The Meaning Of “Holy” In The Old Testament

By Peter J. Gentry

[Peter J. Gentry is Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.]

“No one is holy like Yahweh” was Hannah’s bold praise when God granted her request for a child (1 Sam. 2:2).[1] Hannah’s praise is based not only on her own experience, but also on the revelation given at the Exodus. Moses’ Song at the Sea rang out, “Who is like you among the gods, Yahweh? Who is like you—majestic in holiness!” (Exod. 15:11). The revelation of God as holy and the creation of a covenant people who are holy are connected specifically with the events of the Exodus. “Saint” is, in fact, an Exodus word, and indeed Paul’s use of it has in view the work of Jesus Christ as bringing about a new Exodus.[2]

Unfortunately, the church of Jesus Christ, at least in the western world, has not understood very well the meaning of the word “holy,” nor what it means to worship a holy God. Systematic theologians from the Reformation to the present time are surveyed by Richard Muller, who describes the Reformed orthodox doctrine of the divine holiness as follows: “Holiness, has, moreover, two implications, both of which are typically stated in relation or in contrast to creatures. First, it can indicate the absolute ‘moral purity’ of God and stand, therefore, in relation to his justice or righteousness. . . . Second, ‘the word is also employed to denote God’s infinite excellence above all that is low and created.’ ”[3] Thus holiness is seen as roughly equivalent to “purity” and “transcendence.”

Understanding of the root קדשׁ, moreover, is commonly based on the work of W. W. Baudissin, “Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im AT,” published in 1878.[4] Baudissin surmised that the original root was a biliteral קד meaning “to cut.” He influenced more than a century of ecclesiastical thought, for recent theologians continue to rely on the etymology adduced by him.

Not only is this etymology entirely uncertain,[5] but also scholars, whether biblical exegetes or systematic theologians, have been warned for over half a century about the dangers of etymological approaches to semantics. As an example, “nice” in English comes from the Latin word nescius, meaning “ignorant.” Thus the history or origin of a word may be interesting but entirely irrelevant for determining its meaning.

The best approach to semantic analysis is an exhaustive study of all available usage, both in the literature in question and in contemporary documents in the cultures surrounding the original texts of the Bible. For קדשׁ this kind of study was performed already in 1986 by a French evangelical, Claude Bernard Costecalde.[6] Costecalde analyzed the pertinent terms in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Northwest Semitic inscriptions in addition to the usage of קדשׁ in the Hebrew Bible. His exhaustive research was so well recognized by scholars that he was invited to contribute the article on holiness in the famous Catholic Dictionary known as Suppléments aux Dictionnaire de la Bible.[7] Although published a quarter of a century ago, this research has not penetrated the church in North America, possibly because Costecalde’s work is in French. My own exegesis over the last twenty-five years has been greatly stimulated by the work of Costecalde. Thus I am presenting his work as well as my own, which finds that neither “moral purity” nor “transcendence” is fundamental to the meaning of “holy” in Greek or Hebrew.

The meaning of the word “holy” can be expounded by focusing largely on three texts: Exodus 3, Exodus 19, and Isaiah 6.

Exodus 3—Holy Ground

In Exodus 3 Moses encounters Yahweh in the burning bush and is asked to remove his sandals because he is standing on “holy ground.” This is the first occurrence in the Old Testament of the root קדשׁ in either an adjectival or noun form. Indeed, only one instance of the related verb is found prior to this text (Gen. 2:3); so Exodus 3 is foundational to thinking about the word. As Costecalde observes, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was not called by them a “Holy God,” nor was He worshiped by them at a holy place. God waited until He called Moses and revealed Himself to him to announce to this shepherd that “the mountain of God” was a holy place: אַדַמַת־קֹדֶשׁ, normally translated “holy ground.”

Why did God designate the mountain as a קֹדֶשׁ place? One reason generally given goes as follows. The “holiness” of the place was a barrier that prevented Moses, and later the people, from approaching. The mountain was “taboo” or “a forbidden place.” The presence of God as “the totally other” upon the mountain made the place inaccessible and provoked fear in Moses because of the “holy” character of the mountain. Muilenburg, for example, expresses this view. He states:

The consciousness of the radical cleavage between the human and the divine is rooted in taboo, and is illustrated in the law of the érem (חרם), in which man is forbidden to appropriate what belongs to God, and in the frequent prohibitions against profanation. The holy is unapproachable; man must not “come near” (קרב) to it. Thus Moses must not come near, for the place on which he stands is קדשׁ (Exod. 3:5 J; cf. Josh. 5:15).[8]

This explanation, however, does not account for all the facts given in the text. God does not forbid Moses from approaching the holy ground but only from coming near the bush—the place from which He speaks. The ground designated as holy includes the precise place where Moses stands, not just the bush where Yahweh speaks. In the narrative of Exodus 3:1-6 Moses is given two distinct and separate commands: (1) “Don’t come near here!” and (2) “Remove your sandals because the place where you are standing is holy ground.”[9] The holy ground, then, is much larger than the bush where Yahweh speaks. It follows that the command that forbids Moses to approach does not apply to the ground declared “holy,” but only to the precise spot where Yahweh speaks. The causal clause informing Moses that he is standing on holy ground gives the reason for removing his sandals and is not connected to the command to stay away from the bush.

