Whole-iness: A Biblical-Theological Survey

MIDWESTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY WHOLE-INESS: A BIBLICAL-THEOLOGICAL SURVEY A PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE DR 37340-01 ADVANCED BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BY JOSHUA MICHAEL WATFORD KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI JULY 23, 2021 Introduction The student who undertakes defining a word or concept in Scripture that Scripture itself does not explicitly define steps into dangerous ground. Or should it be holy ground? As R. C. Sproul has said: We tend to have mixed feelings about the holy. There is a sense in which we are at the same time attracted to it and repulsed by it. Something draws us toward it, while at the same time we want to run away from it. We can’t seem to decide which way we want it. Part of us yearns for the holy, while part of us despises it. We can’t live with it, and we can’t live without it.1 Sproul's observation rings true for Christians and non-Christians alike. Everyone has some notion of the "holy," but what does the biblical evidence indicate? Is it primarily purity or transcendence? Is it primarily separateness or simply the essence of God's character? Or may Scripture declare something else? The bulk of this study will attend to relevant passages in Scripture to determine how best to define "holy." First, a brief overview of recent, influential works on holiness will clarify where this paper fits in the scholarly discussion. Theories on Holiness: Sociological and Biblical Beginning in the early twentieth century, some scholars have sought to separate the holy and God. Söderblom, in his infamous article on holiness in the Encyclopaedia of Religions and Ethics, boldly asserts, "Holiness is the great word in religion; it is even more essential than the notion of God. Real religion may exist without a definite conception of divinity, but there is no real religion without a distinction between holy and profane."2 Through a historical-critical lens, R. C. Sproul, The Holiness of God, 25th Anniversary ed. (Sanford, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2016), 52. 1 2 Nathan Söderblom, “Holiness (General and Primitive),” in Encyclopaedia of Religions and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1913), 730. 1 he traces the development of the categories of the holy/profane and unclean/clean. According to his assessment, the "holy" was not associated with divinity until much later. Rudolf Otto has produced one of the most famous and influential anthropological works on holiness. Otto identifies the profound, religious experience as the mysterium tremendum.3 He associates three feelings that come with this experience: awefulness, overpoweringness, and energy. He popularized the notion of holiness being a subjective experience rather than an objective fact. Others have sought to understand holiness from the Bible. The problem is holiness is Scripture never clearly defines in it, leading to a multiplicity of opinions and theories.4 The traditional understanding is that of separation and moral purity. Eichrodt defines "the holy" as "that which is marked off, separated, withdrawn from ordinary use."5 He follows up with an explanation of God's holiness as understood through a priestly conception as "him who is unapproachable because of his complete 'otherness' and perfection when compared with all 3 Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Fator in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational, trans. John W. Harvey, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1950), 12. His description is famously such: "The feeling of it may at times come sweeping like a gentle tide, pervading the mind with a tranquil mood of deepest worship. It may pass over into a more set and lasting attitude of the soul, continuing, as it were, thrillingly vibrant and resonant, until at last it dies away and the soul resumes its ‘profane’, non-religious mood of everyday experience. It may burst in sudden eruption up from the depths of the soul with spasms and convulsions, or lead to the strangest excitements, to intoxicated frenzy, to transport, and to ecstasy. It has its wild and demonic forms and can sink to an almost grisly horror and shuddering. It has its crude, barbaric antecedents and early manifestations, and again it may be developed into something beautiful and pure and glorious. It may become the hushed, trembling, and speech- less humility of the creature in the presence of–whom or what? In the presence of that which is a mystery inexpressible and above all creatures." Ibid., 12–13. 4 John E. Hartley, “Holy and Holiness, Clean and Unclean,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 420. 5 Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1961), 270. 2 created things."6 Naudé comes to a similar conclusion. He first frames holiness as a dynamic quality of separate-ness people and things possess in their relation to God, and he further reasons that this is true because holiness "connotes the essential nature that belongs to the sphere of God's being or activity and that is distinct from the common or profane."7 In the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Peterson holds to both transcendence and moral purity being the primary meanings of holiness. He states that, "As the one who is supreme over all, he is transcendent, exalted and different from everything he has made... An important dimension to God’s separateness and distinctness is his moral purity and perfection."8 Therefore, he sees an organic connection between transcendence and perfection. As discussed further below, there are more connections than just those two, since those do not seem to be the foundational way holiness is portrayed in Scripture. T. Desmond Alexander claims that "Holiness describes the moral perfection and purity of God's nature."9 His evidence shows that the holiness imitation command (Lv 19:2) comes in the context of laws governing the Israelites' behavior. But as will be discussed below, that is true, but it fails to incorporate the full scope of the passage. Other scholars see holiness as the totality of God's nature. Hartley states, "Holiness is not one attribute of Yahweh’s among others; rather it is the quintessential nature of Yahweh as 6 Eichrodt, 273. 7 Jackie A. Naudé, “‫ָקדַש‬,” in The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 879. 8 David G. Peterson, “Holiness,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 500. 9 T. Desmond Alexander, “Be Holy,” in From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 244. 