1.13. The Holiness of God

CHAPTER XIII THE HOLINESS OF GOD

WE have now learnt that the word holy is a relative term denoting always, when applied to created objects, rational or irrational, something or someone devoted to Deity. This essential and simple meaning is made conspicuous in 2 Kings 10:20, where we have the phrase " sanctified for Baal." For by his worshippers Baal was looked upon as divine. That the word holy is relative, is conspicuously proved by the fuller and frequent phrase " holy to (or, for) Jehovah ; " in which the deity to whom the holy objects were devoted is expressly mentioned. But, since the one and only deity recognised by Israel was Jehovah, the word holy is frequently used, without any addition, as itself sufficient to denote devotion to Jehovah, the God of Israel. The above is the only meaning common to the various visible holy objects of the Old Covenant ; e.g. the Sabbath, Mount Sinai, the firstborn, and the temple with its altar and ritual. Consequently the word holy does not in itself convey the idea of morality. For it is frequently used where there is no thought of morality or immorality. On the other hand, inas much as God requires in His worshippers absolute devotion to His service, this in volving every moral excellence, the word implies, when used of intelligent persons, the highest morality. In them, in consequence of the conspicuous moral nature of God, a changed relation to deity involves a change of character reaching to the inmost thought of the heart. In the Old Testament, the devotion of the holy objects to Jehovah was due ultimately, not to man s gift, but, with very few exceptions, to the express command of God. They were holy because God had claimed them for His own. This objective holiness, man s disobedi ence could not set aside. It remained to condemn those who, by defiance of God, desecrated His holy things. But, since God s claim laid upon men a solemn obligation to give to Him that which He claimed, the word holy sometimes, and the cognate verb sanctify always when applied to created objects, are used to denote the actual consecration by men of objects which God had claimed for Himself.

Since these objects were surrounded by others not thus consecrated, e.g. the Sabbath as compared with other days of the week, Mount Sinai in contrast to the surrounding desert, the Tabernacle and its courts in contrast to the camp of Israel, the word holy associated with itself the idea of separation. But this was only a secondary and derived meaning ; due to the nearness of the not-sanctified. In Heaven there will be perfect holiness without thought of separation. In the New Testament, the symbolic conception of holiness is kept up in the holiness of the firstborn ; and of the Temple which sanctified the gold used in its construction. But the words holy and sanctify receive an infinitely higher sig nificance in the great prayer of Christ, "Sanctify them in the Truth," followed by the assertion, " on their behalf I sanctify Myself, in order that also they may be sanctified" This Sanctification in Christ receives further expression in the title saint or holy given to all professed followers of Christ ; and in Paul s prayer that God would sanctify^ and thus raise to spiritual maturity, those who were already " called saints!

All this gives to the words holy and sanctify, both in the Old and New Testaments, one clear and definite meaning, viz. a giving up to God of that which He has claimed to be specially His own ; this claim involving a special obligation, and a special privilege. This term, with this definite meaning when applied to men and things, is used in certain parts of the Old Testament, and in a few places in the New, as an attribute or predicate of God. See pp. 33-39. This use at once gives to the word holy infinite dignity, as worthy to describe an element in the nature of God. But it is not sufficiently definite in Old or New Testament to distinguish clearly the Holiness of God from His other attributes. Our only way to learn the meaning of the word holy when applied to God is to compare its indisputable and clearly-defined meaning when applied to created objects ; and especially to men, who are created in the image of God. In this way only, would those who heard the Jewish Scriptures read in the Synagogue interpret the phrase " Holy One of Israel." To them the use of the same term to describe God and man would reveal in God an element common to God and man. Indeed we can know God only so far as we find in ourselves something akin to God. This method cannot be set aside by the fact that holiness in God cannot be exactly the same as in man. Certainly God cannot be devoted to Himself. Nor can the Holiness of God be His devotion to us and our highest good. For Holiness is always, not devotion simply, but devotion to deity, to one infinitely superior to the objects devoted to Him. The relation of God to man, of the Creator to the created, cannot be exactly the same as that of man to God. Just so the Righteousness of God, who administers with equal hand His own laws, is not quite the same as the righteousness of men who obey His laws. Yet the idea of righteousness is the same in both cases, viz. conformity to law, in Ruler or ruled. We must seek a meaning of the term before us which stands related to the holiness of men as the Creator is related to the creature.