The “holy ground” (v. 5) encompasses a larger space than just the bush from which God speaks and is, in fact, equivalent to the area designated as “the mountain of God” (v. 1). Moses is standing on a קדשׁ place; there is nothing inaccessible or restricted about approaching there. The mountain of God is not “taboo” or a “forbidden place.” Moreover, it does not inspire fear any more than the bush, which rather provokes curiosity. The fear that seizes Moses in the narrative does not spring from the “sacrosanct” character of the mountain; it is provoked by the shock of the vision of God. This unexpected meeting with God seizes Moses with fright. Verse 6 shows clearly the difference between “fear” and “holy,” because the fear is inspired by the vision of God, not by the holy mountain. It is therefore improper to speak of “holy fear” if language is to be genuinely true to Scripture.

As already noted, “holy ground” appears as a synonym of the “mountain of God.” From the culture of that time there is nothing astonishing about this because at Ugarit, in the fourteenth century before Jesus Christ, Baal dwells on a mountain and “the mountain of Baal” is also called a place qds̆.10 The mountain in Exodus 3:1, however, is called קדשׁ because of the presence of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob upon it and not because of a holy character inherent in or proper to the place where Moses stands. In the course of Moses’ vision, it is not so much the place as such that is valued, but the presence of God on it. This is when it becomes remarkable: the mountain is קדשׁ because it is the mountain of God.

Exodus 3, then, provides a meaning for a derivative of the root קדשׁ current in the fourteenth century before Jesus Christ, where the קדשׁ ground is not the place of distance or radical separation, but of meeting and of presence, the meeting of God and man. In standing on the ground that belongs to God, Moses is not called קָדוֹשׁ, but to be allowed to walk there he must submit to the practice of a rite or ritual: remove his sandals. Is this an innovation? Undoubtedly not. The act of removing one’s sandals, as does the nearest relative in Deuteronomy 25:9 and in Ruth 4:7, is a ceremony of de-possession well-known in the culture of that time. The gō’ēl, that is, the nearest relative, removes his sandal to show that he is relinquishing his rights of purchase. Thus Moses must acknowledge that this ground belongs to God and enter into an attitude of consecration. Rather than being marking as set apart, “holy” ground is ground consecrated, devoted, or prepared for the meeting of God and man.

In speaking from the middle of the bush, God manifests His desire to be present in the midst of men. But He presents Himself progressively. First He addresses Moses, who does not dare to look at Him and who is surprised at the time and seized with fear. It is God who takes the initiative in meeting men; He is the one who declares the mountain to be ground קדשׁ. It is not Moses who decides to meet the God of the patriarchs; it is not he who consecrates to this invisible God a particular place. The narrator insists on the divine initiative. It seems that the most suitable translation of קדשׁ in Exodus 3 must be something like “consecrated” or “devoted ground.” God has chosen the place of the meeting; He waits for Moses, and after having “prepared the ground,” He presents Himself to the shepherd and makes him part of His project of salvation.

Exodus 19—Holy Nation

In the next stage in God’s progressive revelation and also in the extension of holiness, Israel has come out of Egypt and is now camped before the mountain in the desert of Sinai (Exod. 19). In the narrative of this episode, the Lord speaks to Moses and commands him to “consecrate” the people (v. 10). Moses obeys. He comes down the mountain, where he has met God and received this communication from Him, and “consecrates” the people (v. 14). In fact, five forms of the root קדשׁ are found in Exodus 19 (vv. 6, 10, 14, 22, 23), making this an important development from Exodus 3.

Several different translations of the verb קַדֵּשׁ have been proposed: “sanctify” (The Original Bible), “cause to sanctify oneself” (New Jerusalem Bible 1973), “consecrate” (Dhorme11), “cause to be holy” (Gilbert12), and “declare holy” (Leenhardt13). We can agree here with the position of Gilbert against that of Leenhardt. The form is in the Piel stem, and the meaning is essentially Intensive-Factitive.14 This has to do with the causation or bringing about of a state: Moses brings the people into a consecrated or holy status.

At this point the notion of “sanctification” is overcharged with a moral sense in many expositions. Such a meaning cannot be justified here by reason of the context. In other respects, the translation “sanctify” the people, the priests, or the mountain, does not adequately convey the sense of the command given by God to Moses. The notion of consecration—more neutral in the first place—is more suitable.

