It is relatively well known that the Hebrew word for “holy” is rooted in the idea of “separation”. In other words, God’s holiness is His difference from the human world. God is both above all creation, but He is also more pure than all creation. And this is found in His love. He is faithful in a way that nothing of creation is, He is consistently merciful in a way not even the best of humans can achieve. God is unique above all else.
But it is interesting to note the English root of “holy”—halig—means “whole, well, healthy”. This is holiness from the human perspective. That to take on God’s holiness in the human realm is to take on health and strength. To refuse to embrace forgiveness is to refuse well-being. To reject kindness is to embrace sickness. We need to be like God’s otherworldliness in order to be whole.
This comment may not help your rationale... I like your point though!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/Symphonic_Theology/bst7.htm
"James Barr has published a long catalog of mistakes made by biblical scholars. Without going into detail, I list six of the most common errors that he cites."
"Attempts to use etymology instead of the current meaning of a word, even when the current meaning is well known. For example, "holy" and "healthy" are etymologically related, but they do not now mean the same thing, and it is just confusing to say that they do (p. 111)."
I am not affirming root fallacy-- just because a root has a certain word doesn't mean that that is it's meaning. The interesting part is how the root of the English word "holy" (having no relation to the biblical concept at all) relates to the human activity of holiness.
ReplyDeleteAs you could tell, I was using the root as an illustration, not a proof.