3 God."10 Though when applied to people, Hartley agrees that a major dimension of holiness is "separateness."11 Ury, in the Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, avers "Holiness is what God is... The universal description of the holy is that which is separated from the normal in a conceptual way."12 He claims there is a link from God's nature to other people and things being separated when they are holy. These last two examples showcase the multifaceted understanding even one scholar may have of the complex subject of holiness. Recently, Gentry has contended for the view that holiness means "devotion." Building upon the French scholar Claude Bernard Costecalde, he traces holiness through Ex 3, Ex 19, and Is 6. He contends: Indeed, the 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. As we have seen, purity is the 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. The basic meaning of the word is “consecrated” or “devoted.” In scripture it operates within the context of covenant relationships and expresses commitment.13 This definition will aid this study to describe one aspect of wholeness. Gentry's work has helped identify another key trait of holiness, but this nuance is only part of the whole. This study seeks to discover the undergirding concept of holiness in Scripture. Due to the lack of an answer to why God's holiness is revealed like it is and how that holiness can somehow 10 John E. Hartley, Leviticus, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word, Incorporated, 1992), lvi. Also see Hartley, "Holiness," 420. 11 Hartley, Leviticus, lix. 12 M. William Ury, “Holy, Holiness,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1996), 341. 13 Peter J Gentry, “No One Holy Like the Lord,” Midwestern Journal of Theology 12, no. 1 (2013): 36–37. 4 be shared by humans and objects, a new thesis is needed. That thesis is this: God's revelation of Himself as holy displays his completeness and wholeness. Wholeness in the context of God's nature means that he is the pinnacle of existence. His knowledge, love, righteousness, justice, mercy, power, etc. all work in unison perfectly and never errs. His moral perfection complements this idea; however, his moral purity flows from his wholeness and is only an aspect of his holiness. For him to be complete is similar to his transcendence or separateness, yet those are not foundational because his perfect wholeness is what makes him the most other and transcendent being. The most related theory is that holiness summarizes the totality of his being. The thesis of this paper differs in that holiness is not simply the totality of his being, but it conveys the perfection of all his attributes individually and together.14 Consequentially, consecration under the Old Covenant caused whatever was consecrated to represent God's wholeness, thus making it appropriate to be in God's presence. This theory of consecration is similar to Gentry's idea of "devotion," yet it differs in that it shows the representative wholeness of something or someone is why it can be devoted in the first place. In the New Testament, holiness is escalated from ritual holiness (representative holiness) to intrinsic holiness; thus, the Spirit's sanctification makes the believer whole. This new definition does not disregard previous theories of holiness; they are incorporated and integrated. With wholeness being the foundational meaning of holiness, these other definitions can now be 14 For example, God's love and wrath have often been juxtaposed in theological discussions. God's holiness means that these two, as well all of his other characteristics, are not in contrast with one another, but God is ontologically perfect in love and wrath. Therefore, when he exercises them, he does so inerrantly. This is not the first time holiness has been thought of in this way, and the scholarship will be cite throughout the remainder of the paper. 5 applied and reread in clearer ways. What follows is a biblical-theological survey of key passages that combine the roots ‫ ָק ַדשׁ‬and ἅγιος and the concept of wholeness or completion. Genesis 2:3 At the conclusion of the creation account in Gn 1:1-2:3, God "blessed" (‫ ) ְי ָ֤ב ֶרְך‬the seventh day and "made it holy" (‫) ְיַק ֵ֖דּשׁ‬. This is the first use of any form of ‫ ָק ַדשׁ‬in Scripture. So how does God consecrating a day of the week at the beginning of creation help define subsequent uses of ‫ ?ָק ַדשׁ‬Interestingly, God does not command anyone else to rest on the seventh day until the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai.15 If God did not bless and sanctify the day for the sake of Adam and Eve's observance, then what about the seventh was holy? In thinking through other popular notions of "holy", the day itself cannot be morally pure; though it could be "devoted." However, that does not account for the lack of Sabbath observance until Sinai. The most likely explanation is that it signified wholeness and completion. Moses emphasizes this completed work in Gn 2:1– 3. Cassuto identifies three expressions that are repeated three times: the seventh day, His work, which he had done/created.16 Adding to Cassuto's observations, Matthews offers a helpful structure showing how verses 2–3 align: 1. So God finished by the seventh day his work which he did (‫ ָﬠָשׂה‬Qal perfect), 15 Many scholars, particularly over the twentieth century, have seen this as proof that Gn 1:1–2:3 was an addition to the following creation account by a priestly editor. Even if that is true, a confessional, canonical view of Scripture gives precedence to the final form of the text. Therefore, the lack of sabbath observance from Adam to Moses shows that the purpose of God sanctifying the seventh day was not solely about observance; there must have been something else that caused God to choose the seventh day. For a survey of theories on Sabbath origins see Paul A. Barker, “Sabbath, Sabbatical Year, Jubilee,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 698–699. 16 Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1: From Adam to Noah, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1961), 60–62. 6 2. and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he did (‫ ָﬠָשׂה‬Qal perfect), 3. and God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, 4. because on it he rested from all his work which God created (‫ ֲאֶשׁר־ָבּ ָרא‬Qal perfect) to do (‫ ַלֲﬠשׂוֹת‬Qal infinitive construct).17 The first two and last lines end in some way about God's completed work. The third line–God blessing and sanctifying the seventh day–is the main emphasis of the passage, though the other emphasis helps the reader understand why God blessed it and made it holy. God blessed and sanctified the seventh day because it represented completion and wholeness. God, who is complete and whole, rested over his completed work. Exodus 29:43–46 Exodus 26–31 focuses on Israel's cult worship. Moses includes general instructions for the tabernacle construction, recipes for oil and incense, laws about the Sabbath, and also commands for the priests' garments and consecration ceremony. At the end of the section concerning the priests, God gives a promise about what he has commanded thus far: There I will meet with the people of Israel, and it shall be sanctified (‫ ְו ִנְק ַ֖דּשׁ‬Niphal perfect 3ms) by my glory. I will consecrate (‫ ְוִק ַדְּשׁ ִ֛תּי‬Piel perfect 1s) the tent of meeting and the altar. Aaron also and his sons I will consecrate (‫ ֲאַק ֵ֖דּשׁ‬Piel imperfect 1s) to serve me as priests. I will dwell among the people of Israel and will be their God. And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt that I might dwell among them. I am the LORD their God. (Ex 29:43–46) The striking feature of this passage relates to Gn 2:3: YHWH himself is the one sanctifying the tent of meeting, the altar, and the priests. Lest one may think that this consecration by the Lord Himself is special to the priests, in the same block of Scripture God says to Moses, "You are to 17 K. A. Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1996), 177. Hebrew parsing mine. 7 speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you" (‫ ְמַק ִדְּשׁ ֶֽכם‬Piel participle ms construct 2mp) (Ex 31:13). This second passage even more closely relates to Gn 2:3 because it refers to keeping the Sabbath. Both of these Scriptures warrant examination. In Gen 2:3, God made the seventh day holy because it stands as a symbol for completion or wholeness. But how can he consecrate people and objects who, by their very nature, are not whole? Consecration in the context of wholeness can be understood as the process of making someone or something represent God's wholeness and thus preparing them for God's presence. Mary Douglas has argued for how wholeness is integral to the purity laws of the Pentateuch. She contends that whether considering the food laws, priestly laws, or disease laws, their rationale can be explained within a wholeness paradigm.18 To be clean was to be the norm; to be unclean was to be abnormal (temporary or permanent); to be holy was to represent perfection and wholeness. Wenham, in his commentary on Leviticus, suggests "that the notion underlying holiness and cleanness was wholeness and normality."19 For one to enter into the presence of 18 See Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York: Praeger Publishers, Inc, 1966), 41–57 with special attention to 54–57. Douglas interacts primarily with how and why objects, people, and animals are inherently clean/unclean, as well as how and why others become clean/unclean. She does not explain how this theory relates to the nature of God, which this study seeks to do. 19 Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 169. He states later in his commentary, "Holiness in Leviticus is symbolized by wholeness." Ibid., 203, emphasis mine. Because of this last quote, it is difficult to conclude if Wenham is in total agreement with Douglas that wholeness is the concept which coheres all the nuances of holiness, or that the examples he uses are just proofs that physical wholeness was simply a symbol of holiness. This study contends that the reason why particular animals are clean or unclean, or why priests must be physically whole, or why consecration must happen is because wholeness is the 8 God as un-whole and unaware of his wholeness would incur judgment. Clean things must be made to represent God's wholeness, resulting in an acute awareness of God's holiness that invokes fear and awe. The human responsibility in this process was to obey all the ritual commands to consecrate themselves. God would use those rituals to internally make them aware of the wholeness (read "holiness) into which they were entering. For objects, such as the tabernacle, altar, ark, and other cultic objects, they represented God's presence, therefore, his wholeness. Exodus 31:13 exemplifies the connection between sanctification and wholeness. The purpose for the Israelites keeping the Sabbath is "that [they] may know that I, the LORD, sanctify [them]." By keeping the Sabbath "holy," they themselves become holy when they are acknowledging God's completeness and wholeness. They would represent God's wholeness by living out his sign of rest and completion. This can also be seen in Lv 19:2–3, "Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, 'You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy. Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall keep my Sabbaths: I am the LORD your God." The keeping of the Sabbath leads to holiness. Moses tells the people to be holy, and then he tells them how by mentioning Sabbath-keeping.20 foundational definition of holiness. These laws about wholeness do not simply symbolize holiness; they are laws because wholeness is the definition of holiness. 20 Douglas, 53. Douglas' point differs slightly from the reasoning in this sentence. Her discussion revolves around laws of category confusion. These laws provide a compelling argument for holiness as wholeness. However, the thrust of this section is that the Sabbath and its relation to holiness provide a stronger case. 9 Leviticus 21:16–23 Leviticus 21–22 detail certain restrictions and necessary criteria for the priesthood. Milgrom insightfully notes that these two chapters have a common denominator: blemishes.21 The priests are to not blemish their appearance for mourning (Lv 21:4–5) and not marry a blemished woman (Lv 21:7, 14). Any priest with "blemishes" or impurity was barred from service in the sanctuary, and they were not to let any unauthorized person do so (Lv 21:16– 22:16). Finally, "blemished" animals, like blemished priests, were not acceptable before the Lord (Lv 22:17–30). Avoiding these blemishes clearly connects with holiness. The Lord tells them, "I am the LORD who sanctifies (‫ ְמַק ְדָּֽשׁם‬Pi'el participle) them/you" six times (Lv 21:8, 15, 23, 22:9, 16, 32). The priests are to be holy (Lv 21: 6–8). The Lord's name, sanctuary, the priest's family,22 and holy things are not to be profaned (root: ‫ ָחַלל‬Lv 21:22–23, 22:2, 9, 15, 32). The section ends with the Lord saying, "So you shall keep my commandments and do them: I am the LORD. And you shall not profane (‫ ְתַחְלּל֙וּ‬Pi'el imperfect) my holy name (‫)ָק ְדִ֔שׁי‬, that I may be sanctified 21 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 1793. 22 Zipor's article covers all of the marriage laws in Lv 21; he helpfully identifies that the difference between the high priests and the general priests was the high priests could only marry within the Aaron family. He argues that both classes of priests were only to marry virgins. In a detailed footnote, he takes Wenham to task with his translation of ‫ ִבְבתוּ ֶ֖ליָה‬as "teenage girl." Zipor cites Wenham's weak argument that ‫ ְבּתוּ ִֽלים‬in Dt 22:13–21 should be understand as marks of adolescence and not evidence of virginity. Moshe Zipor, “Restrictions on Marriage for Priests (Lev 21,7.13-14),” Biblica 68 (1987): 260–61, n.10. Wenham's weakest argument, in regard to Lv 21's usage of ‫ ִבְבתוּ ֶ֖ליָה‬is that the word would be redundant. He uses this argument to summarize why he translates it in this passage as "girl of marriageable age." Gordon J. Wenham, “Betûlāh, A Girl of Marriageable Age,” Vetus Testamentum 22, no. 3 (1972): 340. In context of Lv 21–22, ‫ ִבְבתוּ ֶ֖ליָה‬should be translated "virgin" as it conveys wholeness, no blemishes, which is the theme of these chapters. Redundancy is common in Hebrew writing to emphasize a point, thus rendering "virgin" here only heightens the importance of wholeness in the priesthood. 