Andrews University

Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary

DIVINE HOLINESS

A Paper

Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Course

THST 940 The Attributes of God

by

Karl Tsatalbasidis

January 31, 2008

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 Background to the Problem. ..........................................................................................1 Problem. .........................................................................................................................3 Working Hypothesis. .....................................................................................................4 Purpose. ..........................................................................................................................4 Relevance. ......................................................................................................................5 Delimitations. .................................................................................................................5 Methods and Procedures. ...............................................................................................5 II. HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING ...................................................................................7 Barth and Holiness. ........................................................................................................9 Pannenberg and Holiness. ............................................................................................10 Pannenberg’s View of Scripture and His Dependence upon Philosophy. .............11 Linking Holiness to Infinity. ..................................................................................12 Pannenberg’s Use of Scripture. ..............................................................................13 The Meaning of the Word Holy. ............................................................................15 Strong and Holiness. ....................................................................................................15 Strong’s View of Scripture and His Dependence upon Philosophy. .....................15 Strong’s Use of Scripture. ......................................................................................16 Summary of Pannenberg and Strong. ..........................................................................19 III. BIBLICAL CONSTRUCTION .........................................................................................20 Introduction and Purpose. ............................................................................................20 Hermeneutical Assumptions. .......................................................................................21 Phenomenological Exegesis. ..................................................................................21 The Law of Building. .............................................................................................23 Design Theory. .......................................................................................................24 The Integrative Function of the Sanctuary. ............................................................26 Ontological Ground of Divine Holiness. .....................................................................27 Isaiah 6:3. ...............................................................................................................27 Revelation 4:8. .......................................................................................................30 Isaiah 57:15. ...........................................................................................................33 Ontological Insights from the Law ........................................................................35

ii

2nd Commandment ...........................................................................................35 3rd Commandment ............................................................................................37 4th Commandment. ...........................................................................................37 Summary of the Ontological Insights ..............................................................39 Holiness and Immutability ...........................................................................................40 Divine Holiness and Moral Character ..........................................................................41 Divine Holiness the Law and Moral Character ......................................................42 1st Commandment. ............................................................................................42 3rd Commandment. ............................................................................................43 4th Commandment. ............................................................................................44 Last 6 Commandments. ....................................................................................45 Isaiah 6:1-8. ............................................................................................................46 Hebrews 12:9-14. ...................................................................................................48 1 Peter 1:15-16. ......................................................................................................48 Summary of Biblical Construction. .............................................................................49 IV. COMPARISON AND CONCLUSION .............................................................................52 Introduction and Purpose. ............................................................................................52 The Meaning of Divine Holiness. ................................................................................52 Ontological Ground. ....................................................................................................54 Pannenberg’s Ontology. .........................................................................................56 Strong’s Ontology. .................................................................................................56 Comparing the Ontology of the Biblical, Transcendent And Moral Models. ...........................................................................................57 How Ontology Affects the Meaning of Divine Holiness. ............................................58 Pannenberg, Ontology and Divine Holiness. .........................................................58 Strong, Ontology and Divine Holiness. .................................................................60 Biblical Model, Ontology and Divine Holiness. ....................................................63 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................................66

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background to the Problem

The attributes of God have been thoroughly discussed by many theologians

throughout the centuries who classify and categorize them in many different ways. There

are hundreds of references in the Bible regarding holiness.1 Consequently, many

theologians also recognize holiness as a divine attribute which is evident in the large

body of works that have been written about it.2 From the theological materials that I have

analyzed on divine holiness, two models which account for many theologians, have been

observed; one is the transcendent model represented by Wolfhart Pannenberg and the

other is the moral model represented by Augustus Hopkins Strong.3

1 There are 32 references in the KJV that describe God as holy. Phrases such as “holy One,” “holy

God” and “I am holy” were referenced. In addition to these references, 34 were found that describe God as “the Holy One of Israel,” 28 of them occur in the book of Isaiah; see Dale Moody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's, 1981), 96. There were also 23 references that describe God’s name as being holy.

2 See the bibliography for a survey of systematic theologies that discuss holiness as a divine attribute.

3 The transcendent model implies an ontological separation from creation which precludes any cognitive content in the Scriptures as a revelation from God to humanity. The moral model entails a relational separation from the fallen world and its ways and assumes that God’s will and thoughts are communicated in the Bible.

2

Strong’s position on holiness as the fundamental moral attribute of God1 has been

recognized by several theologians such as Stanley Grenz2, Orton Wiley3, Millard J.

Erickson4, Thomas N. Finger5 and Norman Gulley6. Similarly, scholars today have also

recognized Pannenberg as one who emphasizes the role of reason7 rather than those who

“reduce the faith to the private world of personal piety,” in establishing the Christian

faith.8 While these two theologians do not account for all Protestant theologians, they

nevertheless do represent the transcendent and moral models that account for how many

1 Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Chicago, Il: The Judson Press, 1907),

1:268-275, 290-303. On page 247 of the same volume Strong declares the “Scriptures to be a revelation from God, inspired in every part” and we can “look to them as decisive authority with regard to God’s attributes.”

2 Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 94.

3 H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology, 3 vols. (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1962), 1:367-368.

4 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983), 1:285.

5 Thomas N. Finger, Christian Theology: An Eschatological Approach, 2 vols. (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1989), 2:495.

6 Norman R. Gulley, Systematic Theology: Prolegomena (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2003), 147.

7 Frank M. Hasel, “Scripture in the Theologies of W. Pannenberg and D.G. Bloesch: An Investigation and Assessment of Its Origin, Nature, and Use” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Andrews University, 1994), 8-9. On pgs 136-137 Hasel further explains Pannenberg’s view of Scripture by stating that his “impersonal concept of God and his Enlightenment framework of thinking excludes the possibility of any verbal or cognitive content to be revealed by God, be that about Himself or His will for humankind.”

8 Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson, 20th Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age (Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 197-198.

3

understand the role of different theological sources1 which may impact this study on

Divine Holiness.

Problem

According to Pannenberg, the “concept of the Infinite links up especially with that

of the holiness of God, for the basic meaning of holiness is separateness from everything

profane.”2 The Infinite is not just a concept that is distinct from everything that is limited

and transitory but the “Infinite is also truly infinite when it transcends its own antithesis

to the finite. In this sense the holiness of God is truly infinite, for it is opposed to the

profane, yet it also enters into the profane world, penetrates it and makes it holy.”3

For Strong, holiness is the fundamental attribute in God4 which is the source and

standard of the right5, the free moral movement of the Godhead.6 “Like truth and love,

this attribute [holiness] can be understood only in the light of the doctrine of the

Trinity.”7

1 Fernando Canale, "Deconstructing Evangelical Theology?," Andrews University Seminary

Studies Vol. 44, no. 1 (2006): 126-128.

2 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 1:397-398.

3 Ibid., 1:400.

4 Strong, 1:296.

5 Ibid., 1:273.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid., 1:274. Strong says that “Love implies not merely receiving but giving, not merely emotion but impartation. So the love of God is shown in his eternal giving.” He continues by saying, “it is his nature to give. And not only to give, but to give himself. This he does eternally in the self-communications of the Trinity” (265) (emphasis supplied). The same process would apply to holiness within the Trinity.

4

Therefore as an attribute of God, is holiness a vague, amoral concept that is the

antithesis of anything limited or transitory such as Pannenberg described, or is holiness a

moral attribute such as Strong described? Both authors develop their ontological

framework from philosophy which may affect how holiness is understood, thus it is

necessary to overcome this approach by constructing holiness on the basis of the Bible

alone, so that the proper understanding of divine holiness can be ascertained. The

Protestant Reformation was based upon the rallying cry of the Sola Scriptura principle.

This paper seeks to evaluate the Protestant understanding of Divine Holiness in order to

ascertain the extent to which Protestant theologians have built their understanding of this

attribute by faithfully following that rallying cry of the Reformation.

Working Hypothesis

Protestantism’s dependence upon philosophy in order to do theology has affected

our understanding of God and His attributes. The conflicting interpretations of

Pannenberg and Strong on Divine Holiness are based upon their respective ontological

starting points derived from philosophy. The construction of this attribute from the

Biblical perspective may help us to overcome the conflicting interpretations between

Pannenberg and Strong, which could in turn set the Biblical groundwork for how Divine

Holiness will affect the doctrine of salvation, ethics, eschatology and the mission of the

church.

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is two-fold: (i) to critically analyze and deconstruct the

current Protestant understanding of Divine Holiness as represented by Wolfhart

5

Pannenberg and Augustus Hopkins Strong and (ii) to develop an understanding of Divine

Holiness based upon the Bible as the only theological source.

Relevance

Today, modern and postmodern concepts have dominated our society in such a

way that few are able to escape their influence. This has no doubt influenced our

understanding of Divine Holiness. There is always a clear relationship between how the

divine attributes are understood and Christian experience, the latter is clearly affected by

the correct understanding of the former. Furthermore, the Lord says that we must be holy

for He is holy (1 Pet 1:15-16). By recapturing the Biblical definition of divine holiness

and setting it within its proper framework, the groundwork for personal holiness will be

better understood since the call to be holy is based on a correct understand of divine

holiness.

Delimitations

This paper is a starting point for understanding divine holiness solely within the

doctrine of God. However, exploring the implications of how the Biblical and Protestant

understanding of this attribute might affect salvation, ethics, eschatology and the mission

of the church falls outside the limits of this study but is something that also must be

explored since all these areas are integrated.

Methodology and Procedures

The second chapter is a historical account of how divine holiness is understood

within the context of Protestantism via the works of Pannenberg and Strong. This

6

chapter will also evaluate the theological method used by each theologian and how it

relates to the development of their understanding of divine holiness.

The third chapter will explore the biblical understanding of this attribute based

upon Scripture. However, since there are hundreds of references to holiness, many of

which describe the Lord, this paper will examine Isa 6:3 along with its counterpart in Rev

4:8 in order to understand how divine holiness placed within the context of the heavenly

sanctuary affects our understanding of this attribute. These are two key verses in the

discussion which are mentioned by many theologians in addition to Pannenberg and

Strong. Since the Bible teaches that God is holy and His law is holy, this will be

explored. This is a key area that has been left out of the discussion of divine holiness and

merits investigation. Furthermore Bible passages that describe God’s greatness as holy

along with passages that portray His promises connected to His holiness will also be

explored. This chapter will also outline certain hermeneutical assumptions that will be

explained in greater detail in this chapter which include a phenomenological exegesis to

the relevant Biblical texts1, the law of building, design theory and the interpretive

function of the Sanctuary.

The fourth chapter will compare the findings of chapters two and three and then

briefly summarize and draw conclusions.

1 Fernando Canale, A Criticism of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness as Primordial

Presuppositions (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 1983), 296-297. This method will be further explained at the beginning of chapter 3.

7

CHAPTER TWO

HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTION

The list of theologians surveyed in this section is not meant to be an exhaustive

survey of all of them but rather a sample of those who have written about divine holiness.

This survey reveals that many theologians like Strong believe divine holiness is moral

and ethical and is also the fundamental attribute of God.1 However, while many others

do not consider holiness to be the fundamental attribute, they nevertheless consider it to

be moral and ethical in nature.2 On the other hand, Grenz considers love to be the

1 See Emery H. Bancroft, Christian Theology: Systematic and Biblical (Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan, 1949), 28-33. Louis Berkhof, Reformed Dogmatics, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's, 1932), 2:49. Charles F. Baker, A Dispensational Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Grace Bible Publications, 1971), 137. H. Ray Dunning, Grace, Faith, and Holiness: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1988), 192-193. J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: God, the World & Redemption, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988), 1:59. J.I. Packer, Knowing God (Toronto, ON: Hodder and Stoughton, 1973), 183. Edgar Young Mullins, The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression (Chicago, Il: The Judson Press, 1917), 230. William Wilson Stevens, Doctrines of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's, 1967), 52. Thomas C. Oden, The Living God, 3 vols. (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1987), 1:100. James Leo Jr. Garrett, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's, 1990), 1:228. Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's, 1952), 129. Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 4 vols. (St. Louis, MI: Concordia Publishing House, 1950), 1:456.

2 See Emanuel V. Gerhart, Institutes of the Christian Religion (New York, NY: A.C. Armstrong & Son, 1891), 498. Kenneth Cauthen, Systematic Theology: A Modern Protestant Approach (Queenston, ON: Edwin Mellen Press, 1986), 105. Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1966), 100. Henry B. Smith, System of Christian Theology, ed. William S. Karr (New York, NY: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1892), 34. Henry C. Sheldon, System of Christian Doctrine (New York, NY: The Methodist Book Concern, 1903), 185. John Mackintosh Shaw, Christian Doctrine: A One-Volulme Outline of Christian Belief (Toronto, ON: Ryerson Press, 1953), 44. Raymond Miner, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (New York, NY: Eaton and Mains, 1877), 1:362. R. Rock, Christian Doctrine: A Comprehensive Study on Systematic and Practical Theology, ed. Jonathan Weaver, Divine Attributes (Dayton, OH: United Brethren Publishing House, 1889), 76.