What does God desire? He wants to get ready or prepare a meeting with the people of Israel under certain conditions. He presented Himself first to Moses in a spectacular manner. Before receiving the divine call, Moses must accomplish a rite. Now in Exodus 19, Moses plays the role of intermediary between God and the people. Likewise, in 19:23, Moses receives the order to consecrate (Piel קַדֵּשׁ) the mountain, which has been “delimited” or “marked off.”

Gilbert believes that “the notion of the holy” in 19:22-23 “is closer to the idea of taboo than that which appears in Ex 19:2-13.”[15] The verb קדשׁ, however, in relation to the mountain is in the same stem as in verses 10-14, where it is used in relation to the people. It is difficult to discover a semantic difference between two identical uses of the verb. Furthermore, according to the context, the “ban / interdiction / prohibition” (or the taboo) is not equivalent to consecration: “a consecrated mountain” is not “a forbidden mountain.” The interdiction is a consequence or result of the consecration, it does not define consecration itself. Consecrating the mountain is preparing this place for the coming of God. To do this, Moses must place boundaries there and order the people not to approach it.

Unlike Exodus 3, where God orders the fulfillment of a ritual on a consecrated place, here in Exodus 19 it is Moses who “consecrates” the people (19:10). Thus there is in this text a progression in comparison with the passage in Exodus 3. Moses is no longer a witness of consecration; he actively participates in this consecration. He does not just touch consecrated ground; he consecrates the people in the one case and the delimited mountain in the other.

The meaning of this consecration is defined by the context. In Exodus 3 the “consecrated mountain” appears as a place prepared, having become for a time a divine possession. In chapter 19 a consecrated people are a people ready to meet God, as verse 11 states, “that they may be ready for the third day.” The consecration of the people is a preparation. For Moses—who is clearly the subject of the verb קדשׁ in verse 10—consecrating the people is “to put them in a state to approach God.”[16] This preparation is effected by the practice of a ritual: washing the cloaks, which takes two days (vv. 10-11 and 14-15). According to the sequence of volitives, the washing follows the consecration and appears as a result. An element of purification is certainly present in this text, but one cannot equate consecration and purification in strict terms, and the root טהר (“purify”) is not used.

Are the people consecrated in the same manner as the consecrated mountain? A consecrated people—are they a people who belong to God? It seems that the context confirms this, likewise that the element of preparation predominates. Moses must declare to the people: “Be ready in three days. Don’t come near your wives” (v. 15). This order is certainly given for a precise reason. In “not coming near” their wives, the Israelites are ready “to come near” God. God wants to prepare the people for a very special meeting. Certainly Moses is not establishing a taboo; the text does not say that to have sexual relations is to move away from God. But God desires, for a special occasion, a special consecration. This abstinence is also found in 1 Samuel 21:5.

One discovers the idea of belonging and devotion connected to the notion of consecration at the beginning of Exodus 19, where verses 5-6 affirm clearly the purpose of God, less evident perhaps in verses 10-15 and 22-24. “You will be my personal treasure [sglh, an Amorite term] among all the peoples—since all the earth belongs to me—and you will be for me a royal priesthood and a holy nation” (vv. 5-6). Priests are persons devoted solely to the service of the deity.[17] Israel as a nation קָדוֹשׁ is a nation given access to the presence of Yahweh and devoted solely to the service and worship of the Lord. Moreover the statements in verses 5 and 6 are double. First, the call to be a holy nation is parallel to the call to be a royal priesthood, and second, the two designations “royal priesthood” and “holy nation” together constitute an explanation of what it means to be Yahweh’s personal treasure. The idea of belonging and that of consecration are closely related in these verses; they are also in the verses that follow.

Study of Exodus 19 does not support speaking of “separation,” as some like Leenhardt[18] and Michaeli[19] do, or of an impassable gulf, as Lefevre does, for whom “holiness is the impassable gulf which makes God inaccessible to the creature.”[20] Such meanings are not appropriate to the use of forms of קדשׁ in this text.

The ban on going up on the mountain does not imply a radical separation or barrier between the people and the mountain. On the contrary, the people are invited to participate in the theophany, not simply as spectators, but as consecrated. The place and the people are ready to receive God because they belong to Him. If Moses must fix impassable limits—as God Himself must do for Moses at the time of the burning bush—this is not to establish a radical separation between the people and God, but to indicate the distance that further remains between the people and God and to protect, in a certain manner, the Israelites. There is a gradation: the people are consecrated; they may approach and see, but only Moses and several privileged ones may be enveloped by the cloud. So then, the greater the consecration, the greater is the distance noticeably diminished. Consecration appears correctly in Exodus 19 as the opposite of separation.

