract concept of holiness on the more concrete idea of separation, the authors of the lexicon do not seem to follow their own lead. That is, when they suggest that a place might be viewed as set apart, it would be set apart because of God’s presence.[18] In other words, where a concept of being set apart is part of something’s holiness, it is a derivative concept. This will be discussed further after evaluating several problematic issues regarding the conventional understanding of the word.
The Root Fallacy
The first item of concern is what James Barr has called the root fallacy. He explained,
It seems to be commonly believed that in Hebrew there is a ‘root meaning’ which is effective throughout all the variations given to the root by affixes and formative elements, and that therefore the ‘root meaning’ can confidently be taken to be part of the actual semantic value of any word or form which can be assigned to an identifiable root; and likewise that any word may be taken to give some kind of suggestion of other words formed from the same root.[19]
This problem is very evident in the case of the root קדשׁ. Often, explanation of the meaning of the word builds on the basic meaning of the root as “separation.” For example, in an online article titled “Holiness and Judaism,” Avi Lazerson states, “A principle in Hebrew is that all Hebrew words are related through their spelling—different words using the very same letters have connections in meanings.” Based on this assertion, Lazerson concluded that קָדוֹשׁ means “with out [sic] bounds.” He reached this conclusion as he tried to develop a single meaning broad enough to explain the Hebrew term קְדֵשָׁה, which is often translated as a temple prostitute, within the concept of holiness.[20]
The Etymological Fallacy
In the case of the root קדשׁ, one might argue that the conventional understanding of holiness is a result not of the root structure but its etymology. While that may be valid, it still presents a problem. As Barr puts it,
Etymology is not, and does not profess to be, a guide to the semantic value of words in their current usage, and such value has to be determined from the current usage and not from the derivation. . . . Nevertheless there is a normative strain in the thought of many people about language, and they feel that in some sense the “original,” the “etymological meaning,” should be a guide to the usage of words, that the words are used “properly” when they coincide in sense with the sense of the earliest known form from which their derivation can be traced.[21]
Barr then notes that in the case of Hebrew, as one of the Semitic languages, the issue of etymology is even trickier because of the lack of history of usage. In the absence of records of actual usage for long periods, Barr concludes, “Etymology is commonly a deduction from, or a hypothesis to explain, a number of words in one language or in several cognate languages which by their extant form and known sense in the historical period offer a prima facie case for a common etymological origin.”[22]
In the case of the root קדשׁ, Barr’s use of the term “hypothesis” is especially telling. At the beginning of their article on the root קדשׁ, Brown, Driver, and Briggs suggest that it has a “possible original idea of separation or withdrawal.”[23] While they cite two German scholars (W. von Baudissin and T. Nöldeke) to support this, they do not list a single cognate that demonstrates a similar meaning of separation.[24] Subsequent research likewise has not turned up cognate support.[25] This will be addressed below with the evaluation of a proposed basic meaning for the Hebrew word.
Concrete Versus Abstract
It was noted earlier that one of the premises behind Brown, Driver and Brigg’s suggested etymological history of קדשׁ is the supposed development of language from concrete to abstract. Barr states “The idea of the extreme concreteness of the languages of ‘primitive’ peoples has been much criticized.”[26] He suggests that this is due to confusion between concrete and specific on the one hand, and abstract and general on the other. In other words, specificity is often confused for concreteness.[27]
Barr also points out that linguists struggle to validate this pattern. While the common view of language assumes that it develops from concrete—that is, having vocabulary that is tied to a readily perceptible physical world—to abstract,[28] the study of language does not seem to support this. Cassirer concludes,
The question of the origin of language tends to become—even for the thinkers who have taken it most profoundly and struggled hardest with it—a veritable monkey puzzle. All the energy devoted to it seems only to lead us about in a circle and finally leave us at the point from which we started.[29]
Rather, it seems that humans have possessed an intuitive understanding of abstract concepts from the beginning. This fits with the biblical explanation of the origin of mankind. It also fits with the historically discerned development of language, which shows a pattern of simplification rather than increasing complexity.[30]
Holiness Is Abstract
Studies subsequent to Brown, Driver, and Briggs suggest that the concept of holiness has a more abstract origin. The classic study of the concept is Rudolf Otto’s The Idea of the Holy. Otto argues, “To ‘keep a thing holy in the heart’ means to mark it off by a feeling of a peculiar dread, not to be mistaken for any ordinary dread, that is, to appraise it by the category of the numinous.”[31] “Numinous” is a term Otto coined to describe a sense of “creature consciousness,” which he described as “the emotion of a creature, submerged and overwhelmed by its own nothingness in contrast to that which is supreme above all creatures. . . . a character which cannot be expressed verbally, and can only be suggested indirectly through the tone and content of a man’s feeling-response to it.”[32] Otto describes this as a complex response that he terms “mysterium tremendum”—a response to a mystery that “is beyond conception or understanding, extraordinary and unfamiliar.”[33] Later he calls this mystery “the wholly other.”[34] He suggests that this seems to be demonstrated in Isaiah 6, where Isaiah states that he saw “the Lord sitting on a throne, high and exalted.” As he heard the seraphim crying, “Holy, holy, holy,” Isaiah despaired, stating that he was unclean.
