קָדַשׁ (qādaš), q. be holy, withheld from ordinary use, treated with special care, belonging to the sanctuary; ni. show, prove oneself holy, be treated as holy; pi. put something into a state of holiness, i.e., treat according to the procedures of worship, dedicate for use by God, pronounce something to be holy, put someone into a state of holiness, consecrate, establish, appoint a holy period of time, transfer or convey holiness, treat as holy; pu. be made holy; hi. designate as made holy, treat as made holy, God’s declaration of s.o./s.t. to be holy to him, take God to be holy, give as votive offerings; hitp. behave as consecrated, prove o.s. to be holy, put o.s. into the state of dedication (#7727); מִקְדָּשׁ (miqdāš), nom. sanctuary (#5219); קָדֵשׁ (qādēš I), nom. sacred person, temple prostitute (#7728); קוֹדֶשׁ / קֹדֶשׁ (qôdeš / qōdeš), nom. thing filled with holiness, therefore be treated carefully, consecrated gifts, offerings, God’s holiness, something most holy (#7731); קָדוֹשׁ / קָדֹשׁ (qādôš / qādōš), adj. holy, causing anxiety, separated, ordained for (#7705).
ANE 1. The Sum. ku3, holy, which does not function as a nom. but rather as an adj., qualifies affairs that pertain/belong to the realm of the divine. It also implies that a certain awesomeness is associated with objects, beings, or times so designated. The temple is referred to as being holy (Wilson, 5–24). In addition to the concept of sanctity applied to the temple in a general sense, however, it is possible to distinguish particular parts of the temple complex that are specified as being sacred (e.g., the adytum that is called the holy place (ki-ku3), UE VI/I 103 1:33; the ABZU, which is called a holy sanctuary (eš3-ku3), UE VI/I 105 1:2; and the holy interior (ša3-ku3), UE VI/I 105 1:4, 16, while other parts do not appear to be so designated. Objects (e.g., plates, bowls, vessels, tables) typified as holy are similar in type to the temple utensils that are called קֹדֶשׁ in the OT. That is to say, they all pertain to the temple in some way and almost all are used in rituals (Wilson, 24–30). Although one might expect the gods to be called holy, that does not occur often. That epithet is most commonly associated with the divinity Inanna. As goddess of fertility she is very important in the Mesopotamian pantheon.
The word ku3 is more commonly associated with divine body parts, e.g., Gudea Cyl B VI 25 mentions the holy hand (šu-ku3) of Ningirsu. Similarly, Gudea is mentioned as having been chosen in the holy heart of the goddess Baba in statue E I 18–20. It would seem likely that the body parts of the gods are called holy in order to emphasize that these are not the body parts of mere mortals, and to thus maintain a certain distance and respect. Occasionally, if an animal is used as a symbol for a god, it is called holy, presumably to indicate that reference is made to some deity. In terms of holiness as a possible state for mortals, except for the priest, none of the temple personnel have the element of ku3 in their titles. By declaring that he himself is holy, the priest states his right to participate in the realm of the divine (Wilson, 30–32). The cultic festival is referred to as holy and thereby related to this realm of the divine, which in this case is represented by the temple, where the feast takes place. The songs of the priests are also called holy, because they are sung within the sacred precincts of the temple. Fire and water are used in the sanctification process. The sanctification of people, which enabled them to enter the presence of deity, was accomplished by means of the šu-luḫ ceremony, which marked the transition from the profane outer areas into the holy inner portions of the temple (Wilson, 32–40).
2. The Akk. vb. qadāšu and its derived adj. qašdu(m) indicate respectively a transition to and a state of purity, which implies freedom from pollutants (CAD 13:46–47). They are used in both a cultic and noncultic sense. In a noncultic sense they indicate freedom from dirt (in the case of clothes) or impurities not belonging to the same class as the object in question (e.g., impurities in metals), or freedom from legal claims. In a cultic sense, where the pollutant is specified, that pollutant is, in many cases, perhaps even always, evil spirits (Bettenzoli, 26–29). So qadāšu and qašdu(m) have a different linguistic range from Sum. ku3. Whereas the latter basically designates a state of pertaining to the realm of the divine, the former indicates either freedom from physical pollutants or else freedom from unwanted supernatural influences. In other words, in Akk. there does not appear to be any word for holy in the sense of Sum. ku3, or in the sense of Heb. קֹדֶשׁ or קָדוֹשׁ (in either the concrete or abstract sense). That would explain why temple utensils are not called qašdu to the extent that they are called ku3 in Sum. or קֹדֶשׁ in Heb. Even when cedar is called qašdu, what is stressed is its purifying quality rather than any supernatural aspect.