8

foundational attribute of God as well as the context in which holiness is understood,1

while H. Berkhof2, Haering3 and Weber4 closely associate love with holiness.

In contrast to this is the transcendent model represented by Pannenberg’s amoral

concept of holiness as separation from everything limited and transitory. Barth5,

Bloesch6, Brunner7, Macquarrie8, Moody9, Otto1, Schleiermacher2 and Tillich3 are all part

of the transcendent model.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, ed. John F. Walvoord, 2 vols. (Wheaton, Il: Victor Books, 1988), 1:145. Finger, 2:495. Kenneth E. Jones, Theology of Holiness and Love (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1995), 71. John Miley, Systematic Theology, 2 vols. (New York, NY: Hunt & Eaton, 1892), 1:199. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952), 1:413. John Brown, The Systematic Theology of John Brown of Haddington (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2002), 112. James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1962), 1:65. Erickson, 1:284. Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 1:233. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 201. P.B. Fitzwater, Christian Theology: A Systematic Presentation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's 1948), 83. S.J. Gamertsfelder, Systematic Theology (Harrisburg, PA: Evangelical Publishing House, 1921), 199. Wiley, 1:374. John Christian Wenger, Introduction to Theology (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1954), 49.

1 Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, 93.

2 Hendrikus Berkhof, Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of Faith, trans. Sierd Woudstra (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's, 1979), 123.

3 Theodore Haering, The Christian Faith: A System of Dogmatics, trans. John Dickie and George Ferries, 2 vols. (New York, NY: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), 1:344.

4 Otto Weber, Foundations of Dogmatics, trans. Darrell L. Guder (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's, 1981), 437.

5 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 13 vols. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1957), 2/1:360-361.

6 Donald G. Bloesch, God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love (Downer's Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 137-138.

7 Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God, 3 vols. (London: Lutterworth Press, 1949), 1:158,165.

8 John Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology (New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1966), 192.

9 Moody, 95-96.

9

Barth and Holiness

In light of the great contribution that Barth makes to theology, it seems fitting to

look briefly into what he has written on the subject of holiness. Barth states:

The common factor linking the biblical concepts of the grace and the holiness of God is seen in the fact that they both in characteristic though differing fashion point to the transcendence of God over all that is not Himself. . . The holiness of God...means primarily and decisively this - that God has adopted and chosen Israel as His child, has given it His promise, and has already conferred upon it His gracious help. . . According to Is 41:14; 43:3,14; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7 and 54:5 the Holy One of Israel is the Redeemer (goel). The Israelites will hold His name holy because they will see what His hands have done for them (Is 29:23). In all these and similar passages holiness could obviously stand for grace, since it characterizes God as Him who is and acts for Israel.4

Barth is correct to connect holiness with the idea of God as Redeemer and with

the acts of God. However, one must understand Barth's idea of the adoption of Israel

from the standpoint of his theological system in order to understand the framework in

which holiness fits. Barth says, “God exists in His act. God is His own decision. God

lives from and by Himself. God is. The first and basic general definition of this

statement has now been given. Whatever else we may have to say must always

correspond to this first definition.”5

1 Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea of the

Divine and Its Relation to the Rational, trans. John W. Harvey (London, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1936), 54. Otto’s work has had a major impact and has been cited by Barth, Brunner, Bloesch, Macquarrie, Moody and Pannenberg.

2 Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, ed. H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart (New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1948), 341.

3 Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 1:271.

4 Barth, 2/1:360-361.

5 Ibid., 2/1:272.

10

With Aquinas and Boethius he [Barth] assumes that God's reality, foreknowledge, and will are timeless and immutable…Barth built his theological system around the conviction that God's will has primacy over His being. God decides not only the actual contents of nature and history but also His own being…Since God's will does not operate in the future, present, past sequence of time, what He decides already exists in the timeless act of decision. In other words, God does not decided and then bring about the content of His decisions. In God’s reality there is no sequence of time and therefore no "then." The totality of God's decisions exists eternally (timelessly) in His reality. . . The basic Platonic understanding of reality adopted by Roman Catholic theology survives and leads in Barth's modernist reinterpretation of the Protestant Reformed tradition. Thus history continues to be the outer manifestation in time of what always existed in the inner timeless reality of divine action.1

Hence, God's timeless and immutable will not only decides the contents of nature,

history, and His own being but also Jesus Christ and the adoption of Israel.

Consequently, Barth links the holiness of God to the transcendence of God over all that is

not Himself which is interpreted timelessly. This understanding then becomes the basis

for understanding how holiness connects with God as Redeemer and with the acts of

God.

Pannenberg and Holiness

It’s important to note at this point that neither Pannenberg or Strong approach the

discussion of divine holiness without assuming an ontological framework. Therefore,

any attempt to understand holiness apart from ontology may only result in confusion and

misapplication.

Pannenberg states that:

Any intelligent attempt to talk about God—talk that is critically aware of its conditions and limitations—must begin and end with confession of the inconceivable majesty of God which transcends all our concepts. It must begin with this because the lofty mystery that we call God is always close to the speaker and to all creatures, and

1 Fernando Canale, Basic Elements of Christian Theology: Scripture Replacing Tradition (Berrien

Springs, MI: Andrews University Lithotech, 2005), 141,142. Cf Church Dogmatics 2/1:610-611; 260-268.

11

prior to all our concepts it encloses and sustains all being, so that it is always the supreme condition of all reflection upon it and of all the resultant conceptualization. It must also end with God’s inconceivable majesty because every statement about God, if there is in it any awareness of what is being said, points beyond itself. Between this beginning and this end comes the attempt to give a rational account of our talk about God.1

Pannenberg’s View of Scripture and His Dependence upon Philosophy

As Frank Hasel already explained, Pannenberg’s “impersonal concept of God and

his Enlightenment framework of thinking excludes the possibility of any verbal or

cognitive content to be revealed by God, be that about Himself or His will for

humankind.”2 This seems to set the stage for explaining what Pannenberg means by the

inconceivable majesty of God which transcends all human concepts. One can only

wonder what we can possibly know about a God who cannot be conceived and who

cannot communicate anything to us about Himself or His will? Furthermore,

Pannenberg’s concept of Revelation as history, not God acting in or through history,

along with the absence of the role and function of Scripture in his writings3, greatly

contributes to his use of philosophy, tradition and experience as theological sources.4

1 Pannenberg, 1:337.

2 Hasel, 136-137.

3 Gulley, 264-265.

4 Pannenberg, 1:339. On pages 441-442 he states that in section 6 (pages 397-401) the “biblical statements about holiness…give concrete form to the true Infinite which philosophical reflection advances.”

12

Linking Holiness to Infinity

Moving on from this foundation, Pannenberg begins the discussion on holiness by

linking God’s incomprehensibility and inconceivability with the concept of “infinity and

with the infinite unity of his essence.”1 His epistemological starting point for formulating

the infinite begins with Descartes’ idea of the infinite yet he still assumes the classical

timeless understanding of ontology when explaining the infinite, which later becomes

inextricably linked with the idea of holiness.2

According to Pannenberg, “the confession of God’s holiness is also closely

related to the thought of his infinity, so closely, indeed, that the thought of infinity as

God’s infinity needs the statement of his holiness for its elucidation.”3 Moreover, “the

Infinite is truly infinite only when it transcends its own antithesis to the finite. In this

sense the holiness of God is truly infinite, for it is opposed to the profane, yet it also

enters the profane world, penetrates it, and makes it holy.” Also, this concept of the

Infinite tells us that we have to think of it “as negation, as the opposite of the finite, but

also that it comprehends this antithesis in itself.”4

Pannenberg concludes by saying, “Hence the concept of the Infinite could become

a description of the divine reality in distinction from everything finite, i.e., from

1 Ibid., 1:347.

2 Ibid., 1:355-356.

3 Ibid., 1:397.

4 Ibid., 1:400. Pannenberg’s ontological panentheistic structure forms the basis for why holiness is stripped of any ethical properties.

13

everything limited and transitory. In this regard the concept of the Infinite links up

especially with that of the holiness of God, for the basic meaning of holiness is

separateness from everything profane.”1 We should notice that divine reality (ontology),

the Infinite and holiness are linked in this statement. Since the structure of divine reality

is panentheism, holiness is then largely deterministic in nature and the separation

between the holy and the profane is made on ontological rather than on relational

grounds.

Pannenberg’s Use of Scripture

Pannenberg rightly points out that “the holiness of God, then, may be seen

primarily in his judgment” (Exod 19:12; 1 Sam 6:20 and Isaiah 6:5)2 but also as the

means for salvation (Hos 11:9; Isaiah 40:25; 41:14; 43:3,14; 48:17; 49:7).3 An analysis

of Isa 6:1-5 is appropriate here in light of his ontological structure but a detailed response

to all of the texts mentioned would go well beyond the limits of this paper. Since

ontology is ultimately what gives meaning to the texts, Pannenberg’s ontological

panentheistic structure affects this passage in two ways: i) it’s not an actual historical

experience, rather it’s a metaphor or symbol that captures a glimpse of God’s holiness

which is amoral and linked to the Infinite, ii) In Isaiah 6:1 the Bible says that God is

seated upon His throne in the sanctuary, yet this sanctuary imagery is also a metaphor

thus God does not directly contact the prophet in the flow of space and time as portrayed

1 Ibid., 1:397-398.

2 Ibid., 1:398.

3 Ibid., 1:399.

14

in the Bible passage. Also the prophet’s sense of dread mentioned in Isa 6:5 must come

as a result of an “encounter” with the holiness of God which is understood as a vague

amoral concept.

According to Pannenberg holiness is also the basis for why “cultic times and

places must be kept separate from the profane reality of life.” In addition to this, God’s

people are also to be a holy people, consecrated to the Lord their God (Lev 19:2; Deut

7:6; 26:16; cf. Exod 19:6).1 Moreover, the concept of the true Infinite becomes the

framework in which one understands the purpose for why God sent his Son to save the

world as well as the proper understanding of what constitutes the world that is to come.2

Given Pannenberg’s ontology one must wonder what the call to holiness actually

entails? Reasoning from his structure it seems as it would be devoid of ethical values or

on another note it might be the mere intellectual recognition of who we are in relation to

the Infinite. Grenz and Olson’s observation of the critics regarding Pannenberg’s

eschatological ontology would equally apply to his ontology based on the concept of the

Infinite. They state, “God’s transcendence is his futurity and wholeness, and in this

ontology, the future has power over the present, not only defining it but also determining

it in its depth. These ideas, however, have raised a storm of criticism. One area of

criticism concerns the ethical vision that Pannenberg’s eschatological ontology

undergirds.”3

1 Ibid., 1:398.

2 Ibid., 1:399.

3 Grenz and Olson, 20th Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age, 198.

15

The Meaning of the Word Holy

The role of ontological presuppositions clearly affects how the theologians of the

transcendent model, of which Pannenberg is a representative, articulate the meaning of

holiness as primarily referring to separation without ethical characteristics1, while many

in the moral model also include holiness as separation.2

Strong and Holiness

Strong’s View of Scripture and His Dependence upon Philosophy

We now shift to our analysis of the moral model as represented by Strong, who

like Pannenberg, also builds the concept of divine holiness upon philosophy in spite of

his belief that the Scriptures are a “revelation from God, inspired in every part [and that]

we may properly look to them as decisive authority with regard to God’s attributes.”3 In

theory Strong pursues a phenomenological approach in his ontological construction but

instead of going where the data leads, he defines God’s nature4 on the basis of Greek

philosophy.5 Strong categorizes the attributes into two great classes: Absolute or

1 Pannenberg, 1:397-401. See also Barth, 360. Bloesch, 137-139. Brunner, 1:158. Macquarrie,

192. Moody, 94-96. Otto, 54. Schleiermacher, 341,345. Tillich, 1:271-272.

2 See Berkhof, Reformed Dogmatics, 49. Baker, 138. Dunning, 193. Packer, 183. Mullins, 229. Stevens, 52-53. Oden, 1:103. Garrett, 1:209. Thiessen, 128. Shaw, 44. Jones, 69. Pieper, 1:456. Buswell, 1:65. Furthermore, “the biblical viewpoint would refer the holiness of God not only to the mystery of his power, but also to his character as totally good and entirely without evil” 05180 vd;q' found in TWOT #1990.

3 Strong, 1:247.

4 “For all practical purposes we may use the words essence, substance, being, nature, as synonymous with each other” Ibid., 1:243.