This suggests one of the strongest advantages of Otto’s suggestion—it hints of a reality beyond the physical and concrete. However, one key weakness of Otto’s proposal is that he describes the numinous as something that humans experience in response to the presence of both God and demons. However, Otto does not explain why “holy” is a positive term applied to God but not to Satan,[35] or why Isaiah should have felt “unclean” as he perceived God on his throne (Isaiah 6) and understood his holiness (or, as Otto put it, encountered God’s “numinous reality”).[36]
The Concept Of Holiness
The case of Isaiah and his reaction is significant. Gentry notes that Isaiah’s experience helps answer key questions about God’s holiness. He argues that the situation in Isaiah 6, especially the description of the temple in Isaiah 6:1 and 4, suggests “the coming of God among men in the temple.”[37] Within that context, Gentry maintains that Isaiah reacted to the majesty of the sovereign King. Specifically, Isaiah recognized that Yahweh was the real king behind the human king (in this case, Uzziah, who died that year). By translating the verb דָּמָה as “to be silenced” rather than “to be undone,” Gentry suggests that the cry that Isaiah and his people had unclean lips resulted from the realization that the lips of Isaiah and the covenant people were “filled with words challenging God’s justice” and thus they were not able to join the seraphim in worship.[38] As such, the issue was that they had violated the covenant by not giving full devotion to it. This is Gentry’s premise—that being holy is being completely devoted. He claims, “Holiness should not be defined as moral purity, but rather purity is the result of being completely devoted to God as defined by the covenant.”[39] However, it is not clear how devotion produces purity or that recognition of a lack of devotion should induce a sense of impurity. One might expect that when Isaiah recognized the majesty of the real King he would have a sense of fear, but not a sense that he was dirty or impure.
As such, it seems that Isaiah used the phrase “unclean lips” as a synecdoche of the part for the whole, that is, the whole person, which emphasizes the sense of impurity. Consequently, his response is instructive and suggestive. His perception of his and his people’s uncleanness reflects an acute awareness of God’s holiness in contrasting holiness with uncleanness.
That contrast is presented more overtly when God gives Aaron instructions for the priesthood. In Leviticus 10:10, God instructs the priests (Aaron and his sons) “to make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean” (NASB). While many commentators gloss over this verse,[40] it is perhaps one of the more significant verses of the book in that it gives insight into the meaning of holiness by means of contrast.
So what is being contrasted? Gerstenberger described the four words—holy and profane, unclean and clean—as “synonymous contrasting pairs,” which would make “holy” (he uses the word “sacred”) and “clean” (he uses the word “pure”) synonyms.[41] He follows Mary Douglas in arguing that the purpose of the subsequent discussion of sacrificial portions was cultic and thus aimed at producing cultural stability.[42] However, Gerstenberger suggests that both “holy” and “pure” are qualifications that “include moral ‘uprightness.’ ”[43] What is not clear is what he would include with moral uprightness.