10 (‫ ְו ִ֨נְק ַדְּשִׁ֔תּי‬Niph'al perfect) among the people of Israel. I am the LORD who sanctifies you (‫ ְמַק ִדְּשׁ ֶֽכם‬Pi'el participle), who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God: I am the LORD.” The conclusion to this section as well as "holy" language throughout demonstrates that the emphasis of these two chapters is the relationship between the holy and the whole. Leviticus 21–22 can be viewed as a chiasm. The two chapters divide into five sections to form the chiasm: A Relation of a priest to his family for sacrifice (21:1–15) Blemishes of priests who sacrifice (21:16–23) X How a priest should avoid desecration of sacrifices (22:1–16) B′ Blemishes of animals for sacrifice (22:17–25) A′ Relation of an animal and its family for sacrifice (22:27–28)23 B B and B' set forth the understanding of holiness in physical wholeness. To be acceptable in God's presence, the priest and the sacrifice must be physically whole. Both priest and animal could not be blind, disabled, mutilated in any way, have scabs or skin problems, have limbs too long or short, or testicles that are injured. Being physically whole is not what makes one holy; physical wholeness symbolizes what spiritual wholeness is. For a priest to walk into the Holy of Holies acknowledging his own physical wholeness and that of the sacrifice images God's wholeness and holiness, he would be safe. However, reflecting God's wholeness meant little to the priest, he would die.24 Priests, in their physical wholeness, pointed toward the restored, new creation. Alex Cheung asserts, "A logical extension of this idea is to see the priest as the restorer of creation as well as the restored creation. Therefore healing and cleansing naturally became priestly 23 Milgrom, 1792. 24 Dismissal from priestly work, and even death, would come to the priest who profaned God's holy place (Lv 22:3, 9). 11 functions."25 If cleansing and consecrating are means of making whole, or even making to represent God's wholeness, then the priest himself should exemplify those ideals. Isaiah 6 Isaiah 6 is among the most well-known passages in the Old Testament. The clear proclamation of God's holiness contributes to its popularity. Though the proclamation of holiness is clear, the meaning of holiness is not. If the foundational understanding of holiness is wholeness, then how does this passage fit within that paradigm? The first observation is that there may be a play on words or play on concepts in Is 6:3. Isaiah records the thrice-repeated praise, "Holy, holy, holy" (‫ )ָקדוֹשׁ ָקדוֹשׁ ָקדוֹשׁ‬then follows it up with "the whole earth is full of his glory" (‫)ְמל ֹא ָכל־ָהָא ֶרץ ְכּבוֹדוֹ‬. The translation of this last phrase will be handled below, but the most noticeable feature of the phrase is how ‫ ְמל ֹא‬and ‫ ָכל‬follow one another to emphasize the complete filling of the entire earth with God's glory. God's wholeness creates wholeness. Several commentators note that God's glory is the external display of his holiness.26 For his glory to fill the earth, his holiness will have affected everything. This was obviously not a 25 Alex T. M. Cheung, “The Priest as the Redeemed Man: A Biblical-Theological Study of the Priesthood,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29, no. 3 (1986): 268. 26 Motyer pithily states, "Holiness is the Lord’s hidden glory; glory is the Lord’s omnipresent holiness." Alec Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 81. See also Hartley, Leviticus, lvi. John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33, Revised Edition, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005), 107. Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 7, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 125. Brevard Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 55. Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1–39, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2007), 190. Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary, trans. John Bowden, 2nd ed., The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1983), 127. 12 reality in Isaiah's day or today; this is eschatological language.27 The language of Isaiah 6:3b proves difficult to translate as it does not have a verb. Most Bible translations supply the "is" but is that the force of the verse? Similar parallel passages all point to a future orientation for this phrase.28 Since Is 6:8–13 is clearly future-oriented, and because similar declarations throughout Scripture are all more futuristic, then 6:3b should be translated as "the whole earth shall be/will be full of his glory." According to the seraphim, this thrice-holy God will cause his wholeness to wholly affect the earth so as to fully fill it up with his external display of holiness, namely his glory. This is new creation. In Revelation, as will be shown below, a holy city will occupy the whole, renewed earth. Though the first seven verses of Isaiah 6 usually contribute to the discussion of holiness, the last six get overlooked. The crucial phrase is the last one of the chapter in verse 13: "The holy seed is its stump" (‫)ז ַרע קֹ ֶדשׁ ַמַצְּבָתּהּ‬.29 After God tells Isaiah to make the people un-whole 27 "What the heavenly beings praise in the immediate presence of the God whose glory and might are before them, still needs to be seen on earth (Ps. 96:7f.)." Kaiser, 127. 28 Isaiah 11:9 is the closest in proximity to Isaiah 6. It is a clear, messianic passage with obvious futuristic language. It reads ‫"( ִֽכּי־ָמְל ָ֣אה ָהָ֗א ֶרץ ֵדָּﬠ֙ה ֶאת־ ְיה ָ֔וה‬for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD"). No verb is present, but the context demands a future outlook. Numbers 14:21 is God's promise that those have grumbled and sinned in the wilderness would not enter into the Promised Land. He compares the surety of that promise to the promise that "all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD" (‫) ְו ִיָמֵּלא ְכבוֹד־ ְיה ָ֖וה ֶאת־ָכּל־ָה ָֽא ֶרץ‬. Again, no verb is present, but the context demands it to be future. Habakkuk 2:8 includes ‫ ִתָּמּ ֵ֣לא‬as a Niph'al imperfect verb. Since it is an imperfect and the context is one of coming judgement, this translates most accurately as a future tense "will be filled" or "shall be filled." Finally, Psalm 72:19's context tells of the perfect, righteous king who will come and rule the world with justice. This is a petition for God to raise up this king who is not present, thus it looks to the future. So when the Niph'al imperfect jussive form of ‫ ָמֵלא‬appears, it translates as looking to a future reality. 29 Translation, textual-critical, and even historical-critical issues abound for this phrase. For a general overview of the problems see Smith, 197–98. This paper will follow the Masoretic reading. 