5 Ibid. Strong is correct in his phenomenological approach yet he departs from it by assuming Greek ontological concepts which are revealed in his definition of Immutability, Strong, 1:257. See also

16

Immanent, and Relative or Transitive which are understood on the basis Greek ontology.

Absolute attributes belong to God’s nature independently of his connection with the

universe and have no relation to time and space while relative attributes “respect the

outward revelation of God’s being [and are] involved in God’s relations to the creation,

[and thus have] relation to Time and Space.”1 This ontological construction becomes the

basis for why holiness is considered both an Absolute and a Relative attribute: as a

Relative attribute holiness is described as Transitive Holiness because the word

“Transitive = having an object outside of God himself.”2

Strong describes holiness in the following way:

Holiness is self-affirming purity. In virtue of this attribute of his nature, God eternally wills and maintains his own moral excellence. In this definition are contained three elements: first, purity; secondly, purity willing; thirdly, purity willing itself. [Furthermore holiness is] Purity of substance.—In God’s moral nature, as necessarily acting, there are indeed the two elements of willing and being. But the passive logically precedes the active; being comes before willing; God is pure before he wills purity.3

Strong’s Use of Scripture

Strong supports his description of holiness as purity by the following texts, Exod

15:11; 19:10-16; Isa 6:3-7; 2 Cor 7:1; 1 Thess 3:13; 4:7 and Heb 12:29. He correctly

points out that “these passages show that holiness is the opposite to impurity, that it is

Strong’s discussion of Eternity, Immensity, Omnipresence and Omniscience for further examples of dependence upon Greek concepts. Strong, 1:275-286.

1 Strong, 1:247-248.

2 Ibid., 1:249.

3 Ibid., 1:268, 273.

17

itself purity.”1 Yet these texts do not give any support to Strong’s division of holiness

into Absolute and Relative (Transitive). In Ex 15:11, God is described as “glorious in

holiness” not because of His essence or nature but because of His miraculous deliverance

of the children of Israel. Nothing in the text remotely suggests the type of ontological

structure derived by Plato and Aristotle that Strong has built upon.

Furthermore, how are we to understand what purity is? Strong’s system precludes

him from basing his definition of holiness upon the Scriptures. Instead he selectively

chooses those Scriptures that associate holiness with purity while neglecting Scriptures

such as Rom 7:12 which claim that the law of God is holy and just and good. Although

the word law is used quite frequently in Strong’s chapter on the attributes, he never

associates the word law with the Ten Commandments. Thus one can only assume that

purity should be defined on the basis of Greek ontology as simply the absence of

impurity rather than the absence of sin, and the two are not necessarily the same.

Strong believes that the Scriptures are a revelation from God inspired in every

part, yet in his analysis of certain texts, such as descriptions of God possessing bodily

parts and the heavenly Sanctuary, his system seems to determine their ontological nature

as well as how these texts are interpreted.2 These texts must be viewed as timeless truths

and understood on the basis of philosophy which in turn condition how they are

interpreted. This forms the ontological framework for the understanding of what purity

1 Ibid., 1:268. Also on page 290: Gen 18:25; Deut 32:4; Ps 5:5; 7:9-12; 18:24-26; Matt 5:48; Rom

2:5; 1 Pet 1:16.

2 Ibid., 1:250. Also “The passages of Scripture which seem at first sight to ascribe change to God are to be explained in one of three ways:” as illustrations, as anthropomorphic representations and as “executions in time of purposes eternally existing in the mind of God” Strong, 1:258.

18

is. Consequently, Strong’s depiction of holiness as purity willing itself and holiness as

substance, is undoubtedly influenced by Aristotelian metaphysics.1

Furthermore Strong states that God eternally wills and maintains his own moral

excellence which takes place in the timeless realm.2 “He [God] is bound to purpose and

to do what his absolute holiness requires. He has no attribute, no will, no sovereignty,

above this law of his being. He cannot lie, he cannot deny himself, he cannot look upon

sin with complacency, he cannot acquit the guilty without an atonement.”3 Since

holiness is grounded upon God’s timeless decision, then His actions are determined so

that it becomes impossible ontologically for Him to do otherwise than what He decides.

God simply is what He decides to be. Thus one can only come to the conclusion that

God’s eternal decision determines what is good as well as what is evil. Good is good

because God decides it is, and not necessarily because it is. However in the book of

Revelation, the controversy is about God’s law (Rev 12:17) and at the end of the

controversy all will declare that God’s ways are just (Rev 15:3). This means that God’s

law is as sacred and holy as He is, which is something that will be explored in the next

chapter.

1 Julian Marias, History of Philosophy, trans. Stanley Appelbaum and Clarence C. Strowbridge

(New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1967), 65.

2 “Eternity is infinity in its relation to time. It implies that God’s nature is not subject to the law of time. God is not in time. It is more correct to say that time is in God. Although there is logical succession in God’s thoughts, there is no chronological succession.” Strong, 1:276.

3 Ibid., 1:293. See also page 356 where Strong states that “the certainty of future events which God foreknew could have had its ground only in his decree.”

19

Thus the philosophical interpretation of God’s nature defines holiness which is

understood on the basis of God’s timeless decision which then forms the foundation for

understanding the call to personal holiness and ethics.1

Summary of Pannenberg and Strong

To sump it up, both Pannenberg and Strong construct their understanding of

divine holiness from their ontological starting points. Pannenberg’s amoral concept of

holiness is linked with the Infinite while Strong’s portrayal of holiness as purity is built

upon Platonic cosmology. Pannenberg connects his interpretation of holiness with Bible

texts that focus on holiness as ontological separation from creation while Strong unites

his interpretation of holiness with Bible texts that talk about purity which is built upon

Greek philosophical constructs. Pannenberg openly denies that the Bible is the word of

God and thus builds the idea of holiness from the plurality of sources while Strong

accepts the Bible as the word of God yet relies on philosophical ideas in order to

understand holiness and by default uses a plurality of sources. In the next chapter we will

attempt to understand divine holiness within a biblical framework by moving on from

theology’s dependence upon philosophy to the Bible.

1 Ibid., 1:302. Strong says that “according to the Scriptures, the ground of moral obligation is the

holiness of God, or the moral perfection of the divine nature, conformity to which is the law of our moral being.”

20

CHAPTER 3

BIBLICAL CONSTRUCTION

Introduction and Purpose

This section of the paper is divided into four subsections. The first one articulates

the hermeneutical assumptions that are used in constructing the understanding of divine

holiness and the second one focuses on the ontological ground of divine holiness. The

second section also provides the biblical presuppositions for understanding both the third

and fourth section. Since God swears by His holiness (Ps 89:35), which is connected to

His immutability, which in turn has been understood on the basis of philosophy, the third

section examines divine holiness and immutability from the basis of the biblical

ontological ground in the second section. In like manner, since divine holiness has also

been understood as a moral characteristic, the last section will investigates the close

relationship between divine holiness and moral character on the basis of a biblical

ontology rather than upon philosophy.

The current understanding of holiness is based on an ontology that includes

multiple sources such as tradition, philosophy and science mixed in with the Bible which

are all used as materials for constructing a theological ontology. Both the transcendent

and moral models depart from the Sola Scriptura principle when it comes to the

construction of theology in general and ontology in particular as it relates to divine

holiness. Thus, since both the transcendent and moral models build their understanding of

21

divine holiness upon their respective ontological starting points, and since ontology is the

starting point for establishing the meaning of divine holiness, the section dealing with the

ontological ground of divine holiness will explore the biblical ontological ground of

divine holiness by examining what Isa 6:3, Rev 4:8, Isa 57:15 and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th

Commandments may reveal about the ontology of God within the context of divine

holiness. Both Pannenberg and Strong have used Isa 6:1-5 as a key text in our

understanding of divine holiness yet neither of them have explored the ontological

context of holiness found in that text, rather they have developed and assumed ontology

in their explanations about divine holiness. This section seeks to understand what the

texts themselves reveal about the ontological context of divine holiness. Thus this first

step is crucial in developing a biblical understanding of divine holiness.

Once this foundation has been laid, then one can explore the meaning of divine

holiness by its relationship to moral character as well as providing clarification to the

meaning of holiness as separation. However, before we begin our analysis of the biblical

texts we will first look at the hermeneutical assumptions.

Hermeneutical Assumptions

Phenomenological Exegesis

The methodology for this chapter will closely follow a “phenomenological

exegesis” by applying “a scientific, philosophical, theological, and doctrinal epoché”

(which means a suspension of judgment).1 In this chapter we will specifically apply this

1 “Phenomenological epoché can be applied in its fullness only when all the involved theories are

properly understood, otherwise they will not be suspended but rather ignored or, worse, applied unconsciously.” This type of exegesis “works and is grounded on the “things themselves,” which in our

22

kind of exegesis to Isa 6:3 and Rev 4:8 which are two key texts that not only reveal

important insights about divine holiness but also reveal significant insights about the

ontological structure in which divine holiness is understood.

The rationale behind a phenomenological exegesis and its relation to divine

holiness is clearly presented by Canale’s observation of Heidegger’s recognition of the

logical order of cognitive presuppositions.

Pannenberg uses Heidegger’s temporal ontology only as a description of human

time that parallel’s Augustine’s analysis of time. Moreover, Pannenberg incorrectly

neglects Heidegger’s view that the notion of being determines our understanding of

entities, and among them God.1 Heidegger, however, is correct in recognizing the logical

order of cognitive presuppositions. “Only from the truth of being can the essence of the

holy be thought. Only from the essence of the holy can the essence of the divinity be

thought. Only in the light of the essence of divinity can it be thought and said what the

word ‘God’ is to signify.”2

particular case are the meanings of the text itself as it is.” This type of exegesis “presents its results not by “constructing,” “building up,” or “proving” its assertions and statements, but rather by “describing” or “showing” what has been heard or seen while the exegete catches at least some glimpses of what is being thought in the text.” Canale, A Criticism of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness as Primordial Presuppositions, 296-297.

1 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Metaphysics and the Idea of God, trans. Philip Clayton (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 69.

2 Martin Heidegger, "Letter on Humanism," in Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, ed. William

Barret and Henry D. Aiken (New York: Random House, 1962), 3:294. Quoted in Fernando Canale, "The Quest for the Biblical Ontological Ground of Christian Theology," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 16/1-2 (Spring - Autumn 2005): 6.

23

Hence according to Heidegger, our concept of God as holy is determined by the

truth of being which makes phenomenological exegesis an absolute necessity for

understanding divine holiness.

The Law of Building

Closely related to phenomenological exegesis is the notion of a foundation upon

which the rest of the structure is built. The theme of building is very rich in the Bible and

is often associated with theological development. In the days of Solomon the builders

originally rejected a particular stone which later proved to be of sufficient size and

strength and capable of handling all kinds of stress and pressure which eventually became

the chief corner stone upon which the rest of the temple was built (Ps 118:22; Isa 28:16;

Matt 21:42). According to Acts 4:11, the builders represented the Jewish leaders and

their rejection of Jesus (the chief corner stone). Similarly, the task of doing theology is

closely related to the concept of putting together a building.

Several insights can be gained from the idea of the building motif. The

foundation must be big, broad and strong enough for the rest of the structure. This aspect

of the foundation is closely associated with the proper interpretation of ontology.

Temporality and timelessness comprise the two broadest possible principles that all

theological thought is built upon.1 Without the proper interpretation of ontology, the

meaning of divine holiness is built on shifting sand. This is why we will begin our

Biblical construction by exploring the ontological insights to holiness in Isa 6:3 and Rev

1 Canale, A Criticism of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness as Primordial

Presuppositions.

24

4:8 before we move to other areas. Thus for the purposes of this study divine holiness

represents the structure and ontology represents the foundation.

Design Theory

“There are great laws that govern the world of nature, and spiritual things are

controlled by principles equally certain.”1 Perhaps the greatest revolution to take place

today in science is in design theory. The biochemist Michael Behe writes that biological

systems are irreducibly complex which means that “a single system [is] composed of

several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the

removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”2 For

our purposes this means the correct interpretation of divine holiness depends upon seeing

it integrated with other principles that can be found within the context of the passage

being studied. Thus there is an irreducibly complex relationship between holiness and

other principles within the context of the passage which help us to understand the

meaning of holiness. This is especially important because some commentators are not

clear about what divine holiness actually entails,3 therefore we must not only follow a

doctrinal and philosophical epoché but we must also see holiness as integrated with other

principles so that we can properly interpret it.

1 Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, 9 vols. (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1948), 5:724.

2 Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 39.

3 "Isaiah 1-33," in Word Biblical Commentary, ed. John D.W. Watts (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), 74. “God is by definition "holy." But he reveals his "holiness" by his decisions and his acts.” John N. Oswalt, "The Book of Isaiah 1-39," in The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. R.K. Harrison (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 180. “Whatever else this experience did for Isaiah, it convinced him that God alone is holy. But what did holy mean for him? Ringgren demonstrates that the

25

In addition to Behe’s law of irreducible complexity, William Dembski mentions

the law of specified complexity. Dembski declares that two features must be present in

order to detect design, complexity and specification. “Complexity guarantees that the

object in question is not so simple that it can readily be attributed to chance.