Wenham argues for a double contrast where “holy” is the opposite of “common” (the NASB used “profane”) and “clean” is the opposite of “unclean.” Wenham then merges these into one spectrum with “holy” and “unclean” on the opposite ends and both “common” and “clean” as intermediate states between holy and unclean. But in Wenham’s discussion, “common” and “clean” appear to overlap.[44] More importantly, one is still left with a question about what it means to be holy. Wenham notes, “Holiness characterizes God himself and all that belongs to him,” but then he concludes, “There is no explanation of what God’s holiness is in itself.”[45]
More recent Old Testament scholarship has provided a promising alternative. As noted above, Milgrom maintains that “the emulation of God’s holiness demands following the ethics associated with his nature.”[46] Sklar observes that God is distinct in power and moral purity; yet God “commands his people to be morally upright in a number of ways.” While Sklar begins with the premise that holiness denotes separation or distinction, he concludes, “The idea is straightforward: ‘Because I, the Lord, am distinct in terms of my moral purity, you, as my people, must be distinct in terms of your moral purity as well.’ ”[47] Likewise, Noordtzij followed up his discussion of the origin of the term “holiness” with the argument that in the Old Testament, “this had a different background than elsewhere” because “its source and ground lay in the holiness of the Lord Himself.” Thus he argues that, in reality, holiness depends on God’s character, which is “altogether righteous, faultless, and pure.”[48]
R. K. Harrison takes a similar approach:
Not merely is God a living and omnipotent deity, but he is the essence of holiness. This concept involves ethical and moral, as well as purely spiritual attributes, and must be reflected in the day-to-day existence of the Israelites. Their covenantal relationship to the living God is a matter of supreme importance for mankind, and thus they are to become a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.[49]
Mathews also touches on the idea of moral purity in Leviticus 19. He states, “The Lord is morally pure. In every way he is inherently pure without sin or corruption.”[50]
Based on the use of קדשׁ in the Pentateuch, it would appear that these scholars have caught its essence and that a basic meaning of the term “holy” must include a concept of “moral purity.”[51]
However, even that definition raises questions, two of which need to be addressed here.
First, what is meant by “moral”? According to Webster, the term carries a variety of connotations, such as “relating to principles of right or wrong action,” or “right behavior.”[52] Thus the concept of morality combines two aspects: correctness and activity.
Correctness demands a standard. While in theory personal convictions may provide a moral standard, social pressures generally mold and constrain the scope of culturally accepted convictions. One may have an inner conviction that another individual is a danger to society, but if one takes it upon oneself to remove that person from society (i.e., by murder), most modern societies react quite negatively, since murder is viewed as immoral. However, while culture can restrain personal immorality, culture itself can establish moral standards that are problematic and promote immorality. A rather extreme example might be the German Third Reich, where the ruling Nazi party instituted a moral standard that mandated the eradication of certain minorities, including Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals. Some within that culture may have agreed that this was a correct moral stand, even to the point of an inner conviction, but many more likely accepted it because they were either taught or forced to. This illustrates the dangers of allowing popular consensus to define what is moral and emphasizes the need for a higher standard.
For the nation of Israel, that higher standard was the Torah–a collection of guidelines for how the people of Israel were to relate to God and to each other, outlined in the Ten Commandments. These commandments are apodictic; they are “absolute commands.”[53] Though God gave no explanation or rationale for the commands, Exodus 20:2 indicates that the Israelites were required to obey because God had brought them out of Egypt,[54] and Leviticus bases the commands on the character of God (see Lev 19:2). As such, the character of God defines what is right or moral.
Second, Webster suggests that “moral” refers to action or behavior. In other words, morality defines proper actions between individuals. If one of the key underlying premises of both Testaments is that there is only one God, how can God as a single being set the standard for moral behavior between individuals without the defining characteristics being purely arbitrary?
It could be that God sets the moral standard through his relationships with people. However, that would suggest a standard established at creation. Even if the model for morality is God’s prior relationship with angels, the same problem exists, since they also are created beings. So if holiness denotes moral purity in actions between individuals, how can a single God be holy in and of himself?
