| Sep. 26th, 2009 @ 09:07 am Holiness |
|---|
To quote a classic movie: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
No, really - I've come to the conclusion that the modern church as a general rule has no real conception of what the word "Holy" actually means. So, to illustrate the point, take a moment to try to define exactly what "Holiness" means... You see, I told you so.
Most of the time when I have asked anyone this question of theologically educated individuals, two answers come out. First their is the tautological answer that "Holiness is 'set-apartness'." When I ask them what exactly this means, they typically say something amounting to "absolute moral purity" (occasionally with ideas of the numinous mixed in). Of course, this is more than a little a bit suspect since "moral purity" is what "righteousness" means; and both Hebrew and Greek have entirely different words for the concepts of "righteousness" versus "Holiness." Even books that I have seen titled "Holiness" come to no better conclusion than this; and Carson at the recent Ligonier conference offers little concrete idea of what exactly it actually is. (Given that this attribute is the most centrally defining attribute of God, I furthermore believe that it is essential to obtain a proper understanding of this idea. Not to mention Heb 12:14)
I think that a couple of words from ancient Hebrew provide a particularly useful illustration how the biblical concept of Holiness differs from its typical current usage. Firstly, the Hebrew word for "holy" is "qadash" (קדשׁ). Now there are two very interesting derivative words in Hebrew - kä·dashe' and ked·ā·shä' which mean a sodomite and a harlot respectively - rather difficult to see the relation between "absolute moral purity" and "prostitute," no? But the link behind this related words is straightforward enough: prostitution (both homosexual & heterosexual) were religious temple activities of the ancient religions. In a very real way, these prostitutes were set-apart, "holy," unto the service of their (morally repugnant) god.
The ancients use "holy" as a general descriptor of deities and things dedicated ("consecrated"/"set-apart") unto the deity; i.e. temples, priests, sacrifices, etc. I think that it is noteworthy that we christians as ("holy ones") are called all of these things. And in this we are brought back to the first perfectly correct but rather more practically mysterious idea of Holiness as "set-apartness."
There are two key points to any biblical concept of Holiness:
(1) God is called "Holy" as an intrinsic and defining attribute (indeed "Holy, Holy, Holy" - Is 6:3- which to the Hebraic mind is a triple amplification of this attribute)
(2) We are both called "Holy" ("saints") and called to be "Holy" as a command, and specifically to be Holy according to the manner in which ("kata") He is Holy (1 Pet 1:15-16). Therefore, whatever God's Holiness is, it must be something that we can qualitatively (though certainly not quantitatively) share.
Simply diving in from the words "set-apartness" sometimes has lead to description of the Holiness of God as something like "otherworldness and separateness;" something akin to a statement of the fact that He is "separate" from the world. However, it is unclear how this type of concept applies to the "Holiness" intended for God's people.
Now there are two ways to be "set apart" one is by possessive claim and the other is by dedication. That is, a thing can be "set apart" under claim of possession by some agent - in this sense my car is "set apart" as mine. In the other sense, an item may be reserved for some specific purpose - a retirement fund is "set apart" for retirement. Both of these senses of use are perhaps pertinent to an understanding of Holiness but I believe that it is more specifically the second which corresponds to the biblical understanding of the concept.
I propose then the following concept of "Holiness": God is dedicated to His metaphysical centrality (His glory) as the most fundamental and important "fact" in all of reality - this is His central dedication, His "Holiness." So too is it ours, as we uphold God's metaphysical centrality in our actional philosophy then we are dedicated to this reality and "Holy." To borrow expression from Chuck Missler - It is not simply that God should be "number one" of your list; He should be "number one" on a list of one. We are then "holy" as we dedicate ourselves only to this truth so that all other matters are of importance only as a corollary to this central truth. As such, we might equivalently state that Holiness is fundamentally the polar inverse of idolatry.
That is, reality is "God centric" so that God's metaphysical centrality is of utmost importance in all the universe. It is also of utmost importance to Him and could not be otherwise. Any denial of this, direct or implicit, any lack of honor and acknowledgement which it should receive is idolatry. He is the central "fact" from which all reality derives. This immediately makes clearer the meaning of all the scriptural statements spoken into a pagan world of the uniqueness of God's Holiness. To the ancient pagan religions "holiness" was more an attribute which flowed from the gods than an intrinsic attribute within them (even the Semitic goddess Anath who had the unusual title of "qudshu" ~ "holy one" seems to have this title mostly because she was the prostitutionary consort of the gods). And this makes sense, despite being numinous and morally judgmental, the pagan pantheons were not central to reality, they existed within reality as a pantheon of conflicted superbeings. Thus do the biblical author's obsession with "Holiness" make sense, the God YHWH is fundamentally "Holy" in a way that no other pantheonic "deity" could claim.
From this understanding, we can see that the concept of Holiness presents a "grand unified theory" to the christian life. All other things are a corollary to this single, most basic truth. If we are fundamentally dedicated ("Holy") to Him, then we will be extensions of His reality. We will be loving because He is loving and in the same way. All other sin - greed, lust, violence, malice, deceit - are merely actional outworkings of an underlying idolatry. Something else has become more personally important than God, and so we deny the character of God in our actions to seek this other idolatrous goal. Holiness is not a description of "moral purity;" "moral purity" is a derivative effect of Holiness.
 |
|  |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
nuallan's journal