3. In Ugar. qdš, holy, refers to the divine self in the case of El and Athirat, but not in the case of Baal (Pope, 43–44). In the phrase bn qdš, sons of holiness, qdš is used as an epithet of the god El (THAT 2:591). Thus, the phrase refers to the sons of El, namely, the gods (KTU 1.2 III:6). Athirat is sometimes referred to as the holy one (KTU 1.2 1.16 I:11, 22). In the case of Baal (and other gods) qdš is not used as a direct attribute, but qualified characteristics or possessions of Baal (Bettenzoli, 34). Body parts of gods, e.g., Baal’s voice, are typified as holy (KTU 1.4 V:29). Places pertaining/belonging to the realm of the divine are typified as holy: "The rocks of Baal weep for you, father Zephon, the holy circuit (as place of pilgrimage and processions), the vast circuit is groaning (for you), the far-flung circuit" (KTU 1.16 I:7). The throne is typified as holy: "Come and I myself will search it out within my rock El Zephon, in (my) holy place, in the rock of my heritage, in (my) pleasant place, in the hill of my victory" (KTU 1.3 III:27). The nom. qdš also denotes a sanctuary: "They went a day and a second; afterwards with the sun on the third (day) he came to the sanctuary of Athirat of the two Tyres and to (the sanctuary of) Elat of the Sidonians" (KTU 1.14 IV:197).
OT By far the most extensive occurrences of the word group are to be found in the cultic and ritual texts which many scholars trace back only to the exilic and postexilic periods (Exod 25–Num 10; Ezek 40–48; and parts of 1 and 2 Chron). Jeremiah made very little use of the word group.
1. The nom. קֹדֶשׁ. (a) At the lexical level the nom. is best typified in terms of its most important related but opposite terms as the many-faceted parallelism in Lev 10:10 suggests: "You must distinguish between the holy and the common (חֹל; #2687), between the unclean (טָמֵא; #3237) and the clean (טָהוֹר; #3196)." First, each leg of the parallelism contains an opposed pair, namely, holy and common/profane on the one side, and clean and unclean on the other side (cf. also 11:47; Ezek 22:26; 42:20; 44:23). Thus, common/profane is the nom.‘s technical antonym. Second, the legs of the parallelism are also opposed. Thus, while the nom. (and its opposite, common/profane) represents the divine relation (positively and negatively) to the ordered world, clean (with its opposite, unclean) embraces the normal state of human existence in the earthly realm (Jenson, 47). Third, the parallelism forms a chiastic structure, with the result that the nom. and clean can be aligned (Barr, 15). While it is true that common/profane is its technical antonym, the parallelism also shows that unclean is a state opposed and detrimental to the nom. These relationships suggest that the nom. and its opposites form a spectrum that refers to levels of holiness ranging from extreme sanctity to extreme uncleanness (very holy, holy, clean, unclean, very unclean). This spectrum is employed in spatial, personal, ritual, and temporal dimensions of the cult and reflects a graded conception of the world (Jensen, 56–88).
(b) The nom. in the genitive, instead of the adj., is used most frequently after another nom., but is rendered like an adj., holy (Isa 65:11, 25). It qualifies all those things that in any way pertain to God or his worship, e.g., holy day = Sabbath (Isa 58:13). Rarely only is it to be taken as an abstract nom. to be rendered as holiness (Ps 29:2; 89:35 [36]). Concretely the nom. denotes a holy person, thing, place, or time, something sacred, consecrated to God.
(c) The major loci to which the nom. refers are as follows: God (Exod 15:11), his spirit (Isa 63:10), his name (Lev 20:3; 22:2, 32), his arm (Isa 52:10), his ways (Ps 77:13 [14]); humans: priests (Lev 21:6), Levites (2 Chron 23:6); objects: offerings (Exod 29:33) and gifts (28:38), sanctuary furniture (1 Kgs 8:4), priestly clothing (Exod 29:29), sanctuary treasury (Lam 4:1; cf. Exod 30:13, 24), oil (Num 35:25), anointing oil (Exod 30:25), incense (30:35); places: sanctuaries (Lev 10:4, 17, 18), places of theophany (Exod 3:5; Josh 5:15), Zion (Isa 11:9), Jerusalem (48:2), Ezekiel’s sacred district (Ezek 45:1), the divine habitation/heaven/throne (Deut 26:15; Ps 20:6 [7]; Isa 63:15); and time: Sabbath (Exod 31:14, 15), Jubilee (Lev 25:12), and feasts (cf. also ABD 3:237–49).