An orthodox Christian theological perspective leads to an understanding of a triune being.[55] That is, holiness is in reality based on how the members of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, act toward one another. While the Trinity is not specifically mentioned in the Old Testament, that does not prevent the divine author from setting forth for his people standards based on the Trinity.
In some regards, this is not far from other understandings of the relationship of the Trinity. A number of theologians have observed that the concept of love is crucial to the Christian understanding of the Trinity. For example, Westcott states:
By St John glimpses are opened to us of the absolute tri-personality of God. From the statement that ‘God is Love’—Love involving a subject, and an object, and that which unites both—we gain the idea of a tri-personality in an Infinite Being. In the Unity of Him, Who is One, we acknowledge the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in the interrelation of Whom we can see Love fulfilled.[56]
Ryrie observes, “Fellowship and love within the Godhead is only possible in a trinitarian concept of God, and that fellowship is akin to the believer’s fellowship with Christ (John 14:17).”[57]
Likewise, Marshall states, “We have a more clearly formulated doctrine of the Trinity now than was possible for the first Christians in the infancy of Christian theologizing, and we can understand perhaps more fully how the Father, Son, and Spirit are bound together in a fellowship of love so that they have the same purposes and the same knowledge.”[58]
Finally, Henry states, “The doctrine of the Trinity exhibits in the eternal nature of God a life of intimate love, communion and self-giving that in principle cancels the complaint that a timeless deity must be loveless and introvert.”[59]
Love And Holiness
What then is the difference between love and holiness? After all, John indicates that true love is seen in terms of actions or behavior: “We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or tongue, but in deed and truth” (1 John 3:15–17, NASB, italics added).
Again, there is the problem of the field of meaning. Webster gives a variety of meanings for “love” that build on the concept of “feeling affection for.”[60] The Hebrew generally translated “love” is אהב, which Brown, Driver, and Briggs simply define as “love,” al-though the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament expands it to “love, like, be in love, lovely.”[61]
That אהב signifies more than a feeling of affection is evident in the Shema: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut 6:5, NASB). This is the directive that Jesus affirmed as the first commandment (Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Bratcher and Hatton observe, “Love here contains not only the elements of liking and affection but also devotion and commitment to God.”[62] Merrill focuses on the totality of the person that this love requires.[63] But these are aspects of attitude or volition that are demonstrated by behavior. So then love is the foundation on which holiness is built.
Putting this together provides the following proposition. If love is defined by the relationship of the members of the Trinity such that John could say “God is love” (1 John 4:8), and love is demonstrated by acts (not just verbal declarations), and holiness is to be understood as moral purity, in actions and behavior, and the holiness of God is presented as the benchmark for holiness, then the basis for defining holiness would be how the members of the Trinity act in relation to one another.
As such, holiness is a collective attribute and responsibility, as illustrated in Leviticus 19:2, when God uses the plural “you” in directing the nation to be holy. In that light, it is no coincidence that Leviticus 19:2 introduces the second major portion of the book of Leviticus, often called “the Holiness Code.”[64] This last section of Leviticus emphasizes morality and lifestyle issues with a focus on social justice, suggesting morality as a corporate concept.
A Holy Nation
God stated that Israel was to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6). How do those two terms fit together? Childs argues for linguistic parallelism, where “ ‘priests’ is an attribute of ‘kingdom’ as ‘holy’ is an attribute of ‘nation’ ”[65] Drawing on the phrase “My own possession” in the preceding verse, he ties the entire description into the idea of holiness as separation, such that Israel was “set apart from the rest of the nations.”[66] Or, as Cassuto explains, Israel was to be “a nation dedicated entirely to the service of the Godhead, in the same way priests are consecrated thereto.”[67]
Durham seems closer to the point when he observes that “Israel as a ‘kingdom of priests’ is Israel committed to the extension throughout the world of the ministry of Yahweh’s presence.”[68] The focus is not on the nation’s position, but on its function. In that case, this “linguistic parallelism” indicates that Israel was to mediate between the rest of humanity and God (serving as priests), corporately exhibiting morally pure relationships (being holy).
