In another thread the topic of sin is tackled quite extensively. There are so many words that we throw around that have come to mean virtually nothing to anyone. I loved the discussion on sin, and I am growing from it.
So now let me throw out some thoughts on holiness. These thoughts come via a very Trinitarian lens. It is the lens through which I unapologetically view the life which I have been given. The benefit of this site is that other people view life through different lenses and they challenge my thoughts and I get a chance to grow.
With that premamble let me throw out a thesis and support it a little and then I will get to sit back read and pick other’s brains and hear a bunch of different stories that will help me fill out my own.
Holiness is a term God uses to describe Himself. It is something he has urged us to be. Not to become, but to be. It is something that the NT writers said was a gift and a goal.
At its root the word means to be “cut off from” to be “wholly other”. There was to the Hebrew an air of majestic mystery associated with the word. Great pains were taken in the Jewish worship rites to allow for the Holiness of God. I do not assume that it all needs to be rehashed here.
I lay all that out only because I want to see if a 2006 curve ball might help us grasp the idea more practically. Please notice I did not say more completely or correctly.
I propose that holiness is most accurately measured by the quality of relationships one has — both vertically and horizontally. I propose that the measure of holiness can be equated to the fruit of the Spirit and that the fruit of the Spirit is all about healthy relationships.
I like apocryphal stories and I heard one about a man that died and was told that he had an opportunity to visit Hell on his way into heaven. (Please don’t take this story too literally.) He got on an elevator that went down to the very bowels of hell. When he got off the elevator he saw an ornate banquet room countless starving people surrounding the table heaped with food. The people were crying and sobbing. They were gaunt and dying with death never coming to relieve their suffering. The man turned to his guide and said, “So hell is a place where people can see the food and not eat it.” The guide said, “No, they can only eat the food with four foot chopsticks though and they can’t reach the food to their mouths.”
The man couldn’t bear the sight of such suffering and asked if they could make post haste to heaven. They climbed back on the elevator to go up and when they got off at the floor marked heaven and got off the elevator, the man was amazed because the room was almost identical to the one they had just left. It was the same banquet room with the same table and the same food. but here there was laughter, joy and singing. People kept eating and never got full. Wine washed down sumptous bites of the most incredible offerings and the man turned to his guide and said, “So the difference between heaven and hell is that in heaven they don’t have four foot chop sticks?” His guide turned to him smiling and said, “No, my friend. They have four foot chopsticks here too. The difference is that here the people feed each other.”
I was going to let the story close the post, but maybe I should try to flesh out how my Trinitarian thoughts get me to this conclusion.
Before anything else was God was. He was the First Cause. The author of all that is. And John in his Epistle states “God is love.” Notice he doesn’t state, God became love after He created something. No, God is love.
People may want to argue the Biblical basis for the Trinity and I grant that it is a theological construct but I will hold fast to the idea that it is a Biblical theological construct that allows me to make the most sense of the world in which I live.
Dr. Larry Crabb used to ask his students what it was like before anything was created. the answers would come back: “dark,” “quiet,” “lonely,” etc… and Dr. Crabb would say, “No, it was an eternal party.”
God created us to join a party that was already in progress — a party where everyone fed everyone else and no one wanted for anything. A party where there was complete intimacy, complete vulnerability and complete ecstacy. (I can address why I argue for these three in particular later on.) We went through the fall and we can read the other thread to grapple with that, but basically the party for us came to a grinding halt and the rest of Scripture is a story of God getting us to come back to the party. (OK major oversimplification. But I think it works)
I am fairly new to this bloggin business and I just had a new thought that is so wholly extra biblical I chuckled to myself, but I am tempted to say life as we live it here is the pre-party to the eternal party we get to enjoy a little later on…I’ll have to think more about that one.
So back to holiness. The “otherness” that we are to exhibit is the agape of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is distinct from the co-dependency that 12 step al-anons address, which is simply another form of selfishness. It is truly — other centered loving. That is a call I can embrace and proclaim. Who wouldn’t want to be holy.
So now please…set me straight.
holy through relationship?
Traditionally holiness is very connected to ideas of separation. The incarnation reverses the process as God enters the world . The world gets transformed and included in God’s holiness as God indwells the world.
We receive the Holy Spirit, we are in Christ, we are children of God. God makes us holy by Himself coming into us, accepting us, declaring us cleansed of sin and henceforth righteous - righteous with His righteousness, lovingly grafted into the vine and now His own body!
Relationships and holiness - a very interesting insight…
Live to serve : Serve to live
Holiness as togetherness or apartness?
Stephen, isn’t there a bit of a contradiction between these two ways of thinking about holiness - as loving relationality and as separation (as samlcarr suggests) essentially from that which is unclean or sinful? Is the point that the sort of community that is generated around the presence of the living God is necessarily separated from unclean or sinful society?
What would that mean in practice? Holiness is a difficult concept to deal with in the abstract. So without resorting to fable, can you suggest what ‘holiness as a party’ would actually look like and how would it differ from other forms of relationality?
And can you really connect this with biblical notions of holiness which, I would have thought, have more to do with otherness and an often destructive response to that which is unclean?