Since holiness in man is a relation of man to God, we expect to find in the Holiness of God an element of His nature underlying man s relation to Him. The term " Holy One of Israel " is evidently a divine counterpart to " holy for Jehovah." This implies that God s claim to the devotion to Himself of that which He has made, and especially to the unreserved devotion of His intelligent creatures, is an outflow of His inmost nature : it implies that He can do no other than claim their devotion.

One step further, we can safely take. We reverently ask, Why does God claim the unreserved devotion of our time, opportunities, talents, and all we have and are, to work out His own purposes ? The answer is easy. An intelligent being can attain his highest welfare only by concentrating his powers and effort on the attainment of a worthy purpose. Now all self-chosen purposes are unworthy : for the stream cannot rise above its source. Therefore God, seeking ever our highest good, gives Himself, and His pur pose of mercy, to His servants to be their one aim, in order that thus, by pursuing the noblest aim possible, men may ever rise towards God. The Love of God, the one central and essential attribute from which all His other moral attributes flow, moves Him to claim for Himself all we have and are. In other words, the Holiness of God is His Love contem plating intelligent creatures, capable of selecting and pursuing an aim in life, and giving Himself to be their one and only aim.

Yet Holiness is distinct from Love. Its specific quality is that it keeps ever in view man s capacity for choosing and pursuing a deliberate aim. It has been well said that Purpose is the autograph of Mind. Wherever there is purpose, there is mind. Wherever mind and purpose are directed towards the one supreme Source of mind, there is holiness. As the Supreme Mind, holiness has its source in God. Of this essential holiness of the Father, the eternal devotion of the Son is an eternal outflow; and, of this holiness of the Father and the Son, the holiness of men is a created and human outflow and copy.

Since all sin, in action, word, or thought, is hurtful to men, and therefore opposed to the loving purposes of God, His holiness, as an outflow of His love, is utterly and strenuously opposed to all sin. Con sequently, in so far as we are subjectively holy, we shall share this hostility to all sin. Moreover, as an influence against sin, God s holiness and love moved Him to threaten punishment for sin, and moves Him to punish sin, and to destroy those who persist in sin. Hence the solemn words in Deuteronomy 28:58, "that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, Jehovah thy God " ; and Hebrews 12:29, " our God is a consuming fire." The above exposition retains the definite and conspicuous meaning of the word holy as embodied in various visible objects ever before the eyes of Israel in the ritual of the temple, and familiar on the pages of their sacred books ; and traces the idea thus embodied to the in most nature of God.

It cannot be said that the Holiness of God is a conspicuous element of the Gospel as set forth in the New Testament. It is found there, apart from two important quotations from the Old Testament, only three times : see p. 52. But the conception of holiness was kept before the earliest followers of Christ in the term saint or holy person, used to describe them, and in the new title, "Holy Spirit," given to the Spirit of God. On no important topic in theology do we find so much diversity of opinion and consequent uncertainty as about the Holiness of God. So Prof. Davidson, in his very able volume on The Theology of the Old Testament, p. 144, says, " The Holiness of Jehovah is a very obscure subject, and the most diverse views regarding it have prevailed among Old Testament students." He goes on to say that in Phoenician the term holy as applied to God is " a mere epitheton ornans, having no force." This is almost a suggestion of despair. He agrees with the exposition given in this volume that " the word is applied to men and things, not as describing any quality in them, but to indicate their relation to deity." Consequently, "in its original use the term holy when applied either to God or to men, does not express a moral quality." He goes on to say, but without giving any adequate proof, that the word holy " as applied to Jehovah is a general term expressing Godhead." He adds that the word " holy acquired contents, and one prophet puts in one kind of contents into it and another another." If this be so, the word in their lips was practically meaningless. On p. 149 f., he properly places, as I have done on p. 39 of this volume, the holiness of God in close relation to His "jealousy." But his entire discussion of the Holiness of God, on pp. 144-160, leaves the whole matter shrouded in uncertainty. The same may be said of a very devout and excellent book by the Rev. Andrew Murray entitled Holy in Christ. Pages 281-283 are occupied by quotations from my earlier book on Holiness. On p. 284 Mr. Murray adds, " However much truth there be in the above exposition, it hardly meets our desire for an insight into what is one of the highest attributes of the very Being of God. When the Seraphs worship Him as the Holy One, and in their Thrice Holy reflect something of the deepest mystery of Godhead, it surely means more than merely the expression of God s claim as Sovereign Proprietor of all." But can even the noblest creatures of God pay to Him higher honour than by recognising His rightful " claim as Sovereign Proprietor of all ? " The only higher honour known to us is to recognise, in the light which shines from the cross of Christ, that this supreme claim is an outflow of infinite love, and that God claims our devotion because only by devoting to Him, in lowly gratitude, all we have and are and using all our powers to work out His purposes, can we attain our highest well-being. The Seraph cry, " Holy, Holy, Holy, Jehovah of Hosts," is surpassed only by the repeated assertion that " God is Love."