Conclusions
Even if this moral purity understanding is valid, many uses of the term “holy” do seem to carry a concept of being “set apart.” The scope of items viewed as קָדוֹשׁ requires that, regardless of how one understands the etymology, some of the meanings would be considered derivative. For example, declaring “holy” a space (e.g., the tabernacle [Exod 29:30] or the ground around the burning bush [3:5]), an item (e.g., the high priest’s garments [28:2]), or an occasion (e.g., an assembly [12:16]) would indicate that it is “venerated because of association with someone or something holy.”[69] This would correlate with Sklar’s argument that people or objects are made holy in “dependent holiness,” while God’s holiness is due to his nature.[70] Likewise, Gentry was correct when he observed that the ground of the burning bush was holy not because the mountain was taboo, but because the ground on which Moses stood was associated with the burning bush from which God spoke.[71]
The contention here is that God, rather than mankind, should be the benchmark for holiness. If God is holy because he is separate, humanity is the de facto standard, but there is no clear explanation for why the separation is good. By recognizing the relationship of the members of the Trinity as the true benchmark, one can look to God for the model of true holiness. This would have several ramifications.
First, grounding the concept of holiness in the relationships within the Trinity makes God’s holiness coherent and concrete apart from the existence of created beings. Further, recognizing the absolute moral purity of the members of the Trinity as the defining principle sets a clear standard by which to measure holiness. The process also fleshes out the idea of love as the bond between the members of the Trinity in a form that can be demonstrated and evaluated. As such, the term “holy” makes spiritual sense.
Second, Isaiah’s response to seeing God makes sense. Sensing God’s perfect holiness, or the absolute moral purity between the persons of the Trinity, Isaiah suddenly felt unclean. A more recent incident illustrates his conundrum. One night during my time at the Naval Academy, the brigade was lined up for evening formation at the end of the weekend. All of the midshipmen were dressed in white uniforms freshly washed and pressed at the academy laundry. They were an impressive sight as they fell into ranks. Then one individual who had been on weekend liberty came rushing up. While home, he had sent his uniform to a commercial laundry that had used bluing in the washing process. His uniform was a brilliant bluish white, and suddenly the uniforms of the rest of the midshipmen looked yellow and dirty. Although in fresh white uniforms, they felt somewhat dirty in a physical sense. In Isaiah’s case, he felt a moral uncleanness. Hearing the proclamation of the seraphim and sensing the perfect morality of God, he intuitively understood his own moral state to be lacking and worthy of condemnation. He realized that he was without hope—even the words he spoke were sinful. When one of the seraphim took a coal and purified his lips, he was able to declare that Isaiah’s “iniquity [was] removed and [his] sin [was] forgiven,” reversing the synecdoche that Isaiah had expressed. Still, given that Isaiah’s subsequent mission was to proclaim a message that would harden the hearts of his people, purified lips were imperative.
Finally, this understanding of holiness presents a standard of behavior for believers to live up to in community with each other.[72] Holiness is then understood not as something that one can do individually, but as a communal responsibility governing interaction. This is probably the most important message that one could derive from this concept today—Christians are to treat each other in morally pure ways.
Notes
- Though Walton and Walton argue that holiness merely means “that which belongs to the sphere of God’s being” (John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton, The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2017], 108), this concept of holiness is a secondary or derived meaning.
- Translations of Scripture in this article are the writer’s unless noted otherwise.
- For example, Ezekiel used the concept some 55 times while in exile.
- A precise count is difficult to determine for several reasons. While the Hebrew and Greek terms translated “holy” are used hundreds of times, there are a variety of nuances and circumlocutions that are beyond the scope of this study. Moreover, the Old Testament uses קדשׁ to describe a goal for humans, the character of God, parts of the sanctuary (e.g., “holy of holies”), and temple prostitutes in pagan cults. A thorough search for the concept of “holiness” would thus require a close examination of hundreds of passages. Even published sources disagree about the number of uses. A Logos search of the root קדשׁ revealed 492 uses. Mandelkern’s Hebrew concordance lists approximately 700 (Solomon Mandelkern, Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae Hebraicae atque Chaldaicae [Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1971], 1012–16). The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament suggests that the root קדשׁ appears 842 times (W. Kornfeld, The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003], s.v. קדשׁ). The Lexham Bible Dictionary states, “The Hebrew term “holy” (קדשׁ) occurs 850 times in the Bible” (David B. Schreiner, “Holiness Code,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry [Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016]).