In the HSCB notes to Exodus 19:9-25 Coover-Cox observes that the covenant-making at Sinai is compared to a suzerain-vassal treaty in the ancient Near East. She states:

The preparations for a meeting between the Lord and the Israelites continue the extended metaphor that compares the Lord to a great king issuing a covenant to his vassal. The Lord had chosen to come to Mount Sinai in a way designed to reveal His presence and to communicate with the Israelites, making it “private property,” where no one should expect to wander in and out oblivious to the wishes of the owner. For as long as the Lord visited that place, it was holy ground, an extension of His royal court. Coming there required a royal summons. It was not a casual meeting of equals.[21]

Isaiah 6—Yahweh As Holy

If “holy” means essentially “consecrated” or “devoted,” what then does it mean to apply this adjective to God? How is He consecrated or devoted? Isaiah 6 helps answer these questions.

Outline of Isaiah 6:1-13

I. Vision of Yahweh (6:1-4) 

II. Response of Isaiah (6:5-7) 

III. Commission of the Prophet (6:8-13)

God Is Awesome

Certain aspects of this text depict God as awesome and transcendent. Isaiah begins by saying that he saw the Lord (אֲ'דנָי), sitting upon a throne high and lifted up. God is exalted; He is the High King; the edges of His robe filled the temple (6:1). This not only expresses the awesome greatness of God but also clearly indicates that Isaiah was prostrate on the ground; this is why he could see only the edges or hem of God’s robe. This vision of God is similar to the theophany granted to the nobles of Israel when the covenant with Israel was ratified on Mount Sinai in Exodus 24. The nobles saw the God of Israel, but all that they reported seeing is bright blue lapis lazuli bricks under His feet (v. 10). They, too, were flat on the ground and were so awestruck that their eyes were raised no higher than the paving stones under God’s feet.

Isaiah 6:3 says further that the glory of the Lord filled the earth. When the tabernacle was completed in Exodus 40, a bright cloud designated as the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (vv. 34-35). Likewise, when Solomon built and dedicated the temple, the glory of the Lord filled the temple (1 Kings 8:10-11). Here in Isaiah’s vision, the glory of the Lord fills the earth. This indicates that the entire earth is His sanctuary, or temple, and that He rules the whole world. The seraphim describe Him, and whatever they are, their name means “burning ones.” They are beings of fire. In addition, the foundations of the door-posts shake and the place is filled with smoke. Earthquake, fire, and smoke clearly speak of the God of Sinai. In Abram’s vision in Genesis 15:17 God reveals Himself by means of a smoking firepot and blazing torch. In Exodus 3:2, which is a foretaste and precursor to Sinai, He reveals Himself to Moses in the burning bush. According to Exodus 19:16-19 God came on Mount Sinai accompanied by earthquake, fire, and smoke. He appeared similarly to Ezekiel in chapter 1 in clouds and fire. In Daniel 7:9-10, “his throne was flaming with fire and its wheels were all ablaze. A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him” (NIV). There is no question that the lord whom Isaiah saw is the God who made the covenant with Israel at Sinai.

God Is Holy

The concept that God is holy is not new. This idea is found before Isaiah’s time (Lev. 11:44-45; 20:3, 7, 26; Josh. 24:19; 1 Sam. 6:20; Ps. 22:4). Nonetheless, Isaiah’s favorite term for God is the Holy One of Israel/Jacob. He uses this term some 26 times; outside of the Book of Isaiah it is found only six times. The vision of God given to Isaiah at the beginning of his life and ministry as a prophet profoundly affected his life and radically shaped his message and ministry. Though recognition of Yahweh as a Holy God is not new, what is new is the particular message that God gives to Isaiah in verses 8-13.

In Isaiah 6 it is when God appears to the prophet that Isaiah hears the voice of the seraphim proclaiming the holiness of the Lord. This declaration accompanies the coming of God among men in the temple and attests His presence in the place of consecration. God appears in the place that belongs to Him, the sanctuary, but He does not stay in the holy of holies, the place that is most consecrated. Instead He lets Himself be seen by men in the front room of the temple, the great hall. This is evident from two or three facts in the text. The Hebrew word used here is הֵיכָל. In 1 Kings 6-8, the passage describing the construction of the temple, the word בַּיִת or “house” is used for the temple as a whole, which is divided into two rooms: the front room or great hall is called the הֵיכָל and elsewhere the holy place; the back room is called the דְּבִיר and later the holy of holies.[22] In Isaiah 6 the Lord is not in the דְּבִיר, or holy of holies, He is in the הֵיכָל, the front room, the great hall of His palace. Note that the standard term for the temple as a whole, בַּיִת, is used in verse 4 and clearly contrasts with הֵיכָל in verse 1.