Specification guarantees that the object exhibits the right sort of pattern associated with

intelligent causes. A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A

long sequence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean

sonnet is both complex and specified.”1 The sonnet is complex because there are twenty-

six letters in the English alphabet and they are all connected together, however in

addition to being complex the sonnet is also specific because the arrangement of letters

forming words matches intelligent communication which can be verified by similar

patterns outside of the sonnet itself.

For the Bible student the law of complexity implies that things are interrelated

instead of disconnected and the law of specification demonstrates that patterns observed

in the Bible are not limited to a single text but can be verified in other passages of

Scripture. This is further illustrated in 2 Cor 13:1 which says, “In the mouth of two or

three witnesses shall every word be established,” thus demonstrating that two or three

independent witnesses can verify that a pattern is indeed legitimate.

cognates are hardly definitive. They all use the term as an adjective of deity, and they all use it to define that which pertains to the deity, but they do not define the term itself.”

1 William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 17.

26

The Integrative Function of the Sanctuary

The Sanctuary is a vast biblical theme that encompasses many chapters in the

Bible. Alberto Timm has shown how the Sanctuary organizes and integrates many

significant doctrines found in the Scriptures such as the Law, the Sabbath, Christ’s

Heavenly Ministry, Christ’s Second Coming, Conditional Immortalilty and the Gift of

Prophecy.1 For example, the Law of God which includes the Sabbath is found in the ark

of the covenant (1 Kgs 5-8, 1 Chr 22-26; 2 Chr 2-7) which was located in the Most Holy

Place of the Sanctuary (Exod 20:1-17; Dan 8:14; Rev 11:19).2 Also Christ’s ministry,

portrayed by types and symbols in the Old Testament Sanctuary would find its antitypical

fulfillment in His death on the cross and in His ministry in the heavenly Sanctuary (John

1:29; Dan 8:14; Heb 8 and 9).3

Thus the Sanctuary functions in such a way that it integrates the Law, the

Sabbath, Christ’s heavenly ministry and other doctrines into a coherent theological

system. For the purpose of our study, it should be noted that God is also placed within

the context of the Sanctuary. In 2 Kgs 19:15, Hezekiah addressed God as the one who

dwells “between the cherubims.”4 In this study there are many texts which elaborate on

different aspects of divine holiness. Since the Sanctuary forms the basis for integrating

some of the major doctrines of the Bible, this study suggests that it also be used to

1 Alberto R. Timm, “The Sanctuary and the Three Angels' Messages: Integrating Factors in the

Development of Seventh-Day Advenstist Doctrines” (PhD Dissertation, Andrews University, 1995).

2 Ibid., 90-91.

3 Ibid., 118. For a detailed analysis of how the Sanctuary integrates some of the major doctrines, see pages 87-129 and 197-264 of the same dissertation.

4 See also 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 1Chr 13:6; Ps 80:1; 99:1

27

integrate and systematize the various texts that relate to divine holiness as part of the

doctrine of God.

Thus the hermeneutical assumptions mentioned above will be applied to several

areas. First this study will examine the ontological insights regarding divine holiness,

then it will look briefly at divine holiness and immutability. Finally this study will apply

the hermeneutical assumptions already stated to the relationship between divine holiness,

the law and moral character.

Ontological Ground of Divine Holiness

Isaiah 6:3

Isa 6:3 says, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his

glory.” The “majority of interpreters agree that Isaiah’s vision involves the heavenly

temple.”1 In Isa 6:1 the prophet saw “the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up,

and his train filled the temple.” The words temple (lk'yh) and throne (aSeKi) are

linked to the heavenly temple in Ps 11:4, “The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD'S

throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men.” The reference

to seraphim in Isa 6:2 “can be related to the cherubim-covered ark in the

sanctuary/temple, but since these creatures are living, not images, the prophet knows

himself to be in the heavenly temple itself. Hence these seraphim. . . are in the heavenly

temple, perhaps members of the heavenly host (1 Kgs 22:19).”2

1 Niels-Erik Andreasen, "The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Old Testament," in The Sanctuary and

the Atonement, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989), 72.

2 Ibid., 73.

28

When the method of epoché is applied to Isa 6:3, the Sanctuary is seen as a real

heavenly structure from which “God views mankind (Ps 11:4), listens to their cries (Ps

18:6; 2 Sam 22:7), executes judgment (Mic 1:2-5), and receives worship (Hab 2:20).”1 In

addition to this, the reality of the heavenly Sanctuary provides the ontological ground for

divine holiness because the angelic song was sung in this real heavenly context (Isa 6:1-

3). Greek philosophy interprets this text as a symbolic timeless expression rather than

something real because ultimate reality is timeless. This philosophical presupposition

forces the interpreter to make a dichotomy between timeless reality on the one hand and

the language the prophet chose (temple imagery) to express this timeless reality on the

other hand. In this way the Sanctuary imagery is interpreted through Greek ontology as

being symbolic and metaphorical instead of real. This dichotomy between timeless

concepts of divine holiness and their expression by the prophet Isaiah in this case, does

not exist when the method of epoché is applied to the text, thus God is compatible with

space and time.

In addition to the significance of the heavenly Sanctuary and its ontological

ground for divine holiness that has been observed in Isa 6, there are further ontological

insights that can be gained from the typical cleansing of the Sanctuary found in Lev 16,

which include the rites between the Lord’s goat and the scapegoat. These Day of

Atonement rites point to a real controversy that has been occurring for a long time

between Christ and Satan. Furthermore they provide additional insights into the

ontological ground of divine holiness which will be examined after exploring the

linguistic as well as thematic relationships between Isa 6:1-3 and Lev 16.

1 Ibid., 70.

29

There is a linguistic tie between the holiness of God in Isaiah 6:1-3 (vAdq')

which takes place in the heavenly Sanctuary, and the holiness of the Sanctuary itself

which is mentioned 9 times in Lev 16:2, 3, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24 and 33 (vd,Qo). In both

passages the word is used to describe both God and the Sanctuary as being holy. Since

the earthly sanctuary in Lev 16 is holy and points to the heavenly Sanctuary (Heb 8:1-5)

which is just as real and holy as the earthly sanctuary was, it becomes necessary to

further examine the ontological ground of divine holiness by looking at the thematic

links.

In Lev 16:15-19 the live goat is slain and its blood is applied to the Sanctuary.

This represents both the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (John 1:29; Heb 8:1-5) and His

mediation in the heavenly Sanctuary which was typified by Aaron in Lev 16:15-19 (Heb

7:25; 8:1-5; 9:23). Immediately following the cleansing of the Sanctuary in Lev 16:15-19

the live goat comes in:

And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness (Lev 16:20-22).

According to Deut 19:16-19, “If a false witness rise up against any man to testify

against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is,

shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those

days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false

witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he

had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among

30

you.” Thus, the live goat in Lev 16:20-22 and the false witness who is in a controversy

with the accused in Deut 19:16-19 represents the devil who John the Revelator says is the

“accuser of the brethren” (Rev 12:10). Jesus was manifested to “destroy the works of the

devil” (1 John 3:8) which are his lies and his propaganda against the government of God

(John 8:44; Rev 12:9). The Revelator declares that God will ultimately be vindicated

(Rev 15:4; 19:1-6). This great controversy between God and Satan is revealed through

the Sanctuary.

For the purpose of this study on divine holiness, the critical issue regarding

ontology is the proper interpretation of being. Philosophical and theological thought has

interpreted being in only one of two ways: being is either timeless or temporal.1 Hence in

addition to the reality of the heavenly Sanctuary which Isaiah 6:1-3 assumes, the same

passage combined with Lev 16 gives further insight into the ontological ground of divine

holiness through the great controversy between Christ and Satan which assumes a

historical temporal ontology. Thus the reality of the heavenly Sanctuary itself makes

God compatible with space while the great controversy theme makes Him compatible

with time.

Revelation 4:8

The same song which was sung in Isa 6:3 is now being sung in Rev 4:8, “And the

four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and

they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and

is, and is to come.” The reason for why the angels sing is found in Rev 4:11, “Thou art

31

worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things,

and for thy pleasure they are and were created.”

There is an ontological separation between God and His creation which can be

inferred by His creative power. Moreover, there are two clues in Rev 4 that help us to

understand the ontological ground of divine holiness which in turn helps us to grasp the

nature of this ontological separation between God and His creation. The first clue is the

Sanctuary context of Rev 4:8 and the second clue is the phrase in Rev 4:8 which refers to

God as “Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.”

There are several similarities between the scenes in Rev 4:8 and Isa 6:1-3 which

would also place Rev 4:8 in the context of the heavenly Sanctuary. Both passages depict

God as seated on a throne (Isa 6:1; Rev 4:2), which Ps 11:4 mentions as being in the

temple in heaven. The seraphim and the living creatures both have six wings (Isa 6:2;

Rev 4:8) and they both sing Holy, holy, holy (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8). In addition to the

similarities, Rev 4 contains other symbols that point to the heavenly Sanctuary. Rev 4:8

specifically mentions four living creatures which correspond to Solomon’s temple.

“While two cherubim were upon the mercy seat, over the ark, forming practically part of

the mercy seat (Exod 25:10-22), Solomon ordered two other huge cherubim to be placed

on both sides of the ark (1 Kgs 6:23-28; 8:6-7; 2 Chr 3:10-12). This he did by following

the prescriptions the Lord had given to his father David, when God revealed to him the

1 Canale, A Criticism of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness as Primordial

Presuppositions.

32

plans of the temple (1 Chr 28:19).”1 Moreover, the seven lamps in Rev 4:5 “appear

placed, as in the earthly temple, in the Holy Place “before the Most Holy” (2 Chr 4:20;

Lev 24:3-4).2

These observations also place the holiness of God in Rev 4:8 within the context of

the heavenly Sanctuary and strengthen the temporal, historical interpretation of being as

the ground of divine holiness already discussed in Isa 6:3.3 We now turn to another clue

which provides further insight into the ontological ground of divine holiness.

Rev 4:8 describes the holy God as He “which was, and is, and is to come.” By

applying the method of epoché to Rev 4:8, the reality of the Sanctuary affirms that God is

compatible with space while the phrase “which was, and is, and is to come,” assumes that

God is compatible with time. Moreover, in addition to a plain reading of Rev 4:8, the

Greek further grounds the ontological insights gained from a surface reading of the

English. The Greek phrase o` w'n, which is mentioned in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17 and 16:5

is undoubtedly a reference to the I AM in Ex 3:144 which reveals that temporality rather

1 Alberto Treiyer, The Final Crisis in Revelation 4-5 (Siloam Springs, AR: Creation Enterprises

International, 1998), 36.

2 Ibid., 35.

3 For further connections between the Sanctuary and the great controversy theme see Alberto R. Treiyer, The Day of Atonement and the Heavenly Judgment from the Pentateuch to Revelation (Siloam Springs, AR: Creation Enterprises International, 1992), 469-471. For the hermeneutical role of the Sanctuary and the great controversy theme see Fernando Canale, "From Vision to System: Finishing the Task of Adventist Biblical and Systematic Theologies - Part Ii," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 16/1-2 (Spring - Autumn 2005): 129. According Rev 11:19, the Decalogue is contained in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly Sanctuary.

4 “The earliest and best mss (Ì18vid א A C P 2050 al lat sy co) lack the term “God” (θεο�, qeou) between “from” (�πό, apo) and “he who is” (� �ν, Jo wn). Its inclusion, as supported by the bulk of the Byzantine witnesses, is clearly secondary and a scribal attempt to achieve two things: (1) to make explicit the referent in the passage, namely, God, and (2) to smooth out the grammar. The preposition “from” in Greek required a noun in the genitive case. But here in Rev 1:4 the words following the preposition “from” (�πό) are in another case, i.e., the nominative. There are two principal ways in which to deal with this

33

than timelessness is the interpretation of being’s dimensionality.1 According to

Heidegger, this is the first step in our understanding of divine holiness since the proper

interpretation of being lays the groundwork for understanding divine holiness.

Ontologically, this conclusively links divine holiness with temporality and with

the Sanctuary all in one text, namely Rev 4:8. This structure forms the basis for

understanding the ontological separation between God and creation in a temporal way

rather than on Pannenberg’s concept of the Infinite or Strong’s use of Platonic

cosmology.