(d) God is considered to be the source of holiness. The nom. connotes the essential nature that belongs to the sphere of God’s being or activity and that is distinct from the common or profane. This might correspond to a claim of ownership, a statement of close association, or proximity to his cultic presence. It is first of all associated with the Lord (1 Chron 16:29; 2 Chron 20:21; Ps 96:9) and can be used almost as a synonym of deity. The nom., in the expression his holy name, can be put on a par with divine, his divine name, which in this context is nearly synonymous with his honor, reputation, and glory (Ezek 39:7; Amos 2:7). The Lord’s holy name contrasts with everything creaturely. The nom. also typifies the Lord’s Spirit (Ps 51:11 [13]). In Isa 63:10–11 the Spirit referred to is the Spirit God sent among his people during the Exodus, but who was grieved by Israel through their rebellion. God’s holiness thus becomes an expression for his perfection of being that transcends everything creaturely. Because God is holy by nature and separate from moral imperfection, he can be trusted to be faithful to his promises (Ps 105:42). Because of his holiness, God can accomplish the deliverance of his people (Exod 15:11).
(e) Holiness is not inherent in creation but comes by God’s dictates. While the realm of the holy was conceptually distinct from the world with its imperfections, it could nevertheless operate within the world as long as its integrity was strictly maintained. An inviolable distinction between the spheres of the sacred and the common or profane had to be maintained (Ezek 39:7; 42:20). That which was inherently holy or designated so by divine decree or cultic rite was not to be treated as common. The maintenance of the integrity of holiness was a function of the Israelite cult. The regulations and prescriptions were designed to maintain the purity of holiness that characterized God’s essential nature.
This principle was recognized even before the establishment of the levitical system (Exod 3:5). The Sabbath was holy, and the restrictions connected with that day served to maintain its distinctive nature and to guard against its being treated as common (16:23; Isa 58:13). Special restrictions were placed on the priests to guard against profanation of their holy status (Lev 21:6; 2 Chron 23:6). Only those who are holy will dwell on God’s holy hill (Ps 15:1). Sexual intercourse was not considered immoral, but it did affect a state of levitical defilement, which prohibited contact with that which was holy (1 Sam 21:4 [5]). The same principle applied to the fellowship offering (Lev 19:8), the holy oil (Exod 30:31–32) and holy incense (30:37). Holy objects, therefore, are those with no cultic pollution, which is symbolic of moral pollution. They are not merely dedicated, but dedicated to what is good and kept from what is evil. The ethical connotations of the nom. find their basis in the prescriptions against profaning that belong to the sphere of the sacred (Lev 22:32).
(f) That which was dedicated to God was regarded as entering the sphere of the divine. This included the various elements of levitical worship called holy things (Lev 5:15, 16), the produce of the land (19:24), real estate (27:14), personal property (27:28), and spoils obtained in military action (Josh 6:19). Doing so made them holy to the Lord, i.e., the property of the sanctuary and priests. The sacrifices that were to be eaten only by the priests are typified by the nom. by virtue of their absolute dedication to the sphere of the sacred (Lev 19:8).
(g) Everything that belonged to the realm of the cult was typified by the nom. Typical examples are the numerous holy occasions/sacred assemblies, e.g., the great feasts, New Moons, Sabbaths, Year of Jubilee (Lev 23:2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 21, 24, 27, 35, 36, 37); all the places and objects that serve the cult, e.g., temple (Isa 43:28), tabernacle (Exod 40:9), and ark (2 Chron 35:3), altars and their equipment (Exod 40:10) and offerings (Neh 10:33 [34]).