Secondly, Isaiah says that the bases of the doorposts shook. This makes it absolutely clear that the Lord is in the front room, because Isaiah is at the doorway and would not have been able to see into the back room from the doorway. So while God is awesome in His majesty, His holiness does not mean that He is the “Totally Other,” nor does it speak of His separation. Just the opposite in fact—here God is coming to meet man (as in Exodus 3), which fits the central theme of this new section of Isaiah: Immanuel, that is, “God with us.”

Role Of The Seraphim

In addition, Isaiah sees the seraphim in his vision. It is as important to note what he does not see as to note what he does see. He sees seraphim and not cherubim. Normally images of the cherubim guarded access to the presence of God in the garden and the temple. Their wings protected the mercy seat of the ark, and they were on the curtains guarding the holy of holies. What is intended by the fact that Isaiah sees seraphim instead of cherubim? The English word “seraphim” is, in fact, not of English origin, but rather a loanword from Hebrew based on a rough transliteration of the plural form of the word שָׂרָק.

The word “saraph” is rare in the Hebrew Bible. It occurs in Numbers 21:6 and 8 and refers to fiery snakes, or serpents, that struck the Israelites. It also refers to a fiery snake in Deuteronomy 8:15, Isaiah 14:29, and 30:6. In the occurrences in Isaiah 14 and 30 the seraphim are specifically designated as winged serpents, which clearly connects them to the instances in Isaiah 6.[23] Finally we have the two occurrences in Isaiah 6 for a total of seven instances in the entire Hebrew Bible. Probably the word was transliterated instead of translated because the translators did not see how the seraphim here could be connected to the other occurrences where the word refers to snakes.

Just because they have feet, hands, and faces, however, does not mean that they cannot be snakes.[24] Pictures of winged snakes from both Egypt and Syria show them with feet, hands, and faces. According to Isaiah 14:29, a winged seraph is a symbol of a future Hebrew king. In fact, Hebrew seals, some of them royal, have winged snakes on them.[25]

If this interpretation is regarded as far-fetched, recall 2 Kings 18:4, a passage that describes King Hezekiah’s efforts to rid the temple worship of idols and idolatrous objects. One item mentioned is the bronze snake, the “saraph” made by Moses, which by this time had become an object of idolatrous worship to which the Israelites burned incense. Since Hezekiah became king in 715, this bronze snake was in the temple at the time of King Uzziah’s death in 740, when Isaiah was given this vision.

The seraphim constitute a direct allusion to Numbers 21:6, 8. Their purpose and role in the vision is to remind Isaiah and readers of when the Israelites complained in the desert about God’s great provisions in food and water. By complaining about His provision for them, the people were in reality saying that God was not completely devoted, and so they impugned His holiness. The people of Isaiah’s time were promoting a society full of social injustice and saying that God should hurry up and bring the day of judgment that He promised (Isa. 5:18-19). In this way they were saying He was not devoted to His justice and so impugned His holiness. Thus there is a clear parallel between the people of Isaiah’s time and the people who journeyed through the desert.

Such a meaning for “holy” is entirely consonant with uses of the word connected to Israel’s journey through the desert. Numbers 20:10-13 is an example: “So Moses took the staff from the Lord’s presence, just as he commanded him. He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, ‘Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?’ Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank. But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, ‘Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them.’ These were the waters of Meribah, where the Israelites quarreled with the Lord and where he was proved holy among them” (NIV).

Moses’ and Aaron’s act of disobedience did not treat Yahweh as holy—as completely devoted to the job of bringing the people out of Egypt and into the Promised Land. Even so, the actions of Yahweh did demonstrate precisely the fact that He was fully consecrated and devoted to His promise and task.

Another example similar to this is Isaiah 63:10, which recalls that during the journey through the wilderness the people of Israel grieved God’s holy spirit. The term “spirit” speaks of someone as he or she is empowered,[26] and in the context, it is the messenger of His presence who mediated God’s care for the people in providing protection from cold and heat through the cloud and also food and water. Yet the people constantly questioned that God was devoted to His promise to bring them through and complained about His care and provisions for them.

In the vision of Isaiah, the seraphim cover themselves as a sign of respect and submission, and Isaiah is conscious of his impurity. He is not ready to meet God: he is a man of unclean lips, and he dwells in the midst of a people of unclean lips; he ought not to see the King, the Lord of Armies. The fear that inspires Isaiah is not a fear of holiness. He does not say, “My eyes have seen the Holy One,” but rather, “My eyes have seen the King, Yahweh of Armies.” As in Exodus 3, it is not the holiness of God that inspires fear, but the vision of God Himself. In seeing God, the prophet dreads to be crushed by the majesty of the Sovereign King, and once purified, he does not hesitate to meet God in verse 8.

The fact that the word “holy” is repeated three times is not related to the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity; it is simply a form of extreme emphasis in the Hebrew language (cf. Jer. 7:4, “temple”; Jer. 22:29, “land”; Ezek. 21:27 [Heb. 32], “ruin”; and Isa. 6:3, 4, “holy”).