Yes
Andrew,
Have you ever heard the phrase, “It is weird to be normal and therefore normal is weird”? I think that is kind of what is goiing on here.
In a different thread you posted that you felt we needed to read the creation story through a Trinitarian lens. I am trying to make a similar point. We need to see holiness through a Trinitarian lens.
If Creation is all about an invitation to eternal relationship and the fall is all about death and the destruction of relationship, (See the thread on “A doctrine of sin for people who don’t know the word.”) then the otherness of God is, at least in part, his perfect relationship with Himself. In the same vein, the sameness of creation is its broken relationships. If this is true, to be “other” would mean to take oneself out of the sameness of creation — its isolating self-centeredness, and move God to the center of our thinking and lives (this is made possible through the cross). This restores the vertical relationship (or allows Him to do so depending on how you want to phrase it). And this is nothing short of being holy.
I am arguing then that to be “other” — or to be holy means to be in agape relationship with God and all he has placed in our world. This is an impossibility apart from the working of the Spirit in our lives and is a miracle when achieved.
Gal 5:16-23 states, “16 So I advise you to live according to your new life in the Holy Spirit. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves. 17 The old sinful nature loves to do evil, which is just opposite from what the Holy Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are opposite from what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, and your choices are never free from this conflict. 18 But when you are directed by the Holy Spirit, you are no longer subject to the law.
19 When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, your lives will produce these evil results: sexual immorality, impure thoughts, eagerness for lustful pleasure, 20 idolatry, participation in demonic activities, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, divisions, the feeling that everyone is wrong except those in your own little group, 21 envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other kinds of sin. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
22 But when the Holy Spirit controls our lives, he will produce this kind of fruit in us: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control. NLT
I am convinced that this passage is a call to holiness though the word “holiness” is never mentioned. I am equally convinced that this passage is all about renewed and restored relationships which are only possible through the Holy Spirit.
By changing the language, I hope that all I am doing is changing an emphasis. What I think I am doing though, is challenging some deep seated language issues that have gotten in the way of an achievement of holiness. Please keep pressing and asking questions though.
Stephen
changing language
Mathew 5:38
and Luke 6:32
I am particularly keen on getting your thoughts on Matt 5:48 (par?) Luke 6:36 where Jesus substitutes the word “perfect/merciful” in the usual quote from Leviticus 11 or 19, “holy” (as quoted e.g. in 1 Pet 1:16)
It looks to me as though Jesus has deliberately reinterpreted the meaning of ‘holy’ in these passages, specifically moving us away from the idea of separation into a context of inclusiveness, mercy and love.
There may also be an eschatological sense invoked by the future tense and “perfect”…
Live to serve : Serve to live
perfect and holy
Sam, I smiled and groaned reading your post cause you looked at things from an angle which I had not considered. I knew I had some homework to do.
You stated, “I am particularly keen on getting your thoughts on Matt 5:48 (par?) Luke 6:36 where Jesus substitutes the word “perfect/merciful” in the usual quote from Leviticus 11 or 19, “holy” (as quoted e.g. in 1 Pet 1:16)”
I am going to only look at the Matthew passage as the Lukan passage is so similar it probably won’t require additional comment.
First the Stongs definitions:NT:5046 teleios (tel’-i-os); from NT:5056; complete (in various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character, etc.); neuter (as noun, with NT:3588) completeness: KJV - of full age, man, perfect.NT:5056 telos (tel’-os); from a primary tello (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly, the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally, figuratively or indefinitely], result [immediate, ultimate or prophetic], purpose); specifically, an impost or levy (as paid):KJV - + continual, custom, end (-ing), finally, uttermost. Compare NT:5411.
In contrast see the definition for holiness:
NT:40 hagios (hag’-ee-os); from hagos (an awful thing) [compare NT:53, NT:2282]; sacred (physically, pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially, consecrated): KJV - (most) holy (one, thing), saint
Having led with the differences the million dollar question is, “Are the two words interchangeable at certain points merely showing different emphasis?” The answer surely must be a decided “maybe”.