Isaiah 57:15

Isa 57:15 says, “For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,

whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite

and humble spirit.” God is described as the High and Holy One who inhabits eternity,

grammatical anomaly. First, it could be a mistake arising from someone who just did not know Greek very well, or as a Jew, was heavily influenced by a Semitic form of Greek. Both of these unintentional errors are unlikely here. Commenting on this ExSyn 63 argues: “Either of these is doubtful here because (1) such a flagrant misunderstanding of the rudiments of Greek would almost surely mean that the author could not compose in Greek, yet the Apocalypse itself argues against this; (2) nowhere else does the Seer [i.e., John]

use a nom. immediately after a preposition (in fact, he uses �πό 32 times with the gen. immediately following).” The passage appears to be an allusion to Exod 3:14 (in the LXX) where God refers to himself as “he who is” (� �ν), the same wording in Greek as here in Rev 1:4. Thus, it appears that John is wanting to leave the divine name untouched (perhaps to allude to God’s immutability, or as a pointer to the Old Testament as the key to unlocking the meaning of this book), irrespective of what it “looks” like grammatically. The translation has placed the “he who is” in quotation marks to indicate to the reader that the syntactical awkwardness is intentional. (For further comments, see ExSyn 63).” TC notes on Rev 1:4 electronic version, The NET Bible / New English Translation (NT, 1998; First Beta Edition, 2001; Second Beta Edition, 2003; First Edition, 2005). This Greek phrase is mentioned five times in Revelation: Rev 1:4,8; 4:8; 11:17 and 16:5.

1 Canale, A Criticism of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness as Primordial Presuppositions, 285-387.

34

“whose name is Holy.”1 Furthermore, He dwells, at the same time, in a high and holy

place yet also with Him who is of a humble and contrite spirit. Although the word

“place” is supplied, it’s seen as a “necessary addition.”2 According to 1 Kgs 8:30, God’s

dwelling place in heaven is the place from which he hears our prayers for it says, “hear

thou in heaven thy dwelling place.” 2 Chr 30:27 says that the prayers of the priests

“came up to his holy dwelling place, even unto heaven.” In addition 2 Kgs 19:15

addresses God as “O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims.”

These texts give further support to the idea that God’s dwelling place is in the heavenly

Sanctuary.

The words “inhabit” (!kevo) and “ I dwell” (!AKv.a,) in Isa 57:15 are based

upon the same Hebrew root within the same text thus linking divine holiness with God’s

ability to dwell with eternity, in the heavenly Sanctuary and with humanity. The

temporal, historical ontological ground of divine holiness means that God is able to dwell

at all three levels mentioned in the text. The same Hebrew word is found in Exod 25:8

regarding the Sanctuary as God’s dwelling and Exod 29:45 which states that God will

dwell among His people.1 Only by applying a phenomenological exegesis to these texts

can we take the Bible at face value without resorting to unbiblical philosophies which

1 The phrase ‘inhabits eternity’ translated from the Hebrew d[; !kevo is translated in various ways

by different exegetes. “A literal translation is ‘a dwelling-one of eternity’/’eternally dwelling’, hence, as the NIV, the everlasting God.” See J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 476. “It is more likely that ׁשֵֹכן ַעד (shokhen ’ad) means “I dwell [in my lofty palace] forever” and refers to God’s eternal kingship. See NET Bible. However, only when a phenomenological exegesis (epoché) is applied to the text can one understanding the true meaning of eternity which has already been demonstrated to be compatible with temporality.

2 Ibid.

35

cannot be supported by the texts themselves. We now move to additional ontological

insights from the Law of God.

Ontological Insights from the Law

In addition to the Sanctuary, the Law of God also provides important ontological

insights about divine holiness. Concerning the Law, the Bible states “Wherefore the law

is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” (Rom 7:12). An investigation of

the law as it relates to holiness is significant because that which applies to God also

applies to His Law.2 This section will consider the ontological insights gained from the

2nd, 3rd and 4th Commandments.

2nd Commandment

Exod 20:4-6 states, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any

likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in

the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I

the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children

unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto

thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments”

In the 2nd Commandment the word make is not merely restricted to fashioning

material objects but it can also be applied to philosophy and ontology. During the

1 Linguistic ties on the word “dwell” between Isa 57:15; Exod 25:8 and Exod 29:45 have also been

observed by Motyer Ibid.

2 In the following texts, whatever applies to God also applies to His law. God and the law are: good (Luke 18:19; 1 Tim 1:8), holy (Isa 5:16; Rom 7:12), perfect (Matt 5:48; Ps 19:7), pure (1 John 3:2,3; Ps 19:8), just (Deut 32:4; Rom 7:12), true (John 3:33; Ps 19:9), spiritual (1 Cor 10:4; Rom 7:14),

36

construction of the tower of Babel in Gen 11:4, it says, “let us make for ourselves a

name” (NAS). The whole point in building the city, tower and making a name was so

they could reach heaven.

According to Exod 3:14-15, God’s name reveals the biblical interpretation of

ontology,1 thus in constructing a name, the builders at the tower of Babel could be seen as

implicitly constructing an ontology of God. It’s significant that much of Christian

theology has been built upon an ontology that has come from Greek philosophy.2

Moreover, it seems that the 2nd Commandment forbids God’s people from constructing

an ontology on the basis of natural theology (philosophy) because it misrepresents the

holiness of biblical ontology as revealed by his name in Exod 3:14-15. The reason

becomes even clearer because the same Commandment places ontology (which is stated

in the Commandment by the phrase ‘thou shalt not make…’) in a cause and effect

relationship with worship and ethics (which is pointed out by the phrase ‘thou shalt not

bow down thyself to them nor serve them’). Also those who love God and keep His

Commandments (Exod 20:6) are those who initially refrain from constructing an

ontology from creation instead of from divine revelation. Furthermore, the divine name

righteousness (Jer 23:6; Ps 119:172), faithful (1 Cor 1:9; Ps 119:86), love (1 John 4:8; Rom 13:10), unchangeable (Jas 1:17; Matt 5:18), eternal (Gen 21:33; Ps 111:7,8).

1 Canale, A Criticism of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness as Primordial Presuppositions, 344-349.

2 “Shortly after the close of the NT canon, Christian theologians recognized the pivotal role that

cosmology played in the construction of Christian theology. As contemporary theologians do with the evolutionary theory, early Christian theologians did with Platonic cosmology: they incorporated the broadly accepted cosmology of their times into the material condition of their theological method. This perspective guided them in their interpretation of the (reality) of God and of human beings (i.e.) anthropological ontology). The cosmology of the times was Neoplatonism. Gnosticism followed it so closely that it almost destroyed the distinctive features of NT thinking…Thus, to this day, Platonic cosmology continues to be a leading macro-hermeneutical principle of Christian theology.” Fernando Canale, Creation, Evolution and Theology (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Lithotech, 2005), 104-106.

37

in Exod 3:14-15 is mentioned in Rev 4:8 in connection with the song of the angels about

God’s holiness.

3rd Commandment

“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will

not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain” (Exod 20:7). Similarly, God’s name

also give us important insights into divine holiness since both God and His name are holy

(1 Pet 1:15; Isa 57:15). Actually, many characteristics that apply to God, apply also to

His name which further links the relationship between God, ontology and character

(which will be explored later on).1 According to Exod 3:14-15 and Rev 4:8 God’s name

reveals His ontology as compatible with temporality rather than timelessness. The name

of God assumes an ontology as well as moral character, yet it’s important to realize that

it’s the interpretation of the ontological ground of divine holiness derived from the

interpretation of being that gives meaning and specificity to what character is. Thus,

viewed from the ontological perspective, this Commandments suggests that God will

hold accountable those who construct an ontology from natural theology rather than from

Scripture because the correct interpretation of character is at stake.

4th Commandment

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do

all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not

do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant,

1 Both God and His name are holy (1 Pet 1:15; Ps 111:9), great (Deut 10:17; Ps 99:3), terrible

(Deut 10:17; Ps 99:3), jealous (Exod 20:4-6; Exod 34:14), reverend (Deut 7:21; Ps 111:9), mighty (Deut

38

nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made

heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore

the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exod 20:8-11).

Although the Law as a whole is considered holy (Rom 7:12), there’s no other

Commandment that specifically uses the word holy (vD>q;.), except this one which

mentions it twice. The text assumes that God is holy, since He is the One who made the

Sabbath holy. It also assumes that human beings can enter into the holiness of the

Sabbath by keeping it holy. Hence this Commandment assumes an interpretation of

being in order to determine the correct meaning of the word ‘day’ which then leads to the

ontological ground of divine holiness. Furthermore it assumes an interpretation of the

meaning of holiness as separation which can be deduced by the context of the passage

and its link to the Creation week.

“A careful study of the Hebrew manuscripts reveals that in every instance in

which yom [day] is accompanied by a definite number used as an adjective, a day of 24

hours is indicated.”1 In Exod 20:8-11 the word yom is accompanied by a number six

times, stressing the historical, temporal interpretation of being. When epoché is applied

to this Commandment, it assumes that God is compatible with time since He is the one

who made the day holy. The Sabbath does not assume an ontological incompatibility

between God, creation and human beings because the temporal interpretation of being

10:17; Isa 9:6), everlasting (Ps 90:2; Isa 63:16), powerful (Ps 66:3; Jer 10:6), to be feared (Rev 14:7; Mal 1:14), to be praised (Ps 48:1; 113:3) and to give glory to (Rev 14:7; 1 Chr 16:10).

1 "Science and a Literal Creation," in The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, ed. Francis D. Nichol (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1953), 1:51.

39

which is assumed by the word day links them all together. Thus holiness is inextricably

linked with the Sabbath day and with a historical interpretation of being.

Moreover, “since the more elemental meaning of the Hebrew idea of “holy” and

“holiness” is “separation,” the meaning of the holiness of the seventh day as affirmed in

Genesis 2:3 and Exodus 20:11 expresses that the seventh-day Sabbath is that very day

that God has separated from the rest of the days.”1 Thus as the Sabbath is separated from

the rest of the six working days, an analogy can be made regarding the meaning of divine

holiness as separation, however this is not an ontological separation as defined by the

Transcendent model. This is a separation which assumes temporality on the ontological

level. The notion of separateness, as an expression of divine holiness, in terms of moral

character will be explored later.

Summary of the Ontological Insights

An examination of the ontological contexts of Isa 6:3, Rev 4:8 and Isa 57:15 has

revealed that the ontological ground of divine holiness is not timelessness, which plagues

both the Transcendent and Moral models, but temporality. The 2nd and 3rd

Commandments warn us about constructing an ontology from sources other than divine

revelation because the proper interpretation of being leads to the ontological ground upon

which divine holiness is constructed and understood. This can directly impact the

meaning of divine holiness which is what has taken place in the transcendent and moral

models. We now will consider the relationship between divine holiness and

immutability.

40

Holiness and Immutability

There are several texts where God makes a promise and swears by His holiness as

a pledge of its fulfillment.2 In Ps 89:35 God says, “Once have I sworn by my holiness

that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun

before me.” This promise is ultimately connected to His Immutability and inability to lie

(Heb 6:17-18). Since immutability has been understood on the basis of Greek

philosophy, these texts could be interpreted as saying that it is impossible ontologically

for God to lie or to neglect His promise which would ultimately subsume divine holiness

into God’s timeless ontology thus forming the basis for why He could not lie. However,

once these texts pass through the phenomenological exegesis noted at the beginning of

the chapter, then it becomes clear that when God swears by His holiness as a pledge of

fulfillment, the reason is not because of His timeless, immutable will but because of His

commitment to the promise He has made.

These texts do not provide an explicit understanding of divine holiness yet they

point to a part of God’s nature that is unchangeable which is associated with holiness

because it says that God swears by His holiness. Thus one must move from being to the

doctrine of God as a prerequisite for understanding this part of God’s nature that does not

change because the texts on holiness and immutability assume this understanding without

explaining it. While it may be said that God’s commitment to the promise He has made

is associated with holiness, the texts mentioned in this section do not give any further

1 Gerhard F. Hasel, "The Sabbath in the Pentateuch," in The Sabbath in Scripture and History, ed.

Kenneth A. Strand (Washington, D.C.: Review & Herald, 1982), 25.

2 See Ps 60:6; 89:35; 108:7 and Amos 4:2

41

explanation regarding what divine holiness is. The only explanation seems to be that

holiness is connected with God’s promises and His ability to keep them which must be

understood in a temporal rather than a timeless way.

Divine Holiness and Moral Character

This section will seek to build upon the ontological insights already gained

previously and to come closer to establishing the meaning of divine holiness by looking

at the relationships between divine holiness and moral character.