What does it mean for Yahweh to be called holy? Hermeneutics requires, surely, above all, attention to the context. And the context that is determinative for Isaiah 6 is found in chapter 5, where literary analysis demonstrates the centrality of verse 16:[27]

[15] So humanity is humbled and mankind is brought low, and the eyes of the haughty will be brought low, 
[16] but the Lord of Hosts is exalted in justice, and the Holy God shows himself holy in righteousness.[28]

Now in Isaiah 6:3, the repetition of the word three times means that God is absolutely holy. “Holy” means that He is completely devoted and in this particular context, devoted to His justice and righteousness, which characterizes His instruction of the people of Israel in the covenant, showing them not only what it means to be devoted to Him but also what it means to treat each other in a genuinely human way, in short, social justice. The holiness of God is clearly seen in Isaiah 5:16.

Isaiah’s response confirms the understanding that the basic meaning of holiness is being devoted. Holiness is not identical with moral purity, although there is a connection. 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. When he sees the vision of the Lord and hears the chorus of the seraphim, Isaiah cries out, “Woe is me, I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips.” Isaiah does not say that he is impure or that the people are impure. He says that his lips and the lips of the people are impure. This refers to all his words and to all the words of the people. These words stand in contrast to the words of the seraphim. Isaiah and the people cannot participate in the worship led by the seraphim. The confession of unclean lips is the reason for the cry, “Woe is me, for I am ruined / I am undone.” The verb translated “undone” can also be translated, “Woe is me, for I am silenced.”[29] Because his lips and the lips of the covenant people are filled with words challenging God’s justice and impugning His holiness, they are unclean and not able to join in the chorus of worship with the seraphim. They have been silenced and may not join the true worship of God. One can and ought to apply this to the church and consider whether the church’s failure to implement God’s righteous standards may silence worship.

An action from one of the seraphim brings about cleansing of his speech and atonement. One of the seraphim takes a burning coal from the altar using tongs and brings it to Isaiah and causes it to touch his lips. What is used to purify Isaiah is exactly what is promised to the people of Judah as a whole in 1:31, 5:5, and 6:13—fire. Thus, the purification of Isaiah is a forecast or harbinger of the coming judgment that will purify the people as a whole. The atonement is also an act of divine grace. The fire comes from the altar. This indicates that atonement is made by sacrifice and not by achievements on the part of Isaiah.

God Is King

It is important to remember that behind the human king in Israel stands the real king, Yahweh Himself. Near the end of Samuel’s life the people desired a king like the nations surrounding them (1 Sam. 8:5-7). This is a human wielding absolute power for the purposes of self-aggrandizement. The Lord told Samuel, “It is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.” When God made the covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7, the purpose of this covenant was for the king to fulfill the earlier plan prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. The Israelite king must represent the divine King. And that is precisely the point in both Isaiah 6:1 and 6:5. Isaiah was given this vision in the year that King Uzziah died (v. 1). At such a time there would be a change of regime. It might be an opportunity for those falsely imprisoned to be retried and released under the dawning of a new era of social justice. The title given in verse 5 to Yahweh is not simply a statement that Yahweh is king. In fact the Lord is referred to in the usual way in which the human kings in Israel are referred to in 1 and 2 Kings. It is like saying, “in the year that President Obama finished his second term of office I saw the real president, the Lord of Armies.”

Commission

Isaiah heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?” (Isa. 6:8). Why did the Lord use the plural? Why did He say, “Who will go for us?” What does this mean? This does not mean that the faith of Israel was in many gods, nor is it a remnant of an old polytheism. It is not even an indication of the Trinity, which is not clearly revealed until the coming of Jesus Christ. It is an expression that would have been understood in the ancient Near East to refer to the fact that the heavenly King was speaking in the divine court or council and Isaiah the prophet was given access to that council. It indicates that Isaiah was an authorized agent who really did know the mind and will of God and was commissioned to bring it to the people.

The commission Isaiah was given seems strange. The people will really hear but not gain insight. They will really see but not know at all. Their heart, the center of the place where they feel, think, and make decisions will not be granted insight or understanding. It seems crazy to send a person on a mission that will fail. It seems cold and hard-hearted to prevent repentance and restoration. Yahweh is, however, describing for Isaiah not the content of his message but (by way of metonymy) the effect and results of his preaching. It will harden hearts (vv. 9-10), and it will lead to the devastation of the land and the people (vv. 11-12). The reason for this is clear. The people have already rejected the divine message. The first five chapters of Isaiah detail their arrogance and indifference. The result of Isaiah’s preaching will be to confirm the response they have already made and to bring about the judgment that has already been predicted. These verses, then, show that judgment is certain and inevitable and there will be no situation like Jonah’s preaching to Nineveh, where the people repented and God reversed the judgment. These verses are also a reminder that the results of preaching and witness are in God’s hands, and not the messenger’s.

