It is plausiole, though possibly misleading, to connect this most general sense of holiness with the assumed root-idea of the word, and to say that the aspect of divinity denoted by holiness is the
• Davidson, Ezekiel (Camb. Bible), p. x.xxix.
t The facts adduced in this para^'raph are adverse t^ the \-iew held by some writers, that holiness, even when ]>redicited of J", i^ a merely relative idea, denotinjr His fidelity to Hii covenant with Israel. There are, no doubt, paesa^'es which, taken by themselves, might seem to cou'itenance that explana- tion. But when we take account of all the uses of the word, and especially of the fact that it was a common epithet ol heathen deities, it is abundantly clear that holiness is an essen- tial attribute of J", apart altogether from IJis special relation to Israel. All the applications of the tenn can be oplained in harmony with this position. Thus, to take a salient instance, the phrase ' Holy One of Israel ' (see below) need not be para- phrased : ' the God who is Holy in \irtue of His relation to Israel.' It may equally mean, and in point of fact dofe mean, ' the (essentially) Uoly'Beiofir, who is God of Israel.'
HOLINESS
HOLINESS
397
•scp.ualion' of God from the world, or His trans- ceiuliiuL-. There is no doubt tliat the term does express tlie sense of an awful contrast between the divine and the human (llos 11»), although hardlv, perhaps, between God and the universe. The u'].position wliicli is implied in its aiiphcation to J " is rather to the presumption and pride of man on the one hand, and the pretended deity of false L'ods on the other, than to the whole of created existence.* But whether this idea lies in the word itself, or whether it was reached through the impression caused by the multitude of inviol- able things belonging to the sphere of deity, is a point which cannot be certainly determined, it lias to be remembered that, in early tunes at least, the holiness of the gods had no dehnite nieanin" apart from the holiness of their physical surroundings.t An illustration of this mode of thinking is furnished by the exclamation of the men of Beth-shemesli after they had looked into the ark • ' Who is able to stand before J " this holy God'' (IS 6-"). There it is evident that the holiness of J" and the holiness of the ark are practically identical, J'"s holiness being the quality manifested in His vindication of the inviolability of the sacred symbol. And so it must have been to a large extent in ancient religion : the divine holiness was not so much an object of intellectual contemplation as a fact borne in upon the mmd by the constant presence of things and persons that mi"ht not be touched, places that might not be enfered, and times in which ordinary emidoyraents were suspended, because of their appropriation to the service or worship of God. , , ■, c
The question as to the contents of the idea ot divine holiness thus resolves itself into the larger question of the conception of Godhead by which reli-'ious practice and devotion were ruled ; anil the°development of the idea in OT may be ex- pected to proceed step by step with the progressive revelation of the character and nature of J . Certain features of divinity, no doubt, retain a prominence due to the ancient associations of the word The term never ceases to emphasize the awfui side of the divine manifestation, and even in later writings this may sometimes be the on v thought conveyed by its use. But that, alter all, only means that J" was always regarded as a Being of awful and unapproachable majesty, to be feared just because He was divine. And while the history of the idea certainly does not show any abatement of the sentiment of awe due to J as the Holy One, it does exhibit an advance towards the conception of Him as one to be feared, not simply because He is all-powerful, but because of liia opposition to all that is impure and sinful, ■i-he ■■ ---'■ f .1..;*.-
1)OSlllOU to ail tUiH- la »i».i^i».^ — - "-•- ,
There are three main aspects of deity specially associated with the term 'holiness' in dillerent parts of the OT ; and all of these might without dilliculty be derived from the fundamental sense of uwijiprunchabUncss, which is never absent from the notion of J"'s holiness.
(1) The negative idea of unapproachableness readily passes over into the positive conceptions of qreiitwM, power, mnjcst<i, and the like. Of all uses of the word this is tiie most widely i-revalent ; »n<l in nearly every part of the literature we hnd expressions where holiness conveys no other thouglit tlian the might and majesty of the God of Israel, or the awe and fear which His presence inspires in man. This appears, e.g., in the words of the men of l!.,tli-»hem.sh already cited (1 S 6"). So in Is S" to ' sanctify J" ' is to regard Him as an oliiect of fear and dread. In Ex 15" J" is oxlolle.1 as
• Tho opinion that hoUnoM mu predlcalcl ot llio k"<1» "« havlnir Ihoir dwelling-plaoe In heaven doo. not appear to be wi'll (ountlwl.