13 (having ears that do not hear, eyes that do not see, hearts that do not understand), he promises a judgment that brings emptiness (cities without inhabitants, houses without people, and the land forsaken). However, God promises Isaiah there will be a stump, a holy seed. A stump implies a tree that was cut down or made un-whole. Seeds are the beginnings of plants and trees that have not reached their goal (read τέλος). The most immediate verse that helps interpret this phrase is Isaiah 11:1: "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump (‫ )ִמ ֵ֣גּ ַזע‬of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit." These are two different words for "stump," though the tree imagery in both passages is undeniable. In Isaiah 11, this branch will bring peace and wholeness30 throughout the world. Another verse that may shed light on the holy seed is Isaiah 27:6: "In days to come Jacob shall take root, Israel shall blossom and put forth shoots and fill the whole world with fruit."31 "Take root" and "blossom" are Hiph'il imperfects whereas "put forth shoots" and "fill" are Qal perfects. The first two seem to be the ground for the latter two verbs; although they are perfects, they are understood as taking place in a future reality. Coupled with the imagery of what could be understood as a seed, or even stump, this verse could be alluding to the holy seed from which the new people of God will grow and fill the whole earth with fruit/glory. One final passage to make the point that wholeness is foundational to holiness in Isaiah 6 is Isaiah 61. Here, the Lord's Anointed One, reverses the judgments of Isaiah 6:9–12. He will raise up "oaks of righteousness" who will bring glory to the Lord. Though ‫ ַ֫א ִיל‬in 61:3 is a different word from ‫ ֵא ָ֣לה‬or ‫ ַא ֗לּוֹן‬in 6:13, the tree type imagery serves the same purpose as a restoration prophecy. These oaks will reverse the ruins and devastations of the land as well. They will be the agents, 30 Wholeness in this context means nature working together as it should and righteousness prevailing over unrighteousness. 31 Keil and Delitzsch, 132 make the connection between Isaiah 6 and 27. 14 along with the Lord's Anointed, through which the Lord will bring wholeness to all the earth (61:11). Matthew 5:48 Most studies in holiness concern themselves primarily with Old Testament texts due to the complexity of the Mosaic law's instructions on holiness, cleanness, and uncleanness. No study of holiness can be complete without the New Testament, for the One who embodies holiness and glory dwelt among man. Embodying holiness, he thus makes those who are "in" him holy as well. The beginning point of a New Testament understanding of holiness begins with a passage that does not even have the word "holy" in it: Matthew 5:48. This verse concludes a very debated section of the Sermon on the Mount which deals with the New Testament's relation to the Old.32 As a conclusion, it seems to summarize all of the previous six antitheses,33 thus making it a crucial statement for how the Testaments relate. To understand why this passage is key in holiness studies, the Old Testament connection to this verse must be determined, and then the rendering of τέλειος will be examined. 32 For an accessible yet helpful survey of interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount, see D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gæbelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 126–27. Concerning the immediate section of Mt 5:17–48, Carson identifies three major interpretive debates. His second one is: "The theological and canonical ramifications of one’s exegetical conclusions on this pericope are so numerous that discussion becomes freighted with the intricacies of biblical theology. At stake are the relation between the testaments, the place of law in the context of gospel, and the relation of this pericope to other NT passages that unambiguously affirm that certain parts of the law have been abrogated as obsolete (e.g., Mark 7:19; Acts 10–11; Heb 7:1–9:10)." So how one interprets biblical theology affects how one interprets these verses and vice versa. Carson, 141. 33 Craig Blomberg, Matthew, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 1992), 115. 15 Matthew 5:48 reads, "You therefore must be (Ἔεσεσθε future, middle, indicative, second person, plural) perfect (τέλειοι), as your heavenly Father is perfect (τέλειός)." No exact Old Testament equivalent exists, though Jesus is clearly alluding to at least two passages in the Pentateuch where most of the law citations in Mt 5:21–48 reside.34 The structure of the verse is at least inspired by, if not directly influenced by, Lv 19:2: "You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy."35 Because of the similar structure and imperatival force of the future tense in both Mt 5:48 and Lv 19:2 (LXX), Jesus has Lv 19:2 in mind here. If Jesus draws from Lv 19:2, then one quickly notices the obvious change of words from "holy" (‫ ָקדוֹשׁ‬or ἅγιος) to "perfect" (τέλειος).36 As in the preceding antitheses, Jesus takes a passage the people thought they understood, and he gets straight to the root of the issue. Those listening to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount may have thought they knew what being holy meant, but Jesus was leading them to something deeper. Jesus begins the Sermon on the Mount emphasizing who they should be (i.e. poor in spirit, meek, pure in heart, salt, light, etc.). The scribes and 34 Particularly the command Mt 5:43b ("you shall... hate your enemies") is not paralleled anywhere in the Old Testament. 35 Blomberg states that Mt 5:48 was "perhaps deliberately modeled on the structure of Lev. 19:1 (sic)" and that Lv 19:2's "phraseology... may have inspired Matt. 5:48." Craig Blomberg, “Matthew,” in Commentary on the New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 28. Carson plainly states, "the form of the verse is exactly like Leviticus 19:2..." Carson, 160. 36 In Luke's account of the Sermon on the Mount (Plain?), Jesus says, "Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful" (Lk 6:36). Luke's account is likely a completely different time of Jesus teaching this material, therefore Jesus used a different characteristic of God. It is not outside the realm of possibility that Jesus used this formula with many attributes of God to call his followers to godliness. However, Matthew's close parallel to Leviticus shows that he had a different purpose in mind than Luke, who does not parallel Leviticus. 16 Pharisees's (Mt 5:20) righteousness was purely external, therefore Jesus's followers must be τέλειος. Throughout Scripture, τέλειος has slightly differing nuances. Perfect,37 complete, mature, and whole38 have been offered as faithful translations. In the LXX, it often translates ‫ָתִּמים‬. It can mean moral perfection. Genesis 6:9 is one example: "Noah was a righteous man, blameless (Heb: ‫ָתִ֛מים‬, LXX: τέλειος) in his generation." Another key example is Dt 18:13: "You shall be blameless (Heb: ‫ָתִ֛מים‬, LXX: τέλειος) before the LORD your God..." Though in both of these the emphasis is on moral perfection, the idea of wholeness is not absent.39 Another Hebrew word that τέλειος translates in the LXX is ‫ָשֵׁלם‬. Solomon commands the people in 1 Kgs 8:61: "Let your heart therefore be wholly (Heb:‫ ָשֵׁ֔לם‬LXX: τέλειαι) true to the LORD our God..." Ironically, just a few chapters later in 11:4, Scripture says, "So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of 37 Although the LTW puts τέλειος under "perfection," Rodrigues consistently states that ‫ ָתִּמים‬and its related Hebrew words as well as τέλειος can be understood as whole or wholeness. Adriani Milli Rodrigues, “Perfection,” in Lexham Theological Wordbook, ed. Douglas Mangum et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014). BDAG prefers "perfect" in standard and morality. Fredrick W. Danker et al., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 995. 