Indeed Mr. Murray says, on p. 47, that 11 proprietorship is one of the central thoughts both in redemption and in sanctification."

He then, on p. 284, continues, " The mistake appears to originate in taking first the meaning of the word holy from earthly objects, and then from that deducing that holiness in God cannot mean more than it does when applied to men. The Scriptures point to the opposite way. When Old and New Testaments say Be ye holy, for I am holy, I make holy, they point to God s holiness as the first, both the reason and the source of ours. We ought first to discover what holiness in God is." But in all human research we must proceed, not necessarily or usually, from cause to effect, but from that which is better known to that which is less known, from that which is nearer to us to that which is further off. Now the meaning of the word holy as applied to men, things, places, and times, was clearly taught by visible holy objects familiar to the eyes and thought of Israel, and familiar to us in the pages of the Old Testament. But the whole teaching of the Bible gives us no definite conception of the Holiness of God, except so far as the idea of holiness is embodied in the visible objects just referred to. Of this indefiniteness, the fifteen different and conflicting opinions about the Holiness of God quoted by Mr. Murray on pp. 286- 297, and the obscurity admitted by Prof. Davidson, are complete proof. On the other hand, we have, among all scholars, a general agreement touching the meaning of the word holy when applied to men and things. This practical certainty is our only avenue of approach to the mysterious Holiness of God. Just as God has in some measure revealed His natural attributes in the material Universe, so that " the Heavens are telling the glory of God," so also in the ancient ritual pre scribed to Israel He has given to them and to us a further and far deeper revela tion of Himself, of His relation to us, and of ours to Him.

Mr. Murray says, on p. 285, that if "Holiness in God" is "a mere relation, . . . we should then have no attribute ex pressive of God s moral perfection." That Holiness in God is a mere relation, I have never said. It is a relation revealing His personal character. But it is not the highest revelation of His character. This is summed up in three words : " God is Love." For " love is the fulfilment of the Law : " Romans 13:10. Love involves all morality, and makes needless any further law. Moreover, to define God s holiness as His moral perfection, does not tell us in what His moral perfection consists. It adds nothing to our conception of God ; but is a mere blank label on which each one writes what he likes. In the book quoted above, Prof. David son discusses the important and conspicuous topic of Holiness only under the heading of the Holiness of God : see pp. 144-160, and again pp. 252-259, 264. But, as applied to created objects, he incidentally confirms the exposition given by me ; except that he has not adequately called attention to the fact that, as I have shown on pp. 18 f. and 26, the consecration of the holy things and men had its ultimate origin, not in man s gift, but almost always in the express command of God. This marks an infinite difference between the worship of Israel and the gifts laid on the altars of the Gentiles. We notice also that Dr. Davidson s ex position of holiness under the Old Covenant has little or no bearing on the Christian life of today. Yet this bearing gives to the ancient ritual its chief interest for us.

Mr. Murray s volume, quoted above, is a most careful and reverent study of the teaching of the whole Bible about Holiness ; and an application of it throughout to the inward and outward life of the servants of Christ. Except in reference to the Holiness of God, he is in close general agreement with my earlier volume which he quotes at some length, and with this volume. Indeed he follows my method by tracing the use of the words holy and sanctify in Genesis and Exodus. More over, after calling attention, in a footnote on p. 49, to his long quotations from my book, he adopts on p. 52 my distinction between objective and subjective holiness: " The objective Divine gift, bestowed once for all and completely, must be appropriated as a subjective personal possession."

