Forgive me now as I indulge in a little armchair linguistics with the help of Strong's online. Holy in the Old Testament comes from the Hebrew word "Qadosh", meaning "set apart for a special purpose". The New Testament word that gets translated as "Holy" is the Greek "hagios". This has a good meaning too. It connotes "different" or "otherness". But the technical definition that Strong's gives is great: "different from the world because like God". So consecration is similar. It comes from the Greek "Hagiazó". Biggest different is hagios is a adjective; hagiazó is a verb. Joshua 3:5 sees the Lord commanding them to consecrate themselves. I Timothy 4:5 has Paul telling Timothy that everything that is received with thanksgiving is good because its consecrated.
Now, maybe I'm splitting hairs and reading too much into this but as I'm looking at it I see a minute difference that may be a big deal. Holiness I think is a set apart thing of God. The otherness of "hagios" comes from God. The "qadosh" is God setting something aside for a special purpose. It was God that set Israel apart from the world. It was God that set Levi apart among Israel's tribes. Holiness comes from God alone.
But consecration seems to be a combined act of both man and God. I Timothy states that "because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer" referring to all things received with thanksgiving. Holiness doesn't require man's reception with thanksgiving though. God is Holy because God is Holy. The Holiness doesn't have a conditional existence, it is an essential thing to God. But for something to be consecrated it has two conditions. A) It requires the word of God. B) It requires an obedience to that word of God by man. Joshua couldn't have consecrated himself for God without hearing from God to get consecrated. Nothing could be consecrated or set apart to become the otherness if that Otherness wasn't first calling for that thing to become something else.
Now, I'm sure that those who actually speak Greek or Hebrew could shoot through my arguments with a tenacity that would cause my whole house of cards here to come a tumbling down. But, while spending an hour or so on Strong's Concordance via Safari doesn't make me an expert I think my initial reaction to Batterson's calling consecration "set apart" in equating it with holy was wrong. And again, maybe I'm making too much of this, but I find philosophy of language to be extremely important. Contemplating the minutia of word choices and synonyms may seem like a bit of sophistry on my part but I feel that the concepts entailed in certain words carry their weight differently, even if they weigh the same. Using the most correct language possible is essential in communicating with three groups.
A) Those who aren't actually there to ask you clarifying questions or to pick up on your nonverbal communication.
B) The Divine because even though He knows what you are praying, by wrestling with the synonyms a deeper understanding can be fleshed out and give us a better grasp of God though our pursuit of Him.
C) Your own mind. By combining and cataloging and distinguishing on levels that would bring a smile to the face of a Byzantine you may very well confuse yourself for the vast part of your day, but when those moments of sweet lucidity come, brief as they may be - ah such moments of clarity are unrivaled!
No comments:
Post a Comment