38 Commenting on Mt 5:48, Blomberg suggests τέλειος be rendered as "mature, whole." Blomberg, Matthew, 115. Also, France observes, "Teleios is wider than moral perfection: it indicates ‘completeness’, ‘wholeness’ (cf. Paul’s use of it for the spiritually ‘mature’ in 1 Cor. 2:6; 14:20; Phil. 3:15), a life totally integrated to the will of God, and thus reflecting his character." R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 134. 39 John Nolland refers to 1QS 1:8, 13; 2:2; 3:3; 4:22 to highlight the rigor of law-keeping in the Qumran community. Though he notes the moral aspect of this word, he says it has the "basic meaning" of "whole" or "wholeheartedness." He also mentions that τέλειος is used to translate ‫ ָשֵׁלם‬which he suggests means "completeness." John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005), 271. 17 the LORD and did not wholly (Heb:‫ ָשֵׁ֔לם‬LXX: τελεία) follow the LORD..." Lockett, commenting on these verses, states, "Here τέλειος conveys the notion of whole-heartedness (or lack thereof) in devotion before God. One can says these Old Testament individuals are ‫תמים‬/ τέλειος because they are wholehearted in devotion to God and in this sense perfect or whole."40 Another nuance of the ‫ָתִ֛מים‬/τέλειος relation is in sacrificial language. This occurs in Ex 12:5: "Your lamb shall be without blemish (Heb: ‫ָתִ֛מים‬, LXX: τέλειον) a male a year old." Leviticus 22 features ‫ ָתִ֛מים‬twice in v. 19 and 21. The ESV translates it as "without blemish" and "perfect" respectively.41 Though the LXX translates ‫ ָתִ֛מים‬in Lv 22 with ἄµωµος, it is worth noting that ἄµωµος shows up in Eph 1:4 and 5:27 paired with ἅγιος.42 In the Old Testament, the connection between holiness and wholeness or perfection is vaguely textual and strongly conceptual, but that does not weaken the ties.43 40 Darian R. Lockett, “Wholeness in Intertextual Perspective: James’ Use of Scripture in Developing a Theme,” Midwestern Journal of Theology 15.2 (2016): 95–96. 41 In respect to the relationship between τέλειος and purity (which includes holiness nuance), Lockett notes, "Τέλειος bears a certain semantic and conceptual overlap with the idea of "purity," and, upon the backdrop of Jewish tradition, terms associated with purity such as "clean" (καθαρός), "undefiled" (ἀµίαντος), "pure" (ἁγνός), and "unstained" (ἄσπιλος) relate a similar concern for wholeness of constitution, or whole-heartedness." Lockett, 96–97. 42 In Eph 5:26–27, Jesus sanctifies his bride so that they are "without spot or wrinkle." These are rare Greek words, nevertheless, they convey un-wholeness. Jesus intends to make his bride whole. Paul, in Eph 4:13, uses τέλειος outside a holiness context with the nuance of maturity. This does not negate the idea of wholeness as being a fully-grown man, as one is now what they were meant to be. 43 This study tries to avoid the "word-concept fallacy" by looking at concepts of holiness, not just words. In keeping with that method, the idea of wholeness and perfection is used by other words as well. For "word-concept fallacy" see Andrew David Naselli, “How Should Biblical Theology Trace a Theme’s Salvation-Historical Progression?,” in 40 Questions about Biblical Theology, by Jason S. DeRouchie, Oren R. Martin, and Andrew David Naselli, 40 Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2020), 56. 18 Two more passages that aid in understanding τέλειος as "whole" or "complete" are 1 Cor 13:10 and Jas 1:4. In Paul's "love chapter," he juxtaposes τέλειος against µέρος ("partial").44 BDAG asserts that µέρος here should be rendered as "imperfect."45 This is assuming τέλειος means "perfect." The nuance here seems to be on complete and incomplete rather than perfect and imperfect–which has moral connotations. The analogies of child/man and dim mirror/face in 13:11–12 supply further evidence for the wholeness paradigm being in Paul's mind. The last passage in the survey of τέλειος as wholeness and completeness is Jas 1:4.46 Here, James uses ὁλόκληρος ("complete") and τέλειος as a hendiadys to bring out the concept of wholeness.47 Similarly, James uses world-play in 3:2, associating τέλειος ἀνὴρ with ὅλον τὸ σῶµα.48 James and other NT writers repeatedly use τέλειος with the notion of wholeness in mind. Therefore, τέλειος in Mt 5:48 could and should be translated as "whole" so that it captures the entire conceptual 44 The TDNT uses the contrast of these words as evidence for the meaning "whole." Gerhard Delling, “Τέλειος,” in The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), 75. Interestingly, Delling begins his article surveying the use of τέλειος outside the Bible by saying, "The adj. means a. “whole,” of sacrifices, “without blemish,”... then “complete” in compass, with no part outside, nothing which belongs left out... τέλειος can then be par. to ὅλος..." Ibid., 67–68. 45 Danker et al., 633. 46 Lockett's thesis to his article is: "Rather than a kind of religious perfectionism, the wholeness to which James calls his readers is characterized especially by the concern for holiness articulated in Leviticus 19 and the humility noted in Proverbs 3." Lockett, 93. 47 Scot McKnight, The Letter of James, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011), 81, n.60. See also Delling, 74. 48 For a comprehensive discussion on τέλειος in James, see Delling, 74–75. 19 range of the word and meaning. In using τέλειος as a synonym for ‫ָקדוֹשׁ‬, Jesus shows that holiness is more than acting holy; it is about being whole as God is whole. Hebrews 10:14 Hebrews' use of "perfect" and the τέλ- word group is infamous. Many scholars have weighed in with their thoughts and have failed to form a consensus.49 Since a full-scale study of "perfection" and its relation to holiness falls outside the scope of this paper, the most relevant verse will serve as an example. Hebrews 10:14 states, "For by a single offering he has perfected (τετελείωκεν perfect active indicative) for all time those who are being sanctified (ἁγιαζοµένους present passive participle)." The immediate context of Hebrews and the OT foundations of this verse will contribute to the biblical evidence for holiness as wholeness. Hebrews 10:1 and 10:14 form an inclusio by employing similar language. David deSilva insightfully observes: "While the sacrifices prescribed by the torah, which “they offer (προσφέρουσιν) perpetually (εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς),” are unable “to perfect (τελειῶσαι)” those drawing near to God (10:1), Jesus has “by a single sacrifice (προσφορᾷ) perfected (τετελείωκεν) forever (εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς)” the worshippers approaching God through him (10:14)."50 The solution in verse 14 answers the problem of verse 1 to express the heightened reality of Christ's finished work. 49 Scholer identifies three main meanings throughout the history of interpretation of τελειοῦν: the moral-ethical meaning, as a 'consecratory sacredotal,' and the paideutic meaning. John M. Scholer, Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 49 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 187–95. 