Mr. Murray s careful and devout search of both Old and New Testaments, seeking at every point the bearing of holiness, in the ancient ritual and in the teaching of Christ and His apostles, on the spiritual life of men and women today, is worthy of all commendation. The results gained in this volume by careful inference from the teaching of the Old and New Testaments, read in the light of our own experience, we will now further test and develop by deduction from the nature of God as expounded above. In my Manuals of Theology I have pointed to various and decisive evidence attesting that beyond and above the visible universe is a Supreme Intelligence, the Creator of the world and the righteous and loving Ruler of men ; also to evidence proving that with Him, from eternity, is One Other than Himself, a Sharer by derivation from Him of His eternal and infinite attributes, the Only- begotten Son of God. We there saw that the entire activity of the Son is devoted to realisation of the Father s purposes ; the eternal Stream flowing back in full volume to its eternal Source. Thus in God, as an essential element of His nature, and in the relation of the Son to the Father, we have the eternal Arche type of Holiness. The infinite Love which is the inmost essence of God, seeking objects worthy of His love, moved Him to create finite creatures in His own image, in order that they may be sharers, with the Son, of His unreserved devotion to the Father ; in order that thus the Only-begotten might become the " Firstborn among many brethren." With this aim, God claims the unreserved devotion of all His intelligent creatures, this being the only way in which they can attain the purpose for which they were created, and their highest well-being.

Since all sin hinders this divine purpose of mercy, God forbad sin, and supported His prohibition by tremendous penalties proportionate to the injury and loss which sin everywhere causes. This prohibition finds silent expression in the law written in the hearts of all men. Its positive counterpart, viz. that God claims not only avoidance of sin but unreserved devotion of all our powers to work out His purposes, found visible and symbolic, yet only partial and local, expression in the ritual prescribed for Israel. The separation of the holy things and men from all else around set forth the reality, nearness, and majesty of God. Thus the Creator of the world and of man became the God of the temple, the altar, the sacrifices, and the ritual; the Holy One of Israel. This conception of Holiness, derived from visible objects separated by God s command from all others, lived on in the thought of Israel through the Exile, the Return, the Maccabean struggle, to the days of Christ ; and perceptibly colours the language of the New Testament. In the supreme crisis of His life on earth, the Son prayed, touching His disciples, " Holy Father . . . Sanctify them in the Truth . . . and on their behalf I sanctify Myself that also they may be sanctified." This prayer was re-echoed in other prayers and exhortations and teaching in the New Testament. The sanctification involved therein found expression in the title saint given to all professed followers of Christ. And inasmuch as this active and unreserved devotion to God is realised in men only so far as they are purified and filled and moved by the inward presence of the Spirit of God, breathing into them the life and devotion of the Incarnate and Crucified and Risen Son, the Spirit of God receives, as His ordinary designation in the New Testament, the title HOLY SPIRIT.

Hitherto we have sought, by study of the Mosaic Ritual, to understand the holiness which Christ came to realise in His people. The process may be profitably reversed. The holiness for which Christ prayed for His disciples explains, and is the only conceivable explanation of, a great part of the Mosaic Ritual. It has frequently been observed that the only explanation of the Mosaic sacrifices, and of the prominence given to blood in the ritual, is the doctrine that in later ages Christ came to save mankind by His own death ; and that apart from the death of Christ the Old Testament sacrifices are meaningless and therefore unaccountable. It is equally true that the prominence given in the Old Covenant to ceremonial holiness receives its only explanation from the holiness prayed for by Christ. In order to teach men, in the only way they could understand, that God bids them to look upon themselves as belonging to Him, and to use all their powers to work out His purposes, God set apart for Himself, in visible and symbolic form, a certain place, and certain men, things, and periods of time. Afterwards, when in this way men had become familiar with the idea of holiness, God proclaimed in Christ that this idea must be realised in every man and place and thing and time. Thus-, in the Biblical conception of holiness, we have an explanation of a marked and otherwise inexplicable feature of the Old Covenant ; a link binding the Covenants together; and a light which each Covenant reflects back on the other. In this volume we have seen the abiding practical worth of the Old Testa ment Ritual as a symbol of the New Life in Christ. To this abiding value, abundant witness is borne in Christian literature, and especially in Christian psalmody. In all ages and races Christian thought has found appropriate expression in the phraseology of the ancient ritual. This abiding spiritual benefit of symbols which have long ago passed away reveals their divine origin and thus confirms the narratives which trace them to commands given by God to ancient Israel. Of this far-reaching benefit, the writers of the Old Testament seem to have been themselves almost unconscious. And their unconsciousness of the real significance of that which they carefully describe indicates clearly a Hand unseen guiding their hands, or at least attests the divine origin of that which they describe. That in this remarkable manner the Old Covenant prepares a way for the New, proves that it came from Him who in later days sent His Son to announce the salvation dimly foreshadowed in the ancient symbols. This confirmation extends only to the broad principles under-lying the ritual, not to all its details; and it sheds little light on the author ship or age of the documents from which we derive our knowledge of the ritual. But it affords important evidence for the general historical truth of these documents.