Having dispensed with the initial formalities of definitions etc…I was in a Bible Study last night that was looking at the distrurbing Psalm 5. We’ll pick up at vs 4 without losing context…
Ps 5:4-12 “4 O God, you take no pleasure in wickedness;you cannot tolerate the slightest sin. 5 Therefore, the proud will not be allowed to stand in your presence,for you hate all who do evil. 6 You will destroy those who tell lies.The LORD detests murderers and deceivers. 7 Because of your unfailing love, I can enter your house;with deepest awe I will worship at your Temple. 8 Lead me in the right path, O LORD,or my enemies will conquer me.Tell me clearly what to do,and show me which way to turn. 9 My enemies cannot speak one truthful word.Their deepest desire is to destroy others.Their talk is foul, like the stench from an open grave.Their speech is filled with flattery. 10 O God, declare them guilty.Let them be caught in their own traps.Drive them away because of their many sins,for they rebel against you. 11 But let all who take refuge in you rejoice;let them sing joyful praises forever.Protect them,so all who love your name may be filled with joy. 12 For you bless the godly, O LORD,surrounding them with your shield of love. “NLT
I underlined the exact passage I want to address here to tie back to Matthew 5. These words do not exactly describe a God I am sure I want to know and worship. I struggle with that. I know that David lived at a different time with different rules but it is times like these that I struggle with the whole “Holy God” thing. Notice, God doesn’t simply hate the sin… He hates the sinner. I don’t do well here. Needless to say we had an interesting study…
This Psalm was used primarily during morning sacrifice by either a Priest or an individual. Please remember for the Hebrews the Book of Psalms functioned as a kind of Book of Common Prayer. David is talking primarily about his enemies throughout this Psalm, but is keenly aware that before the sacrifice is made everyone is at enmity with God. None are righteous. Everyone is guilty. According to David’s thinking we need to say before sacrifice is made, “God hates everyone…” And yet at this point David states, “Because of your unfailing love, I can enter your house;with deepest awe I will worship at your Temple.” At this point all I can do is pause and wonder… God hated me and yet loved me so I could spend time in his crib! Surely this is too marvelous for me it is beyond all that I can fathom, for surely I don’t love this way…
And so we turn back to Matt 5:43-48 43 “You have heard that the law of Moses says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. 44 But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! 45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and on the unjust, too. 46 If you love only those who love you, what good is that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. 47 If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that. 48 But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect. NLT
We are called to love the way that God loved, by loving those whom we hate. It is no big deal to love our friends and our family. But God says, “Love the pedaphile who raped your daughter or son. Love the people that broke into your car and stole your stereo and sportcoat. Love the guy on the motorway that is driving like an idiot and nearly caused you to wreck. Love your ex who is now happily involved with a guy she cheated with. Love the husband that beat you and your kids…love, love, love.” In this way you are perfect — complete, a finished product — just like me.
This is an inhuman task. If to be holy means to be cut off from as we have all agreed. This is to be holy, for know one does this. There is as much left unsaid as has been said at this point but if you’ll pardon me, I need to spend some time on my knees wondering at this God who loved enough not to hate me. Who loved enough to forgive me. Who simply loved enough…
Stephen
Prayer
God hasn’t changed. But, our understanding of who He is had better be a bit better after He sent His Son to us.
In any case I would not give uncritical theological weight to what David is here saying. This is David’s prayer, expressing David’s opinions and these may or may not be correct.
God certainly hates sin. I don’t believe that He has ever hated sinners for if, as you rightly point out, He had hated us so much, He would never have been willing to pay such a price to redeem us.
I guess I just disagree with David here. God’s love is just too amazing.
But, getting back to the question of holiness as separation, my sense in the NT is that separation from sin is not the end that God has in sight for us, though it may be the beginning. He wants us to go out and love in His name. Paul says that he has been set apart for the gospel - Rom 1:1
Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near”, the same thoughts are again echoed in Heb 13:1-17 and in the context of the “ministry of reconciliation” in 2Cor 5.
My conclusion? Holiness in the new covenant is exactly what you have been arguing for; it’s the same as living as our Lord showed us how to live: loving lives of sacrificial service to one another.
Live to serve : Serve to live
sometimes it is right to hate
I was going to let this thread fade into the sunset, but I can’t. Before I go any further however, let me say that we are agreed that holiness is as much “to redemptive love” as it is “away from sin and death.”
Let me also say that you may be right about David being wrong about God, but I doubt it. This Psalm became a part of the Hebrew understanding and worship of God. It was repeated day after day year after year. It wass part of the fabric of the Jewish understanding of who God was/is, and it is consistent with God’s commands earlier in the OT to destroy whole tribes and ethnicities. We don’t have to like or understand it.
That is the problem with the whole modernist movement. They systemitized the paradoxes in the Scriptures, and explained the inconsistencies away. I have had to learn that God refuses to fit insid any box I try to construct for him, and His words to us don’t always seem to agree with each other. I have to be OK with that.
Clearly there are people that are worthy of hate. We can list some of the more famous ones: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and countless others. Others are less well known but in the States we now have sexual predator lists showing the places where released sexual predators that raped little girls, little boys, or adults now live. Some people are worthy of hate. It is not just their actions. There are some I have met that have no — and I mean no — redeeming qualities.
But as I pointed out in Psalm 5. In spite of the fact there was no one that deserved God’s mercy or favor — because of God’s unfailing love — David could enter God’s courts. Later in the NT we read, “all who will may enter…” and then in the passage you listed for me, Jesus himself gives the pattern, It is easy to love your neighbors or your buddies. Everyone does this. I am telling you, “Love your enemies…be perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Now that is holiness…Love always wins.
Stephen
glib
Yes Stephen, I agree - God doesn’t fit into our neat little theological boxes. Frankly, I didn’t get the point that you were making the first time round and hence my glib little reply! I really don’t have to think of those that I find unloveable, my own sinfulness is bad enough for a Holy God to hate me! So, God’s love is amazing and He does call us to the same love.
Still, I don’t go all the way with you as far as your understanding of Psalm 5 and the call to destruction of entire ethnicities. My reading is a little bit more cynical as to the human elements involved.
Live to serve : Serve to live