50 David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 324. 20 This act of perfection (usually τελειόω in 2:10, 5:9, 7:19, 7:28, 9:9, 10:1, 10:14, 11:40, 12:23) alludes to the consecration of the Aaronide priests. The ordination of the priests showcased God's holiness and how they were related to that holiness. Four times in Ex 29, the LXX uses τελειόω for "consecration" or "ordination" (‫ ָמֵלא ָיד‬lit. "fill hands").51 As argued above, consecration or sanctification in the OT is a process that made one represent God's holiness. The priests were to be τελειῶσαι in the "holy" garments (Ex 29:29; cf. Lv 16:32, 21:10). They were to eat the "holy" sacrifices that were made at their τελειῶσαι and ἁγιάσαι (Ex 29:33).52 One last (side) note on the ordination of priests: their ordination process took seven days (Lv 8:33). This seems to imply God wanting to show his complete sanctification of his ministers. As potent of a ceremony priestly consecration was, it did not and could not save them and, the priests could not save the people with their sacrifices. That is the author of Hebrews' point. They were to be the mediators between God and man, but even then, only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies once a year on Yom Kippur. But there is a new High Priest who has "perfected" (τελειόω) all who would draw near. The perfect here, and in most of Hebrews, means the ability to have direct access to God that was once for only the one high priest.53 Now, In the context of Solomon not "wholly" following the Lord, τέλειος translates ‫ ָשֵׁלם‬in the LXX of 1 Kgs 11:4, but in 11:6 τελειόω translates ‫ָמֵלא‬. The ESV translates both as "wholly." They both give the sense of complete or undivided in loyalty or devotion to the Lord. 51 52 Notice that these are the same verbs in Hb 10. 53 This is the thesis of Scholer's book, but he gives a helpful summary of his arguments on Scholer, 200. Ellingworth makes the same point when he says, "Here, as elsewhere in Hebrews (→ 2:10), τελειόω implies the fulfilment of the Christian goal, namely an access to God which was formerly open only to the high priest." Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993) 511. The argument in this section of the study is that this access is only made available by being made holy. Since Hebrews 21 one man has made God available to all.54 This access, just like in the OT, was made possible only through sanctification. Jesus does spiritually what was done externally through the law. The priest was to be a whole man offering whole sacrifices. Jesus came as the whole man (Hb 2:10, 5:9, 7:28) and offered the whole sacrifice. The most Holy One, by his sacrifice, has consecrated his people (Hb 10:10, 10:14a)55 and is continuing to make that holiness in them a reality (Hb 10:14b).56 This holiness in Hebrews is likened to the wholeness the priests needed to enter into God's presence. Thus, Hebrews uses holiness as wholeness tangentially, but the concept is still present. Revelation 21–22 This biblical-theological survey on holiness end where Scripture ends: Rv 21–22. Three times in these two chapters, John describes the New Jerusalem as a "holy" (ἅγιος) city (Rv 21:2, 10, 22:19). Beale notes that John's use of the term "holy city" and bride imagery are allusions to Isaiah 52 and 62.57 Both of these OT texts are restoration prophecies about how Jerusalem shall have no uncleanness in it but will be righteous (Is 52:1, 52:11, 62:1–2), how they will be free focuses on the escalation from the OT to the NT, the wholeness that was required of the priests and the results (entering into God's presence) has now been made available to all believers. 54 Scholer stresses that this is both a present and future reality for the believer. Scholer, 200. 55 Lane argues for interpreting τετελείωκεν in light of understanding the community of believers as "the consecrated ones." William L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word, Incorporated, 1991), 267. 56 deSilva identifies the "present participle as indicative of an ongoing process." deSilva, 204. 57 G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 1043–45. 22 from captivity (Is 52:2, 62:8), how there will be peace (Is 52:7), how the desolations will be reversed (Is 52:9, 62:4), and how God's relationship with them will be like a marriage (Is 52:1, 62:4–5). All of this is what it means for them to be holy. In Is 52:1, the designation comes at the beginning, and in 62:12, the promise comes at the end, thus highlighting the theme. Holiness is the emphasis of these two passages but it is described via wholeness. Even marriage itself, with its paradigmatic verse ("Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Gn 2:24 cf. Mt 19:5, Mk 10:7, 1 Cor 6:16, Eph. 5:31), indicates becoming whole.58 The characteristics of the holy city in Rv 21–22 display its wholeness as well. "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore..." (Rv 21:4). Also Rv 22:3–5, "No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever." Tears, death, mourning, crying, pain, accursed things, and night are all indicative of un-wholeness. As has been discussed above, wholeness is more than just the absence of sin, it is the absence of all the lasting effects of sin and brokenness. And as the book of Hebrews has promised, believers will have complete access to the Father because they have been made perfectly holy. 58 Note the correlation between Is 61 and 62. Isaiah 61 has already been discussed above in the context of plant imagery associated with the Messiah and his mission to bring wholeness back to his people. In addition to those references, Is 61 also uses marriage imagery to signify God's relationship with his people. So when Scripture wants to convey wholeness in an eschatological sense, it uses marriage as a symbol. 23 Much more could be said about Rv 21–22 but one last comment will suffice. In Rv 21:15–17, the angel's measurement of the holy city reveals it to be a cube, a symbol of wholeness and perfection.59 This shape also clearly alludes to the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle and Temple where God met with the High Priest.60 God's people no longer go to a temple to become temporarily holy so that they can enter into the Holy of Holies; God's people are now the perfect Holy of Holies and he dwells within them. Soon, they will see him face to face and reign with him in holiness and glory (Rv 22:4–5). Conclusion The wholeness of God–his purity, transcendence, separateness, goodness, love, wrath, etc. working together perfectly–is the Church's hope. In his glory, he will come and bring his wholeness to earth as it is in heaven. He will restore every broken heart to make it wholly devoted to him. He will renew the heavens and earth that have experienced desolations for millennia. Nature will be whole, and his people will be whole. All the passages in Scripture that describe these things happening are holiness-colored. The Scriptures entangle the concepts of 59 Beale's discussion on the extra-biblical occurrences of "four-square" is insightful here. "After referring to the “square” shape of the breastpiece in Exod. 28:16, instead of “you shall interweave with it a texture of four rows of stones,” some LXX mss. have “you shall fill (πληρώσεις) in it the fullness (πληρώματα) of four rows of stones” (likely in a square shape), perhaps emphasizing the idea of completeness. For τετράγωνον (“four-square”) used with reference to a square as a symbol of completeness or perfection with respect to the good man who is “without reproach” see Plato, Protagoras 344a, 339a; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1.10.11. Aristotle’s Art of Rhetoric 3.11.2 also refers to the “good man” as “four-square,” which he says is a “metaphor” for being “complete.” Diogenes Laertius 5.82 uses the word τετράγωνος to mean “perfect” or “excellent.” Beale, 1075. 