It is now possible to explain why the encounter opens with a vision of God’s transcendence. Why is it that at the beginning Isaiah sees Yahweh as exalted and awesome? He sees Yahweh as high and exalted because He is beyond manipulation. He sees Yahweh sitting on His throne for judgment, and there will be no possibility for influencing this to anyone’s advantage. It is clear from the outset that no one is in a palsy-walsy situation with this judge, and no one has the means to reach Him and influence His mind on the verdict. All must await His sentence. He is truly above and beyond everyone. Sentence has been passed on the nation in heaven; Isaiah’s preaching will put it into effect on earth.

And yet there is a hope, even though it is extremely slender. This is expressed in verse 13. At first the picture of judgment is bleak. After the devastation and death only a tenth will remain. And even this surviving tenth will be subjected to further judgment. There are a number of problems in this verse and scholars differ greatly on the details.[30] The general picture, however, is roughly the same. It may refer to two great trees just outside one of the gates of Jerusalem which were burned. All that was left was the blackened trunk and branches stripped bare. It seemed that the tree was dead and could only be cut down and the stump taken out. And yet there was life and new growth came. In the Old Testament, kings or kingdoms are pictured as majestic, tall, stately trees (for example, Ezek. 31; Dan. 9). The Davidic dynasty seems to be a tree that is dead. And yet, somehow, out of this trunk will spring new life and the promises of God will be fulfilled. We see here the messianic hope of Isaiah. It may be that true Israel will be reduced to one faithful person before the rebuilding process begins.

Conclusion

This is only the beginning of a fresh study of the word “holy” in the Old Testament. Interestingly, if one begins to analyze the counterpart in Greek, the word ἅγιος, the basic meaning given is also “devoted.”[31] This needs close attention.

Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology states that “God’s holiness means that he is separated from sin and devoted to seeking his own honor.”[32] Further reading yields a discussion that is traditional, so that the use of the word “devoted” in his opening sentence is confused with the notion of separation. Indeed, systematic theologians of the last five hundred years have not been helpful in explaining what Scripture teaches on this topic due to reliance on doubtful etymologies and connection of the term with moral purity and divine transcendence. Purity is a result of being holy in the biblical sense, but is not the meaning of the word. Nor is the word connected with divine transcendence, however much this idea is otherwise made plain in Scripture.[33]

The basic meaning of the word is “consecrated” or “devoted.” In Scripture it operates within the context of covenant relationships and expresses commitment. The notion of divine transcendence in Isaiah 6 is there to demonstrate that the holiness of Yahweh—His dedication to social justice in this particular situation—cannot be manipulated, and judgment is certain. That explains the coincidence of holiness and divine transcendence in this text.

One day in the barnyard, the hen and the pig were discussing the difference in meaning between the words “involvement” and “commitment.” The pig told the hen, “When the farmer comes for breakfast tomorrow, you’re only involved, but I’m committed.” The cross is a revelation of the divine holiness.