- While Walton and Walton argue that this imperfect does not carry imperatival force but rather reflects a conferred status, they fail to take into account the imperfect verbs that follow (Walton and Walton, The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, 107). For example, the next verse begins, “A person will fear [תִּירָאוּ] his mother and his father” (Lev 19:3). This imperfect clearly could not describe a “conferred status.”
- Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 18.
- Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), s.v. קדשׁ.
- Peter J. Gentry, “The Meaning of ‘Holy’ in the Old Testament,” Bibliotheca Sacra 170 (October–December 2013): 401.
- Michael A. Harbin, “An Investigation of the Role of Theological Presuppositions in Etymological Studies” (ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980), 39.
- Mark Fackler, “Holy,” HIS (December 1979): 17.
- Jack Wellman, “What Does the Word Holy Mean? Bible Definition of Holy,” Christian Crier (blog), Patheos, May 24, 2014, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christ-iancrier/2014/05/24/what-does-the-word-holy-mean-bible-definition-of-holy/.
- Allen P. Ross, “Qadosh: ‘Holy, Set Apart, Distinct,’ ” Christian Leadership Center, accessed October 27, 2016, http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/otws7.htm.
- Anthony A. Hoekema, “The Communicable Attributes,” in Basic Christian Doctrines, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1962), 31.
- A. Noordtzij, Bible Student’s Commentary: Leviticus, trans. Raymond Togtman (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 191.
- Jay Sklar, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014), 39–40.
- Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), 725–31.
- For example, see S. H. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1899; reprint Minneapolis, MN: Klock and Klock, 1978), 367; Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden: Brill, 1958), 825–26; and Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 19.
- Brown, Driver, and Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, s.v. קדשׁ.
- James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Glasgow: Oxford University Press, 1961), 100.
- Avi Lazerson, “Holiness and Judaism,” The Jewish Magazine, accessed March 20, 2016, http://www.jewishmag.com/39mag/holy/holy.htm.
- Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 107–8. Brown, Driver, and Briggs seemingly supported this principle of defining words based on use rather than etymology, when, in their introduction, they stated, “At an early stage of the work they reached the conviction that their first and perhaps chief duty was to make a fresh and, as far as possible, exhaustive study of the Old Testament materials, determine the actual uses of words by detailed examination of every passage, comparing, at the same time, their employment in the related language, and thus fix their proper meanings in Hebrew” (A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, vi, italics added).
- Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language,108–9.
- Brown, Driver, and Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 871, italics added.
- Kornfeld explains that Baudissin’s premise was that קדשׁ actually derived from a biconsonantal root qd that had a basic meaning of “separate, sunder,” and he notes that while “most interpreters concur” with that perspective, “some scholars raise objections” (W. Kornfeld, The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003], 7:523, s.v. קדשׁ). Here Gentry, who cited the French scholar Claude Bernard Costecalde, should be included as objecting (“The Meaning of ‘Holy’ in the Old Testament,” 401–2).
- Harbin, “An Investigation,” 39. In addition, McComiskey states, “The word occurs in several dialects of Akkadian with the basic meanings ‘to be clean, pure, consecrated.’ In the Canaanite texts from Ugarit, the basic meaning of the word group is ‘holy,’ and it is always used in a cultic sense” (Thomas E. McComiskey, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke [Chicago: Moody, 1999], 786–87, s.v. קדשׁ.
- Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 30.
- Barr uses the word “cow” as an example. He points to a common practice of labeling as “concrete” a language that uses terms of specificity—for example, one that differentiates between ‘red cow’ or ‘white cow’ but which lacks a term for generic “cow” (The Semantics of Biblical Language, 30).
- Michael A. Harbin, “Language Was Created, Not Evolved,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 19 (June 1982): 53.
- Ernst Cassirer, Language and Myth, trans. Susanne K. Langer (New York: Dover Publications, 1946), 31.