60 Ibid, 1075–76. See also L. Michael Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of the Book of Leviticus, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 300. 24 holiness and whole into one idea so much so that it communicates the foundational understanding of holiness to be wholeness. As stated at the beginning of this study, the thesis is not that all the prevailing theories of holiness are wrong; it is actually possible that they are right. So how do they all hang together? They emanate from God's wholeness. The theme of holiness has been traced in creation and the purpose for which the seventh day was declared holy, then to God's sanctification in the cultic rituals, then to how the priests and other Mosaic laws conveyed God's wholeness, then to Isaiah's dramatic vision of God's eschatological wholeness, then to Jesus's understanding of holiness as wholeness, then to how Jesus's sacrifice in light of the OT teachings on holiness makes people whole, and then finally to the holy city in the new heavens and new earth where wholeness is completed. Many more passages could have been examined, but by examining these most crucial and relevant passages, wholeness has been maintained as the foundational understanding of holiness. The Church now has the duty and privilege to be the propagators of wholeness to the world. 25 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, T. Desmond. “Be Holy.” Pages 237–48 in From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012. Barker, Paul A. “Sabbath, Sabbatical Year, Jubilee.” Pages 695–706 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003. Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999. Blomberg, Craig. Matthew. Vol. 22. The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 1992. ———. “Matthew.” In Commentary on the New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Carson, D. A. “Matthew.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke. Edited by Frank E. Gæbelein. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984. Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1: From Adam to Noah. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1961. Cheung, Alex T. M. “The Priest as the Redeemed Man: A Biblical-Theological Study of the Priesthood.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29, no. 3 (1986): 265–75. Childs, Brevard. Isaiah: A Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Danker, Fredrick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Delling, Gerhard. “Τέλειος.” In The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 8:67–78. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964. deSilva, David A. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews.” Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Praeger Publishers, Inc, 1966. Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1961. 26 Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993. France, R. T. Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985. Gentry, Peter J. “No One Holy Like the Lord.” Midwestern Journal of Theology 12, no. 1 (2013): 17–38. Hartley, John E. “Holy and Holiness, Clean and Unclean.” Pages 420–31 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003. ———. Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, TX: Word, Incorporated, 1992. Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary. Translated by John Bowden. 2nd ed. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1983. Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Vol. 7. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996. Lane, William L. Hebrews 9–13. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, TX: Word, Incorporated, 1991. Lockett, Darian R. “Wholeness in Intertextual Perspective: James’ Use of Scripture in Developing a Theme.” Midwestern Journal of Theology 15.2 (2016): 92–106. Matthews, K. A. Genesis 1–11:26. The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1996. McKnight, Scot. The Letter of James. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. Morales, L. Michael. Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of the Book of Leviticus. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015. Motyer, Alec. Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999. Naselli, Andrew David. “How Should Biblical Theology Trace a Theme’s Salvation-Historical Progression?” In 40 Questions about Biblical Theology, by Jason S. DeRouchie, Oren R. 27 Martin, and Andrew David Naselli. 40 Questions. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2020. Naudé, Jackie A. “‫ָקדַש‬.” In The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren, Vol. 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997. Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005. Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Fator in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational. Translated by John W. Harvey. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1958. Peterson, David G. “Holiness.” In New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Rodrigues, Adriani Milli. “Perfection.” In Lexham Theological Wordbook, edited by Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, and Rebekah Hurst. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014. Scholer, John M. Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 49. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Smith, Gary V. Isaiah 1–39. The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2007. Söderblom, Nathan. “Holiness (General and Primitive).” In Encyclopaedia of Religions and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, Vol. 6. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1913. Sproul, R. C. The Holiness of God. 25th anniversary. Sanford, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2016. Ury, M. William. “Holy, Holiness.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1996. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1-33. Revised Edition. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005. Wenham, Gordon J. “Betûlāh, A Girl of Marriageable Age.” Vetus Testamentum 22, no. 3 (1972): 326–48. Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979. 28 Zipor, Moshe. “Restrictions on Marriage for Priests (Lev 21,7.13-14).” Biblica 68 (1987): 259– 67. 29