In addition to providing ontological insights, the Law also reveals important

insights about divine holiness and moral character. The Law of God is a transcript of

God’s character: the Bible says it is holy (Rom 7:12).1 Isa 5:16 declares that “the LORD

Almighty will be exalted by his justice, and the holy God will show himself holy by his

righteousness” (NIV). Ps 119:172 says, “My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy

commandments are righteousness.” According to Motyer, “Righteousness is holiness

expressed in moral principles; justice is the application of those principles of

righteousness (cf. 1:21). Both justice and righteousness are the outshining of holiness.”1

Furthermore, Isa 5:24 reveals that the Decalogue and the Word of God are the

epistemological starting points for our understanding of divine holiness. It says, “they

have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of

Israel.” Just as “justice and righteousness are the outshining of His holiness,” so the Law

1 In the following texts, whatever applies to God also applies to His law. God and the law are:

good (Luke 18:19; 1 Tim 1:8), holy (Isa 5:16; Rom 7:12), perfect (Matt 5:48; Ps 19:7), pure (1 John 3:2,3; Ps 19:8), just (Deut 32:4; Rom 7:12), true (John 3:33; Ps 19:9), spiritual (1 Cor 10:4; Rom 7:14), righteousness (Jer 23:6; Ps 119:172), faithful (1 Cor 1:9; Ps 119:86), love (1 John 4:8; Rom 13:10), unchangeable (Jas 1:17; Matt 5:18), eternal (Gen 21:33; Ps 111:7,8).

42

of the Lord and His word can also be viewed as expressions of the Holy One. By

applying design theory, the law and word of God are integrated with the Holy One, hence

a rejection or misinterpretation of the law of God and His Word will surely distort the

meaning of divine holiness.

Divine Holiness the Law and Moral Character

This section will briefly examine nine of the Commandments and their relation to

divine holiness and moral character.

1st Commandment

If God is holy and the law is holy, then we can ask ourselves how this 1st

Commandment relates to holiness. The very definition of holiness is separateness,

however this Commandment does not necessarily define in what way God is separate.

However based upon the ontological ground of holiness in the previous section one can

conclude that God as separate and distinct does not mean timeless but temporal, therefore

separate does not mean ontological separation from creation. Rather it’s the distinction

between Creator and creature that makes God separate. Furthermore God is separate in

the sense that there is no one like Him who can create the universe and who has the

cognitive abilities that He has. In addition to this, it will be brought out that God’s

spotless character is something else that makes Him separate. In light of this the

command to “have no other gods before me” makes sense because there are no other

gods that are like Him in power, ability and character.

1 Motyer, 72.

43

3rd Commandment

In addition to the ontological insights mentioned before, God’s name also reveals

His character (Ex 34:5-7) and since the Sanctuary also reveals God’s name (Lev 20:3; Ps

74:7), it systematizes and integrates all the insights gained from our analysis on divine

holiness so that they cannot be separated.1

This integration that the Sanctuary brings can be seen in Ezek 36:20-36 when God

said that the Israelites profaned His name by their conduct among the heathen. In doing

this God’s moral character was reproached because His law was violated (Ezek 36:20-21;

26-27), His ability to keep His promise by keeping them in the Promised Land was also

in question (Ezek 36:24,28,33) as well as His ability to save them from their uncleanness

combined with His ability to produce a bountiful harvest (Ezek 36:29-30).

In Eze 36:20 God says that His holy name was profaned by His people while they

were in the midst of the heathen. According to Exod 34:5-7 His name refers to His

character which is described as merciful and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in

goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity yet not clearing the guilty. In addition to His name

being holy which represents His character, the Bible also states that the law is holy (Rom

7:12) which also can be seen as a transcript of His character. There is further evidence of

the importance of the law of God and its relation to His holy name in the new covenant

promise mentioned in Eze 36:26-27 which says, “A new heart also will I give you, and a

new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh,

1 Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1911), 423. See also

Fernando Canale, "From Vision to System: Finishing the Task of Adventist Theology Part I: Historical Review," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 15/2 (Autumn 2004): 10-12.

44

and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you

to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.”

The result of that new covenant promise is mentioned just a few verses before in

Eze 36:23 where God says, “I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been

profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations

will know that I am the LORD, declares the Sovereign LORD, when I show myself holy

through you before their eyes” (NIV).

God’s holiness was profaned when His people violated His law and

misrepresented His character. However, according to Eze 36:23 His divine holiness

would be manifested through His people in the sight of the heathen by means of the new

covenant promise of His Law written in their hearts. Consequently, divine holiness

represents the character of God which is manifested by the obedience of His people to the

Ten Commandments. This is God’s means of showing the heathen just what divine

holiness really is.1

4th Commandment

The Sabbath is not only a sign of God’s power to create the world, but it’s also a

sign of His power to make us holy. Ezek 20:12 says, “Moreover also I gave them my

sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD

that sanctify [v'D>q;] them.” The holiness that God intended to confer upon the

Jewish nation was not ontological in nature. What He intended was that they represent

1 Treiyer, The Day of Atonement and the Heavenly Judgment from the Pentateuch to Revelation,

207.

45

Him in character by remembering that the same power that brought the world into

existence was available for them to form a character like His. The only way to keep the

Sabbath holy (Exod 20:8) is for humanity itself to be holy (Exod 22:31). As the Sabbath

is separated from the rest of the week, so God’s people are to be separate from the world

by refraining from the kind of conduct that would profane God’s name. On account of

our fallen condition, obedience to God’s law is not possible without His grace. The

Sabbath reminds us that the same power that spoke the world into existence is available

to sinful human beings in order to develop a character like His. Thus God’s character

manifested by the Ten Commandments in His people is what constitutes divine holiness.

The Sabbath reminds us that divine holiness, which is understood as God’s

character, is what is manifested among His people when they keep the Sabbath holy.

Thus the holiness of God’s moral character is revealed by His people when they rely

upon His power to change their lives so that they reflect His character by living according

to the principles of the Law.

Last 6 Commandments

The last 6 Commandments also clarify the true meaning of purity and morality

within the context of divine holiness. Purity is not just the absence of impurity defined

by Platonic cosmology but it is specified by i) honoring parents as the basis of respect to

all God ordained authority (5th Commandment), ii) respecting the sacredness of life (6th

Commandment), iii) respecting the origin of marriage within the structure of male and

female as well as safeguarding its purity (7th Commandment), iv) respecting one’s

personal property (8th Commandment), v) communicating by using only the truth (9th

Commandment), and vi) being content with what you have (10th Commandment). These

46

Commandments are of divine origin, not human: God also did not entrust the writing of

His law to human beings but rather placed it on stone. Hence these characteristics

constitute divine holiness.

Since God’s law is eternal (Ps 111:7-8), holy (Rom 7:12) and unchangeable (Matt

5:18), one can conclude that these eternal principles give specific content regarding the

meaning of divine holiness. When Christ took on flesh, He exemplified in His life these

very principles which constitute divine holiness. It was because the law could not be

changed that Christ took on flesh and was crucified. Thus the incarnation and death of

Christ reveal the value that heaven places on divine holiness expressed by the Ten

Commandments.

Isaiah 6:1-8

This study has already considered the ontological ground of divine holiness in this

text. Now we will explore the moral/ethical aspects of divine holiness that are revealed

by the experience of the prophet. In order to do this, we will work from the principle of

cause and effect. The cause is represented by the angelic song “Holy, holy, holy, is the

LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.” This is the declaration of divine

holiness yet at the same time there is no specific explanation in that declaration regarding

just what divine holiness is. The effect is the experience of the angels and the prophet as

they come into God’s immediate presence. It’s this interaction that reveals something

about divine holiness. Thus when the angels cry holy, holy, holy they recognize in God

both omnipotence combined with a character that no one else possesses which is why

they even veil their faces.

47

This ethical aspect of divine holiness is corroborated by the prophet himself as he

comes in contact with a holy God. When Isaiah saw God high and lifted up and when he

heard the angelic song he said, “Woe is me! For I am undone; because I am a man of

unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen

the King, the Lord of hosts” (Isa 6:5). This text contrasts divine holiness with human

sinfulness: in fact one could say that human sinfulness is the opposite of divine holiness.

The prophet said that his speech was unclean, where as God is holy in all of His conduct

(1 Pet 1:15-16), and “righteous in all his ways” (Ps 145:17).

In Isa 6:7 the Bible says that the coal from off the altar “hath touched thy lips; and

thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.” According to 1 John 3:4, sin is defined

as “the transgression of the law.” Furthermore James says that if you offend in one point

of the law, you are guilty of breaking all of the Commandments (Jms 2:10). Here divine

holiness which is in harmony with the Law of God is placed in contrast to human

sinfulness which transgresses His law. The change in the prophet as a result of the coal

off the altar is not an ontological one such as the saints will experience at the Second

Coming (1 Cor 15:51-57), rather it represents a transformation in character that enables

the prophet to be both a representative and spokesman for God (Isa 6:8). Thus divine

holiness is a moral characteristic that is placed in opposition to unclean lips and sinful

human conduct. Divine holiness is God’s spotless character understood within the

context of the Sanctuary in general and His Law in particular instead of on the basis of

Greek metaphysics which defines holiness as purity which is understood in a vague kind

of sense.

48

Hebrews 12:9-141

Heb 12:10 explains that the purpose for why God disciplines us is so that “we

might be partakers of his holiness,” thus holiness is the result of discipline. Furthermore

the next verse indicates that righteousness is the fruit of discipline which means that

holiness is equated with righteousness in these verses. In addition, 2 Pet 1:4 declares that

God’s promises are the agencies whereby we may become “partakers of the divine

nature.” Although the Greek words for partakers are different in these two texts, the idea

that we can partake of both His holiness and divine nature is still the same.

Consequently, to be a partaker of His holiness must refer to His moral character

and not to His creative and cognitive abilities thus strengthening the association between

holiness and moral character.

1 Peter 1:15-16

Just as Strong began with the development of Platonic cosmology, that set the

groundwork for his interpretation of divine holiness, and ended with the call to personal

holiness in 1 Pet 1:15-16, it seems also fitting that this study end with the same text

which is built upon a biblical ontology instead of one derived from philosophy. The text

says, “but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is

written, Be holy, for I am holy” (NKJ). The same Greek word for conduct is used in 2

1 Heb 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them

reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. 11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. 12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; 13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. 14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

49

Pet 3:11 where the apostle encourages us to be “holy [in] conduct and godliness” in light

of the Second Coming. Just as righteousness expresses holiness (Isa 5:16), so our

conduct is also an expression of personal as well as divine holiness in 1 Pet 1:15-16

since the ground of moral obligation is the holiness of God. Thus the kind of holiness

referred to in this text is not a vague purity based upon Platonic cosmology but rather a

conformity to the Law of God which is “holy” (Rom 7:12). Furthermore, the Law also

declares what is righteousness (Ps 119:172) and what is holiness.

Summary of Biblical Construction

Heidegger has pointed out that holiness and Divinity can only be understood

when the interpretation of being is discerned and set in place. The 2nd and 3rd

Commandments further point out the importance of the proper interpretation of being in

the ontological structure because worship, ethics, and moral character are based upon this

construction. Since divine holiness is God’s moral character based upon His Law, the

question of the ontological ground becomes important because it can directly affect the

meaning of holiness and moral character. This has been exemplified in the works of

Pannenberg and Strong.

By applying the hermeneutical assumptions at the beginning of the chapter to Isa

6:3, Rev 4:8; Isa 57:15 and Commandments 2 through 4, it was discovered that the

ontological ground of divine holiness is temporality and not timelessness. This is

significant because when God swears by His holiness, the reason for the fulfillment of

His word is not timeless Greek ontology which makes it impossible ontologically for God

to lie. The reason is because divine holiness is faithful, true and committed to keeping

promises.

50

Isa 6:3 and Rev 4:8 clearly take place in the heavenly Sanctuary. This study

suggests that the Sanctuary must provide the ontological ground for understanding divine

holiness since the declaration of His holiness is pronounced there. Since the

interpretation of being from the Sanctuary is temporal then there is no ontological

separation between transcendence and creation because they both take place in space and

time and are integrated. Accordingly holiness as separation should not be understood on

the basis of an ontological separation from creation but rather from the distinction

between the Creator and the His creatures. His ability as the Creator of the universe

makes him Holy, or we could say separate and distinct from everyone and everything

else.

For the purpose of theoretical analysis we may separate His transcendence from

the other characteristics but in reality they are not separated. Thus any definition of

divine holiness as separation that would exclude the characteristics mentioned in this

chapter, or that would place emphasis on one aspect to the neglect of the others,

ultimately distorts what divine holiness really is.

This study also reveals that when the meaning of divine holiness has its origin in

the Bible and the Law of God as epistemological starting points, then divine holiness is a

moral and ethical characteristic that is in harmony with the Law of God. Heb 12:9-14

reminds us that we can become partakers of His holiness, meaning His moral character

and 1 Pet 1:15-16 informs us that we should be holy in our conduct, just as God is holy.