Although all things referring to the cult are typified by the nom., they are not of equal status but show a gradation of holiness (cf. also Haran, 175–88). Aaron and his sons are designated as most holy (1 Chron 23:13) in apparent contrast to the Levites, who are referred to as holy (2 Chron 23:6). Offerings fall into two main groups, namely, most holy and less holy. Those called most holy are the grain offering (Lev 2:3, 10), the sin offering (Lev 6:25 [18], 29 [22]), and guilt offering (Lev 6:17 [10]; 7:1, 6). A mark of most holy offerings is that only the priests may eat them and then only in the sanctuary court. In some passages less holy offerings are distinguished technically from most holy offerings by calling them simply holy offerings (Num 18:8, 9, 10, 19; Deut 12:26; 2 Chron 29:33; Ezek 36:38). The designation of spoils of war as most holy (Lev 27:28) is probably to emphasize their irredeemable nature. Sacrificial meat can be called holy flesh (Jer 11:15). Six pieces of cultic furniture are designated most holy: the ark, the incense altar, lampstand, bread table, the outer or burnt offering altar, and basin (Exod 29:37; 30:10, 26–29; 40:10; Num 4:4, 19). The other furniture may simply be labeled holy (Num 4:15).
Location, materials, lethality, and the cultic importance of the pieces suggest a gradation of holiness, with the ark being the highest, the outer altar and basin being the lowest. The high priest’s clothing has an elevated degree of holiness. Only the high priest’s clothing is called holy clothing (Exod 28:2, 4; 29:29; 31:10; 35:19, 21; 39:1, 41; 40:13). The golden plate is called holy (Exod 29:6; Lev 8:9). Aaron’s sons’ clothing is categorized thus only once (Exod 28:4), but the context shows that the high priest’s clothing is meant. When performing the blood rites in the adytum, shrine, and court on the Day of Atonement, the high priest wears a plain linen tunic, breeches, waistband, and headdress called holy (Lev 16:4, 32). This may be utilitarian to prevent the soiling of regular priestly clothing, and at the same time befitting the holiness of the altar. Ezekiel’s clothing for the priests is called holy (Ezek 42:14; cf. also 44:19) and had the power to render laypersons who touched it holy.
Terminology shows a gradation of different parts of the tabernacle. Technically speaking the adytum was called the Most Holy Place and the shrine simply the Holy Place (Exod 26:33, 34; 1 Chron 6:49 [34]; Lev 16:33). But the entire tent structure could be called most holy, which indicates that its collective holiness is greater than the rest of the sanctuary area (Exod 30:29). Less technically speaking, both rooms were called the holy place (Exod 38:24, 27). The sanctuary area in general or the court was called the holy place (Exod 35:19; 36:1, 3, 4, 6; 39:1, 41; Lev 10:4, 18; Num 8:19; 28:7). The entire area of Solomon’s temple, the second temple, and Ezekiel’s visionary temple were also called holy places (Ps 74:3; 1 Chron 24:5; 2 Chron 29:5, 7).
(h) There is a crucial distinction between holy objects and holy persons. The holiness of objects is permanent, and they can never again enter the profane sphere. Thus, the bronze censers of the sons of Korah rendered holy by use (vb. קָדַשׁ) became part of the permanent furniture of the cult (Num 16:37–40 [17:2–5]). Priests, on the other hand, lived both in the profane and holy spheres, though at different times. In order to minister in the holy sanctuary, the priests had to be holy themselves, and to this end were consecrated at Mount Sinai (Lev 8–10). But in contrast to holy objects, their holiness was active only in the holy area, and there was no penalty if a priest became unclean outside the sanctuary. Yet priestly holiness was more than a mere potential, and it affected certain kinds of behavior outside the sanctuary.
2. The adj. קָדוֹשׁ. (a) The nom. and adj. are not used in the same contexts, i.e., the one is not just the adjectival form of the other, but they rather have linguistic ranges that do not overlap significantly (Wilson, 87–88). The adj. is used only in connection with the following: Divine beings (1 Sam 6:20; Isa 43:3; Hab 1:12), human beings (Deut 14:2; 26:19), the sacrificial court (Exod 29:31; Lev 6:16 [9], 26 [19]; 7:6; 10:13; 24:9; Ezek 42:13), the day on which Ezra read the law (Neh 8:9, 10, 11), and the water used to test the woman suspected of adultery (Num 5:17). Most of the things typified by the nom., such as the furnishings in the tabernacle, the sacrifices and garments, are never typified by the adj. Those things that are typified by the adj. are not normally typified by the nom., the exception being the court, which also is qualified by the nom. because it was part of the tabernacle complex.