- Harbin, “Language Was Created,” 54.
- Rudolph Otto, The Idea of the Holy, trans. John H. Harvey, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1958), 13.
- Ibid., 10. While Otto used the term “creature,” he did not indicate that animals have the ability to experience this feeling.
- Ibid., 12–13.
- Ibid., 26.
- Otto, The Idea of the Holy, 14. He seems to suggest an evolutionary development when he says that the “antecedent stage” to “ ‘religious dread’ (or ‘awe’)” was “ ‘daemonic dread’ (cf. the horror of Pan) . . . the ‘dread of ghosts.’ ”
- Otto, The Idea of the Holy, 50.
- Gentry, “The Meaning of ‘Holy’ in the Old Testament,” 409.
- Ibid., 414.
- Ibid., 413.
- For example, Ross spends several paragraphs on the use of alcohol, but with regard to verse 10 he simply states that the priests “had the responsibility to make clear decisions about the laws of holiness and teach the people accordingly” (Allen Ross, Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002], 235–37). Kleinig simply observes that not only were the priests to respect God’s holiness, “they were also to teach the people to do so as well” (John W. Kleinig, Leviticus, Concordia Commentary [St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 2003], 230–31).
- Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus, trans. Douglas W. Stott, Old Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 126, 128.
- Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 133–34. See Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York: Praeger, 1966), 34–36, 129–39.
- Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 128.
- Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 19.
- Ibid., 22.
- Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 731.
- Sklar, Leviticus, 40.
- Noordtzij, Bible Student’s Commentary: Leviticus, 191.
- R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1980), 31.
- Kenneth A. Mathews, Leviticus: Holy God, Holy People (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009), 168.
- Contra Gentry, “The Meaning of ‘Holy’ in the Old Testament,” 414. Cognate terms seem to carry similar concepts of purity (Kornfeld,” קדשׁ,” 7:523–26).
- Webster’sThird New International Dictionary (1971), s.v. “moral.”
- Gary Edward Schnittjer, The Torah Story (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 250–51.
- Michael A. Harbin, The Promise and the Blessing (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 143.
- Michael Reeves touches on this as he discusses God and creation (Delighting in the Trinity [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2012], 39–41).
- Brooke Foss Westcott and John Maurice Schulhof, eds., Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians: The Greek Text with Notes and Addenda, Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1909), 131.
- Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago: Moody, 1999), 59.
- I. Howard Marshall, Aspects of the Atonement: Cross and Resurrection in the Reconciling of God and Humanity (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008), 63–64.
- Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, vol. 5 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1999), 261.
- Webster’sThird New International Dictionary (1971), s.v. “love.”
- Alden states, “There is little variation in the basic meaning of this verb. The intensity of the meaning ranges from God’s infinite affection for his people to the carnal appetites of a lazy glutton” (Robert L. Alden, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, s.v. אָהֵב).
- Robert G. Bratcher and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on Deuteronomy, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 2000), 138.
- Love “encompasses the heart, soul, and strength of God’s people, here viewed collectively as a covenant partner. The heart (lēb) is, in Old Testament anthropology, the seat of the intellect, equivalent to the mind or rational part of humankind. The “soul” (better, “being” or “essential person” in line with commonly accepted understanding of Heb. nepeš) refers to the invisible part of the individual, the person qua person including the will and sensibilities. The strength (mĕʾōd) is, of course, the physical side with all its functions and capacities.” Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 164.
- Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, Leviticus, Apollos Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007), 17.
- Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 342.
- Martin Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 157.
- U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1987), 227. This is similar to Sarna’s assertion that “the priest is set apart by a distinctive way of life consecrated to the service of God and dedicated to ministering to the needs of the people” (Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus, The JPS Torah Commentary [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991], 104).
- John I. Durham, Exodus, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 263.
- Webster’sThird New International Dictionary (1971), s.v. “holy.”
- Sklar, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary, 39–40.
- Gentry, “The Meaning of ‘Holy’ in the Old Testament,” 402.
- As Walton and Walton explain, “When the nation or people is identified as holy, it refers to the communal abstraction, not to all of the specific individuals who participate in it” (Walton and Walton, The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, 105).