Furthermore the Law of God specifies the meaning of divine holiness as a moral

characteristic. Also, Ezekiel tells us that God will demonstrate His holiness through His

people by means of the new covenant promise to write the law in their hearts. Thus the

51

heathen will come to understand divine holiness as God’s moral character manifested

through His people.

In the following chapter we will compare the transcendent and moral models with

the Biblical model and draw conclusions.

52

CHAPTER 4

COMPARISON AND CONCLUSION

Introduction and Purpose

The purpose of this final chapter is to compare the transcendent and moral models

represented by Pannenberg and Strong with the biblical model in the previous chapter.

The first step will review the meaning of divine holiness as stated by all three models.

The second step will analyze the ontological ground of each model and the third step will

examine how the meaning of divine holiness as stated by all three models is affected by

the ontological ground of each model. In addition to these three steps, conclusions will

be drawn from the analysis of each step. We now turn to the meaning of divine holiness

as it’s understood by each model.

The Meaning of Divine Holiness

Before any analysis is done and any implications are drawn, we will first describe

divine holiness according to how it’s understood by each model. According to

Pannenberg, the “the basic meaning of holiness is separateness from everything

profane.”1 However in order to understand the meaning of holiness, one must also

understand the concept of the Infinite upon which holiness is constructed. The reason is

1 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1:397-398.

53

that Pannenberg considers the holiness of God as “truly infinite, for it is opposed to the

profane, yet it also enters into the profane world, penetrates it and makes it holy.”1 Thus

on the one hand holiness is separateness from everything profane, limited and transitory

yet on the other hand holiness penetrates the world and makes it holy.

Yet, how can what appears as a contradiction be resolved? Pannenberg himself

recognized this when he said, “This concept contains a paradox which it does not itself

resolve but which it formulates only as a task and a challenge for thought. It tells us that

we have to think of the Infinite as negation, as the opposite of the finite, but also that it

comprehends this antithesis in itself. But the abstract concept of the true Infinite does not

show us how we can do this.”2 Actually Pannenberg’s final answer, as to how divine

holiness as truly Infinite is opposed to everything limited and transitory while at the same

time holiness penetrates the world and makes it holy, is that it’s part of the mystery of

how the Holy Spirit operates.3

This amoral understanding is contrasted by Strong who states that holiness is the

fundamental attribute in God which is the source and standard of the right: the free moral

movement of the Godhead.4 Strong also states that divine holiness is purity eternally

willing itself.5 In addition to this Strong also makes a distinction between Absolute

1 Ibid., 400.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 See page 3

5 Strong, 1:268,273.

54

holiness and transitive holiness, nevertheless whether Absolute or Transitive, holiness is

without a doubt the fundamental moral attribute in God according to Strong.

This brings us to the biblical model of divine holiness which is contrasted to

Pannenberg and yet similar to Strong. In the biblical model divine holiness is a moral

characteristic that is revealed by the principles of the Ten Commandments that are

contained in the heavenly Sanctuary. As a matter of fact God shows Himself to be holy

in several ways (i) by His righteousness (Isa 5:16), or by His commandments for “all thy

commandments are righteousness” (Ps 119:172), (ii) by the law of God and the word of

God which is the starting point for understanding divine holiness (Isa 5:24; Rom 7:12),

(iii) by the declaration of His holiness in the context of the Sanctuary which contains the

law of God (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8; 11:19) and (iv) by the new covenant promise to

demonstrate Himself as holy through the obedience of His people to His Law while they

are in the midst of the heathen (Ezek 36:23-27). An analysis of the differences between

Strong and the biblical model will be made later.

Like the other models, the biblical model also assumes an ontological structure

which will now be examined along with the other the ontological structures of the other

models.

Ontological Ground

The question of the ontological ground of divine holiness is significant for several

reasons, (i) it has been explicitly been recognized by philosophers such as Heidegger in

constructing the meaning of holiness. Furthermore, theologians in the transcendent and

moral models have assumed and built upon the differing interpretations of ontology in

constructing the meaning of divine holiness, (ii) ontology has also raised the issue of

55

theological sources. The rallying cry of Protestantism used to be “the Bible and the Bible

only”, yet both Pannenberg and Strong have constructed their ontology upon the basis of

philosophy and science, (iii) the relationship between ontology and holiness is similar to

the relationship between the foundation and the structure: in other words both are

intricately linked together in such a way that it’s not possible to understand one without

the other. To illustrate the matter further, one would not build a skyscraper upon any

foundation: the foundation itself must not only be made up of the right material but also

of the right size in order to support a skyscraper. A six inch foundation assumes that the

structure must be proportionate to what the foundation can actually support, which would

exclude a skyscraper.

In a similar way the ontological ground of the transcendent, moral and biblical

models conditions the meaning of divine holiness which will be analyzed after comparing

the ontology of the three models. In the case of the transcendent and moral models, the

ontological ground also assumes (i) that Scripture does not provide an ontological

ground, (ii) that references to the Sanctuary are not real, rather they are metaphorical

expressions of timeless realities which is why neither Pannenberg or Strong evaluate the

ontological implications of the Sanctuary in which divine holiness is declared (Isa 6:3;

Rev 4:8), (iii) that certain texts which may impact the meaning of divine holiness are not

used (such as Rom 7:12), and that others (1 Pet 1:15-16) are interpreted in light of the

ontological ground provided by philosophy rather than Scripture. We will now describe

the ontological ground of the transcendent and moral models and compare them with the

ontological ground of the biblical model.

56

Pannenberg’s Ontology

The ontological comparison begins with Pannenberg who builds his ontology on

Descartes idea of the Infinite. In addition to drawing on philosophy and science for

theological sources, Pannenberg assumes that the Bible “excludes the possibility of any

verbal or cognitive content to be revealed by God, be that about Himself or His will for

humankind.”1 Hence he would not look to Scripture or use the principle of comparing

Scripture with Scripture in order to develop an ontology from Scripture.

Moreover, Pannenberg’s concept of the Infinite is panentheistic in structure and

assumes timelessness. On the one hand the holiness of God is truly Infinite when it

“transcends its own antithesis to the finite” while at the same time “it comprehends this

antithesis in itself” yet on the other hand “it also enters the profane world, penetrates it,

and makes it holy.”2

Strong’s Ontology

In a similar way, Strong also uses philosophy rather than Scripture in order to

develop the ontological ground of divine holiness. He does this in spite of his belief that

the Scriptures are a “revelation from God, inspired in every part [and that] we may

properly look to them as decisive authority with regard to God’s attributes.”3 Platonic

cosmology is also at the basis for understanding absolute holiness in a timeless sense

1 Hasel, “Scripture in the Theologies of W. Pannenberg and D.G. Bloesch: An Investigation and

Assessment of Its Origin, Nature, and Use”, 136-137.

2 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1:400.

3 Strong, 1:247.

57

while transitive holiness, sometimes referred to as righteousness represents God’s actions

in the universe occurring in space and time.

The question now is, how does the biblical model compare with the ones just

discussed on the ontological level?

Comparing the Ontology of the Biblical, Transcendent and Moral Models

The transcendent and moral models develop their ontology on the basis of

philosophy, science and tradition while the biblical model applies a doctrinal and

philosophical epoché to the Bible as it seeks to determine the ontological insights of

Scripture itself. This explains why only the biblical model investigated the ontological

context of divine holiness in passages such as Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8 and Isa 57:15. The

heavenly Sanctuary comprises the ontological ground of divine holiness in Isa 6:3 and

Rev 4:8. In addition to the heavenly Sanctuary which assumes space, Rev 4:8 declared

the holy God as He who “was and is and is to come,” which assumes time. Thus the

nature of God is temporal in the biblical model, but timelessness lies at the heart of both

the moral and transcendent models.

The ontological ground is determined by the theological sources that each model

uses. Once these sources are used in the construction of ontology, then they become the

starting points for our understanding of divine holiness. In this way, epistemology

assumes ontology as a necessary prerequisite. The starting point for our understanding of

divine holiness for the biblical model is the Law of God and the word of God (Isa 5:24).

However the starting point for Pannenberg was the Infinite of Descartes and the

panentheistic structure of Hegel while for Strong the starting point was Platonic

cosmology and Aristotelian metaphysics. The difference between Pannenberg and

58

Strong was that Pannenberg openly declared that his theological sources for his

ontological construction were philosophy and science, however Strong professed faith in

the Bible as a revelation from God yet did not use it in order to construct the ontological

ground of divine holiness. Furthermore, the temporal nature of the biblical model does

not assume an ontological separation between absolute and transitive holiness due to

timeless concepts, rather it integrates them in the context of the Sanctuary.

Consequently, these models are incompatible on the ontological level: they cannot

co-exist with one another. They represent different foundations made up of different

materials which are designed to only uphold certain structures while excluding other

structures. In other words, the ontological nature of each model affects the meaning and

interpretation of divine holiness which is why this has been dealt with in the study of

divine holiness. At this point we can examine how the meaning of divine holiness as

stated by all three models is affected by the ontological ground of each model.

How Ontology Affects the Meaning of Divine Holiness

Pannenberg, Ontology and Divine Holiness

This last section will begin with Pannenberg, then Strong and finally the biblical

model. The guiding role of ontology in the meaning of divine holiness is described by

Pannenberg in the following statement. “The biblical statements about holiness…give

concrete form to the true Infinite which philosophical reflection advances.”1 Therefore,

one must first understand the true Infinite on the basis of philosophical, not biblical

reflection before the biblical statements about divine holiness can be understood: the

59

latter reveals or gives “concrete form” to the meaning of the former. Moreover, the

meaning of divine holiness is affected in several ways by Pannenberg’s concept of the

Infinite.

First the concept of the Infinite forms the basis for why holiness is stripped of any

ethical properties which is characteristic of those in the transcendent model. As was

stated earlier, Pannenberg uses the prophet Isaiah’s experience in Isa 6:1-5 when the

angles sing about God’s holiness yet he does not explore the ontological or ethical

implications of the passage. His ontology precludes him from seeing anything ethical or

moral concerning divine holiness.

Second, the panentheistic structure of the Infinite which transcends everything

including its own antithesis to the finite while at the same time penetrating the finite and

making it holy also affects the meaning of divine holiness by making the distinction

between the holy and profane on purely ontological rather than on moral grounds. Thus

morality and ethics have nothing to do with why God is holy because divine holiness is

purely ontological. Third, the meaning of holiness as separate from everything profane is

also made on ontological rather than ethical grounds. Fourth, the panentheistic structure

also means that divine holiness is deterministic since everything, whether holy or profane

already exists timelessly within the Infinite.

Consequently, it’s this concept of the Infinite that forms the epistemological

starting point for understanding divine holiness. The biblical texts that Pannenberg uses

are designed to “give concrete form to the true Infinite which philosophical reflection

advances.” This means that Pannenberg is selective in his use of biblical texts which

1 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1:441-442.

60

speak about divine holiness. His selection excludes many that have already been

discussed in the previous chapter while he reinterprets others in light of his ontology.

Next we will consider how Strong’s ontology affects the meaning of divine holiness.

Strong, Ontology and Divine Holiness

For Strong the meaning of divine holiness is based upon a correct understanding

of the law of God’s nature interpreted by philosophy. These Platonic and Aristotelian

presuppositions affect the meaning of divine holiness in several ways. First Platonic

cosmology based upon timelessness provides the framework for understanding the

division between Absolute and Transitive holiness. The following texts are given to

support the idea of Absolute holiness, Exod 15:11; 19:10-16; Isa 6:3-7; 2 Cor 7:1; 1

Thess 3:13; 4:7 and Heb 12:29.1 However, while Exod 15:11 and Isa 6:3-7 explicitly

state that God is holy, the other texts only implicitly describe God as holy.

Furthermore, except for Isa 6:3-7 which assumes a temporal ontological context

already discussed in the previous chapter, there is nothing mentioned within the context

of the verses which even hints at the idea of Absolute holiness as Strong describes it. On

the one hand Strong’s ontological framework prevents him from seeing any ontological

or ethical implications from the Sanctuary (as in Isa 6:3 and Rev 4:8) or the Law (Rom

7:12) while on the other hand the philosophical framework becomes the basis for

understanding the call to personal holiness (in 1 Pet 1:15-16) upon the basis of divine

holiness interpreted by philosophy.

1 Strong, 1:268.

61

As in the case of the texts used for Absolute holiness, something similar could be

said of the texts he mentions in support of Transitive holiness, Gen 18:25; Deut 32:4; Ps

5:5; 7:9-12; 18:24-26; Matt 5:48; Rom 2:5; 1 Pet 1:16.1 Just because these texts describe

God’s actions as expressions or revelations of His holiness, doesn’t mean they imply the

kind of distinction between Absolute and Transitive holiness that Strong has mentioned

which is understood and interpreted from philosophy.