Notes

1. Translations of Scripture in this article are the writer’s, unless noted otherwise.
2. Connections between the term “holy” and the events of the Exodus are explored below in sections about the calling of Moses in Exodus 3 and the calling of Israel in Exodus 19.
3. Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725. Volume 3: The Divine Essence and Attributes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 499.
4. W. W. Baudissin, “Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im AT,” in Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Fr. Wilh. Grunow, 1878).
5. T. E. McComiskey states, “The suggestion that the root qdsh is derived from an original biliteral qd (“cut”) is attractive but tenuous. . . . The meaning “to separate” is favored by many scholars, but the fact that qdsh rarely, if ever, occurs in a secular sense makes any positive conclusion in this regard difficult because of the limited evidence on which to base philological comparison” (“קָדַשׁ [qādash],” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, and B. K. Waltke [Chicago: Moody, 1908], 2:786-87).
6. Claude Bernard Costecalde, Aux origines du sacré biblique (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1986).
7. Claude Bernard Costecalde, “Sacré ” in Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément Tome, vol. 10 (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1985), columns 1346-1415.
8. J. Muilenburg, “Holiness,” in TheInterpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 2:618.
9. The sentences are asyndetic rather than connected by waw.
10. G. del Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, Handbook of Oriental Studies 67 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 695, where qds̆ is attributed to the citadel of Baal = “the mountain of Baal,” in KTU 1.16.I:7, 1.16.II:46.
11. E. Dhorme, L’Évolution Religieuse d’Israël. Vol. 1: La Religion des Hébreux Nomades (Brussels: Nouvelle Société d’Éditions, 1937), 309.
12. Maurice Gilbert, “Le Sacré dans l’Ancien Testament,” in L’Expression du Sacré dans les Grandes Religions, ed. Julien Ries, Herbert Sauren, et al. (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1983), 1:210-211.
13. Franz-J. Leenhardt, La Notion de Sainteté dans l’Ancien Testament (Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1929), 44.
14. See E. Jenni, Das hebräische Pi‛el: Syntaktisch-semasiologische Untersuchung einer Verbalform im Alten Testament (Zürich: EVZ-Verlag, 1968), and idem, “Aktionsarten und Stammformen im Althebräischen: Das Pi‛el in verbesserter Sicht,” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 13/1 (2000): 67-90, and Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990).
15. Gilbert, “Le Sacré dans l’Ancien Testament,” 1:263.
16. Georges Auzou, De la Servitude au Service: Étude du Livre de l’Exode (Paris: Éditions de l’Orante, 1961), 254. Auzou’s words in the original are as follows: “« Sanctifier » ou « consacrer », v. 10, c’est mettre en état d’approcher Dieu.”
17. A full treatment of the details and exegetical issues can be found in Peter J. Gentry and Steven Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012).
18. Leenhardt, La Notion de Sainteté dans l’Ancien Testament, 19-23.
19. Frank Michaeli, Le Livre de l’Exode (Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1974), 166.
20. A. Lefèvre, “Saint est le Seigneur,” in Grands Thèmes Bibliques, ed. M. E. Boismard et al. (Paris: Éditions de Feu Nouveau, 1958), 52. Lefèvre’s own words are as follows: “La sainteté est l’abîme infranchissable qui rend Dieu inaccessible à la créature.”
21. Dorian G. Coover-Cox, “Exodus,” in HCSB Study Bible, ed. Edwin A. Blum and Jeremy Royal Howard (Nashville: Holman, 2010), 131.
22. For הֵיכָל see 1 Kings 6:5, 17; 7:50; and הֵיכַל הַבַּיִת in 1 Kings 6:3. For דְּבִיר see 1 Kings 6:5, 16, 19-23, 31; 7:49, 8:6, 8. The term for the whole, בַּיִת, occurs approximately 46 times in 1 Kings 6-8. The דְּבִיר is also designated as the “holy of holies” in 1 Kings 6:16, 8:6. The הֵיכָל is designated as the “holy place” in 1 Kings 8:8, 10.
23. Annals from King Esarhaddon of Assyria describe his journey across the desert, and in the same spot where Israel encountered the fiery snakes, he mentions strange creatures with batting wings (James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts: Relating to the Old Testament [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955], 292b).
24. Out of respect the seraphim cover their faces with one of their three pairs of wings and their feet with another pair. It is possible that the context may require the meaning “pudenda” for feet here (HALOT, s.v. רֶגֶל), so that covering the feet means “covering their genitals.” According to Exodus 20:26; 28:42, Israelite priests contrasted with priests in the ancient Near East in that they were not to expose themselves in worship of Yahweh. The action of the seraphim may be similar to this.
25. For interpretation of the seraphim as snakes, see K. R. Joines, “Winged Serpents in Isaiah’s Inaugural Vision,” Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967): 410-15; J. J. M. Roberts, “Solomon’s Jerusalem and Zion Tradition,” in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology, ed. A. G. Vaughn and A. E. Killebrew (Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 165-66, especially H. Cazelles, “La Vocation d’Isaie (Ch. 6) et le Rites Royaux,” in Homenaje a Juan Prado, ed. L. Alvarez Verdes and E. J. Alonso Hernandez (Madrid: C.S.I.C., 1975), 89-108, and Othmar Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4 (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 84/85; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977). See for example images 11 and 127 in Nahman Avigad, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, rev. Benjamin Sass (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1997). Image 11 definitely belonged to a royal personage in Israel. See also Benjamin Sass and Christoph Uehlinger, eds., Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 125 (Fribourg/Göttingen: University Press Fribourg/Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1993).
26. Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 32-39; James M. Hamilton Jr., God’s Indwelling Presence (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2006), 39-40; and idem, “God with Men in the Torah,” Westminster Theological Journal 65 (2003): 113-33.
27. See Peter J. Gentry, “Isaiah and Social Justice,” Journal of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary 12 (Spring 2013): 1-15.
28. Translation that of H. G. M. Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1-27 (New York: T & T Clark, 2006), 1:356-57.
29. L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3rd ed., edited by W. Baumgartner, J. J. Stamm, and B. Hartmann (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967-1995), s.v. I דמם and III דמם.
30. For a thorough treatment of the problems in the text, see Dominique Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2, Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 41-44.
31. H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. with revised supplement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), s.v. ἅγιος.
32. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 203.
33. Although holiness and transcendence are both in the context of Isaiah 6, it is false to assume that they are equivalent. They are connected or related in that the one who is devoted to social justice is the supreme judge and cannot be bribed, bought off, or overpowered.