THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
HOLINESS OF GOD.
Etymology of the Hebrew Term (§ 1).
Holiness in Objects (§ 2).
Holiness in the People (§3).
The Primitive Content of " Holiness " (§ 4).
Ethical Content of " Holiness " (§ 5).
Holiness as Transcendence (§ 6).
Usage in the New Testament (§ 7).
In Theology (§ S).
The word used in the Hebrew of the Old Testament for " holiness " is kadhesh, while " holy " is
expressed by kadhosh, both connected
i. Etymol- with the denominative verb kadhash.
ogy of the The efforts to trace the origin of the
Hebrew idea from the etymology have not been
Term. satisfactory. It has been connected
(by Fleischer, Delitzsch, and Baudissin) with a root kadhadh, " to cut off, to separate," and so appears to have a purely negative connotation. But the word itself does not tell from what or for what the separation takes place, leaving more exact definition to be made by the limiting expressions. Another derivation proposed (especially by Dillmann, on Isa. vi. 3 and in his Alttestamentliche Theohgie) is from a root found in Arabic and Ethiopic, kada, " to be pure, clear " (Assyrian kuddushu, " brilliant "; cf. Hebr. hadhash, " new, shining "). This derivation has the advantage over the other that etymologically it gives a positive as against a negative sense which applies easily to deity and to divine things. Yet it is to be remembered that holiness in the Old Testament is not necessarily conjoined with the idea of brilliance. In the historical usage of the Old Testament kadhosh has always a religious sense, and a better knowledge will be gained from examination of the historical usage than from investigation of etymological possibilities. Such an examination involves the double question, what holiness means as applied to things and persons and as applied to God.
Objects, times, and the like are called holy when they belong to God, are devoted or dedicated to
him, are then no longer " profane or 2. Holiness common," and so are excluded from in Objects, ordinary use. Examples of such things
are the temple, the tabernacle, and their belongings, the Sabbath and festivals, and heaven as God's dwelling-place (Lev. vi. 9 sqq., xix.; Isa. lviii. 13, lvii. 15). In such cases the idea of separation is consequent upon the holiness of the things; holiness is primary, separation is secondary. The relation of the notion to persons is well exemplified in Num. xvi. 5, 7. Priests and priestly persons are holy doubtless because they belong to God; but in this passage a weightier circumstance enters than mere external relationship — there is involved personal quality. Whoever belongs to God must have the essential character which accompanies such relationship. This is brought out in relation to the Nazirite in Num. vi. 5 sqq., and with especial clearness in I Sam. xxi. 6 in connection with the gift of the shewbread to David. So, according to Lev. xxi. 5 sqq., it is expected of the Levite that his relation to deity and the consequent holiness will affect and govern his external relations — he will not make himself impure by contact with a corpse, by shaving his head, or by taking other than a virgin as
his wife. Another kind of holiness is stated in Isa. iv. 3, where those remaining in Jerusalem are holy, but because the "filth" of the women is washed away and Zion's blood-guiltiness is done away. The underlying fact here, too, is not mere relationship to deity, but ethical quality is implied (cf. Isa. i. 26). The same idea comes out in relation to the people as a whole in Num. xvi. 3, in that they are holy just as the priests are holy (verse 5). They 3. Holiness belong to God, who dwells among in the them; they are in a connection of People, special nearness to him, are his possession, and have the right of approach to him (cf. Ex. xix. 4 sqq.), and consequently are under certain obligations to exhibit ethical or religious qualities. Holiness here, therefore, implies a condition and a demand; it involves both cultic and ethical requirements (Lev. xix. 2, " Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy "). This is the point of view of the entire Holiness Code in Lev. xi. sqq., especially xi. 44-45, which gives expressly both external ritual and ethical duties. Thus the double conception of holiness comes to light. On the one side Israel, as exemplifying the holiness of God, is not to touch or deal with certain impure things, and is to keep certain observances; on the other, Israel is to honor father and mother, to do righteousness, to practise charity and eschew evil. So in Ex. xix. 5-6 it appears that if Israel keeps the commands of God it will be God's possession and a kingdom of priests and a holy people, showing the underlying conception of character as belonging essentially to the idea. And this is rooted in the thought of the possession by God of the people which is to be holy. The conception of separation is, therefore, throughout only secondary.
The term kadhosh in its application to God, however, implies throughout, both etymologically and historically, a negative sense. If things 4. The and persons are not in themselves holy, Primitive but are so because they belong to God, Content of holiness as applied to him must involve " Holiness." what is essential to his attributes as deity and what is worthy of him. But just what this involves is not stated in the Old Testament in any simple formula which is good for all steps in the development which the idea certainly underwent. In early times in the mind of the people the holiness of God implied something fearful and unapproachable; in the height of the prophetic age, the content was strongly ethical; in the law and whatever was connected with it the transcendence of God came out as the motive of the ritual and service. The earlier and popular notion comes out in such passages as Lev. x. 2-3; I Sam. vi. 20, where the idea of God is that of a power who by destruction punishes those who by coming near to him invade his holiness. To such a being access can be had only through painstaking preparation and care. The inclusion of this idea in the late Priest Code proves only how tenacious the idea was.
But this is only one side of the thought. As soon as God came to be conceived as an ethical being, kadhosh came to have an ethical content, not because in itself it meant "pure," but because it was applied to deity to whom that quality was at-