Second, according to Aristotelian metaphysics, God is totally self sufficient in the

sense that He cannot have anything outside of Himself. He cannot engage in any kind of

action which would require a product, time, place or opportunity without destroying the

idea of self sufficiency. The only thing that God can do to remain self sufficient is think

about Himself.2 Strong’s indebtedness to Aristotle is evident in his explanation of divine

“holiness as self-affirming purity.” It’s further illustrated in this statement: “In virtue of

this attribute of his nature, God eternally wills and maintains his own moral excellence.

In this definition are contained three elements: first, purity; secondly, purity willing;

thirdly, purity willing itself.”3 Moreover Strong’s understanding of divine holiness as

“purity of substance”4 is also based upon Aristotelian metaphysics.

While the meaning of divine holiness as purity is moral and ethical, it is largely

based upon how God’s nature is interpreted by philosophy. Thus without philosophy,

which reinterprets the nature of God, it would not be possible to know what purity is in

1 Ibid., 1:290.

2 Marias, 65.

3 Strong, 1:268.

4 Ibid., 1:273.

62

Strong’s system. Furthermore, even after philosophy has already laid the ground work

for understanding purity, it is still vaguely defined. In contrast to this the biblical model

would interpret purity as a moral characteristic in harmony with the Law of God giving it

a greater degree of specificity than the vague idea of purity based upon philosophy.

Third, timeless conceptions of eternity also form the philosophical basis for

understanding the meaning of divine holiness as deterministic. Strong states that “God

eternally wills and maintains his own moral excellence”1 which according to philosophy

takes place in the timeless realm. To further illustrate the point Strong claims that God

“is bound to purpose and to do what his absolute holiness requires. He has no attribute,

no will, no sovereignty, above this law of his being. He cannot lie, he cannot deny

himself, he cannot look upon sin with complacency, he cannot acquit the guilty without

an atonement.”2 Furthermore he states that “the certainty of future events which God

foreknew could have its ground only in his decree.”1

To sum it up, divine holiness is bound by the law of his being in such a way that it

becomes impossible for God to do anything other than what His timeless will decides.

Thus divine holiness is not compatible with freedom because it’s impossible for God to

go outside his timeless will which is why divine holiness is deterministic. According to

Strong’ system (the same could also be said of Pannenberg) it’s not possible to know the

meaning of divine holiness apart from philosophy. In the biblical system the

epistemological starting point is the word of God and the Law of God (Isa 5:16;24; Rom

1 Ibid., 1:268.

2 Ibid., 1:293.

63

7:12), not the nature of God defined by philosophy. We will now turn to the biblical

model to explore how biblical ontology affects the meaning of divine holiness.

Biblical Model, Ontology and Divine Holiness

As in the other models, biblical ontology affects the meaning of divine holiness in

several ways. First, when the Bible declares God to be holy, it does not separate between

His nature and His attributes. In reality they are integrated in the biblical model but for

the purpose of theoretical analysis they may be distinguished. Therefore since the

holiness of God includes His nature, let’s look a little closer at it. Both Pannenberg and

Strong have approached this by using philosophy, science and tradition as theological

sources in order to understand God’s nature. The result is that divine holiness has been

understood on the basis of timelessness. On the other hand, the biblical model assumes

that God’s nature is compatible with space and time. This is an important first step in the

meaning of divine holiness because every other meaning is constructed upon this first

step. The meaning of divine holiness as compatible with space and time came as a result

of exploring both the Sanctuary and the Law of God.

Second, the heavenly Sanctuary which contains the divine law is the ontological

ground for divine holiness (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8). In addition to this, the heavenly Sanctuary

also reveals the great controversy between Christ and Satan which is portrayed in the

book of Revelation. Furthermore this controversy is fought over the law of God. In Rev

12:17 John says that the dragon is wroth with those “who keep the commandments of

God,” and in Rev 14:12 those who keep “the commandments of God” are placed in direct

1 Ibid., 1:356.

64

opposition to the worshippers of the beast, his mark and his image (Rev 14:9-11). In Rev

13:6, the beast that comes up out of the sea blasphemes God’s tabernacle which contains

the Ten Commandments.

Thus since the declaration of God’s holiness took place in the heavenly

Sanctuary, and since the Sanctuary contains the Law of God, it naturally leads to the idea

that the Commandments of God constitute divine holiness. Furthermore since the enemy

hates the Law of God and makes war against it, any teaching that would tend to

undermine any of the Ten Commandments would surely distort the meaning of divine

holiness.

Third, unlike the previous models that have already been discussed, the biblical

model is not deterministic. The reason for why God cannot lie is not due to His timeless

decree in eternity past but due to His willingness to keep His oath even when it hurts (Ps

15:4) simply based upon His promise. Both Pannenberg’s and Strong’s ontology based

upon timelessness lead to viewing divine holiness as deterministic, even though their

approach is different. It seems that once temporality is set aside determinism is the only

result when considering the nature of God and divine holiness.

Finally although this study was restricted to the subject of divine holiness, the

implications for ethics and worship are also enormous. The 2nd Commandment reminds

us that a false ontology of God will lead to a misunderstanding of service, worship and

ethics. This study concludes that the subject of divine holiness can never be separated

from ontology. This has a practical bearing on the bible student who uncritically reads

the exegetical insights of those in the transcendent and moral models but fails to see that

exegesis has been shaped by ontology. This study maintains that when the Bible is

65

allowed to function as theological source, the ground of divine holiness is temporality

and its meaning is revealed by those who keep God’s commandments.

66

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andreasen, Niels-Erik. "The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Old Testament." In The

Sanctuary and the Atonement, ed. Frank B. Holbrook. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989.

Baker, Charles F. A Dispensational Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Grace Bible

Publications, 1971. Bancroft, Emery H. Christian Theology: Systematic and Biblical. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan, 1949. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. 13 vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1957. Behe, Michael J. Darwin's Black Box. New York: The Free Press, 1996. Berkhof, Hendrikus. Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of Faith. Translated by

Sierd Woudstra. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's, 1979. Berkhof, Louis. Reformed Dogmatics. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's, 1932. Bloesch, Donald G. God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love. Downer's Grove,

Il: InterVarsity Press, 1995. Brown, John. The Systematic Theology of John Brown of Haddington. Grand Rapids, MI:

Reformation Heritage Books, 2002. Brunner, Emil. The Christian Doctrine of God. 3 vols. London: Lutterworth Press, 1949. Buswell, James Oliver. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Grand

Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1962. Canale, Fernando. A Criticism of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness as

Primordial Presuppositions. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 1983. ________. Basic Elements of Christian Theology: Scripture Replacing Tradition. Berrien

Springs, MI: Andrews University Lithotech, 2005.

67

________. Creation, Evolution and Theology. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Lithotech, 2005.

________. "Deconstructing Evangelical Theology?" Andrews University Seminary

Studies Vol. 44, no. 1 (2006): 95-130. ________. "From Vision to System: Finishing the Task of Adventist Theology Part I:

Historical Review." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 15/2 (Autumn 2004): 5-39.

________. "From Vision to System: Finishing the Task of Adventist Biblical and

Systematic Theologies - Part Ii." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 16/1-2 (Spring - Autumn 2005): 114-142.

________. "The Quest for the Biblical Ontological Ground of Christian Theology."

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 16/1-2 (Spring - Autumn 2005): 1-20.

Cauthen, Kenneth. Systematic Theology: A Modern Protestant Approach. Queenston,

ON: Edwin Mellen Press, 1986. Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 2 vols., ed. John F. Walvoord. Wheaton, Il:

Victor Books, 1988. Dembski, William A. Intelligent Design. Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999. Dunning, H. Ray. Grace, Faith, and Holiness: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology. Kansas

City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1988. Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,

1983. Finger, Thomas N. Christian Theology: An Eschatological Approach. 2 vols. Scottdale,

PA: Herald Press, 1989. Fitzwater, P.B. Christian Theology: A Systematic Presentation. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdman's 1948. Gamertsfelder, S.J. Systematic Theology. Harrisburg, PA: Evangelical Publishing House,

1921. Garrett, James Leo Jr. Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical. 2 vols.

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's, 1990. Gerhart, Emanuel V. Institutes of the Christian Religion. New York, NY: A.C.

Armstrong & Son, 1891.

68

Gilkey, Langdon Brown. Maker of Heaven and Earth: A Study of the Christian Doctrine

of Creation. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959. Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Nashville, TN: Broadman &

Holman, 1994. Grenz, Stanley J., and Roger E. Olson. 20th Century Theology: God & the World in a

Transitional Age. Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1992. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994. Gulley, Norman R. Systematic Theology: Prolegomena. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews

University Press, 2003. Haering, Theodore. The Christian Faith: A System of Dogmatics. Translated by John

Dickie and George Ferries. 2 vols. New York, NY: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915. Hasel, Frank M. "Scripture in the Theologies of W. Pannenberg and D.G. Bloesch: An

Investigation and Assessment of Its Origin, Nature, and Use." Ph.D. Dissertation, Andrews University, 1994.

Hasel, Gerhard F. "The Sabbath in the Pentateuch." In The Sabbath in Scripture and

History, ed. Kenneth A. Strand. Washington, D.C.: Review & Herald, 1982. Heidegger, Martin. "Letter on Humanism." In Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, ed.

William Barret and Henry D. Aiken. New York: Random House, 1962. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1952. Hoeksema, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Free Publishing

Association, 1966. "Isaiah 1-33." In Word Biblical Commentary, ed. John D.W. Watts. Waco, TX: Word

Books, 1985. Jewett, Paul K. God, Creation, and Revelation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's, 1991. Jones, Kenneth E. Theology of Holiness and Love. Lanham, MD: University Press of

America, 1995. Kaufman, Gordon D. Systematic Theology: A Historicist Perspective. New York, NY:

Charles Scribner's Sons, 1968.

69

Lewis, Gordon R., and Bruce A. Demarest. Integrative Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987.

Macquarrie, John. Principles of Christian Theology. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's

Sons, 1966. Marias, Julian. History of Philosophy. Translated by Stanley Appelbaum and Clarence C.

Strowbridge. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1967. Miley, John. Systematic Theology. 2 vols. New York, NY: Hunt & Eaton, 1892. Miner, Raymond. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. New York, NY: Eaton and Mains, 1877. Moody, Dale. The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical

Revelation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's, 1981. Motyer, J. Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers

Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Mullins, Edgar Young. The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression. Chicago, Il:

The Judson Press, 1917. Oden, Thomas C. The Living God. 3 vols. New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1987. Oswalt, John N. "The Book of Isaiah 1-39." In The New International Commentary on

the Old Testament, ed. R.K. Harrison. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986. Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea

of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational. Translated by John W. Harvey. London, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1936.

Packer, J.I. Knowing God. Toronto, ON: Hodder and Stoughton, 1973. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Metaphysics and the Idea of God. Translated by Philip Clayton.

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990. ________. Systematic Theology. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 3 vols. Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. Pieper, Franz. Christian Dogmatics. 4 vols. St. Louis, MI: Concordia Publishing House,

1950. Rock, R. Christian Doctrine: A Comprehensive Study on Systematic and Practical

Theology Divine Attributes, ed. Jonathan Weaver. Dayton, OH: United Brethren Publishing House, 1889.

70

Schleiermacher, Friedrich. The Christian Faith, ed. H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1948.

"Science and a Literal Creation." In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, ed.

Francis D. Nichol. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1953. Shaw, John Mackintosh. Christian Doctrine: A One-Volulme Outline of Christian Belief.

Toronto, ON: Ryerson Press, 1953. Sheldon, Henry C. System of Christian Doctrine. New York, NY: The Methodist Book

Concern, 1903. Smith, Henry B. System of Christian Theology, ed. William S. Karr. New York, NY:

A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1892. Stevens, William Wilson. Doctrines of the Christian Religion. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdman's, 1967. Strong, Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. Chicago, Il: The Judson Press,

1907. Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids,

MI: Eerdman's, 1952. Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press,

1951. Timm, Alberto R. "The Sanctuary and the Three Angels' Messages: Integrating Factors in

the Development of Seventh-Day Advenstist Doctrines." PhD Dissertation, Andrews University, 1995.

Treiyer, Alberto. The Final Crisis in Revelation 4-5. Siloam Springs, AR: Creation

Enterprises International, 1998. Treiyer, Alberto R. The Day of Atonement and the Heavenly Judgment from the

Pentateuch to Revelation. Siloam Springs, AR: Creation Enterprises International, 1992.

Weber, Otto. Foundations of Dogmatics. Translated by Darrell L. Guder. Grand Rapids,

MI: Eerdman's, 1981. Wenger, John Christian. Introduction to Theology. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1954. White, Ellen G. The Great Controversy. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1911. ________. Testimonies for the Church. 9 vols. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1948.

71

Wiley, H. Orton. Christian Theology. 3 vols. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1962. Williams, J. Rodman. Renewal Theology: God, the World & Redemption. 3 vols. Grand

Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988.