There is a dynamism associated with those objects typified by the adj. that is missing in those typified by the nom. While the nom. simply denotes a state of belonging to the realm of the divine, those things that are typified by the adj. all possess the ability to move things or people into, or at least toward, the realm of the divine. God, as the source of holiness, is also the primary agent of sanctification, but human beings can participate in the rituals of sanctification (e.g., of Aaron and his sons) and therefore is qualified by the adj. The water in Num 5 is qualified by the adj. because it moves the suspected adulteress either into one sphere (i.e., that of impurity) or the other (i.e., that of the pure, and possibly even the sphere of the holy, at least to the extent that all Israel can be considered holy under ideal circumstances). In that sense the water is also dynamic. Finally, the day on which Ezra read the law could be qualified by the adj. because it was a day on which Israel was moved toward a state of holiness by heeding the law. Therefore, there was also a dynamism in that day. Thus, there is a conceptual difference between the nom. and adj., with the latter containing a dynamic quality, while the former merely denotes a state of belonging to the realm of the divine or, in a more concrete sense, to the temple/tabernacle complex.
(b) The title "Holy One of Israel" occurs only in Isaiah apart from a few dependent passages (2 Kgs 19:22; Jer 50:29; 51:5; Ezek 39:7). It reflects the Lord’s supremacy over any competitors, his eternal being, as well as the fact that he is the sole object of Israel’s devotion. It serves to place the sins of Isaiah’s society in contrast to God’s moral perfection (Isa 30:12) and expresses God’s absolute separation from evil (17:7). The title functions in two contexts. First, instead of leaning on the Holy One of Israel, the people have relied on horses and chariots (31:1 versus 10:20; 30:15). But as the Holy One, the Lord himself intends to obtain justice in war for his people. Second, the sinful people, laden with guilt, have despised the Holy One of Israel (1:4; 30:12) and will therefore be smitten by him. The Holy One, the Creator of Israel (43:15; 45:11), who will redeem Israel out of slavery like a kinsman (43:14), is at the same time the Creator of the world and the Lord of the nations (40:25). As such he is sufficiently removed from his people to punish them without bias, but he is also sufficiently powerful to create something utterly new after the punishment. Therefore, nations will run to the Holy One of Israel because he will glorify Israel (55:5) (cf. also Anderson, 3–19).
(c) The adj. is also used in the title, Holy One (Hos 11:9; 11:12 [12:1]; Hab 1:12). Hos 11:9 has perhaps a similar message as the Isa passages. The Lord, the Holy One in the midst of his people, is nonetheless not a destroyer or demon, even when the people have been guilty of great profanity, but intends purification through a devastating catastrophe. His purpose is not destruction, but a new future for Israel. Because God is holy, he is free from the moral imperfections and frailties common to humanity (Hos 11:9) and can be counted on to be faithful to his promises (Ps 22:3 [4]). This aspect of God’s character forms the basis of Habakkuk’s hope that his people would not perish (Hab 1:12). This title does not occur frequently in the oldest sources. The Lord is once called "this holy God" by the Philistines because they were exposed to great disaster when they did not show proper respect for the ark of the covenant (1 Sam 6:19–20). The Lord is terrible and holy (Ps 99:3). None of the gods is holy as he is, for none casts down the exalted and raises the humble as he does (1 Sam 2:2).
(d) God is intrinsically holy and calls his people to be holy, providing for them the standard of obedience whereby that holiness may be maintained (Lev 19:2). According to R. Otto, the adj. points to five characteristics of the human experience of the divine: awe, majesty, vitality, otherness, and compelling fascination. Gammie (6–8) carries these ideas of Otto one step further, suggesting that the experience of holiness calls for the human response of purity and cleanness. Thus, the priestly tradition requires the cleanness of proper ritual and the maintenance of separation; the prophetic tradition demands the cleanness of social justice; the wisdom tradition stresses the cleanness of inner integrity and individual moral acts. The adj. typifies not only the mystery of God’s power, but also his character as totally good and entirely without evil. The experience of God revealing himself as ethically holy calls for the human response to a holiness resembling his own (Lev 20:7).
But lay Israelites did not share the same holy status as priests. On special occasions, when Israel as a whole was involved, they attained the broader holiness that was not permanent and ceased as a natural consequence of time. Yet though they were denied priestly holiness attained through inaugural rites and genealogical right, they were charged to achieve another type of holiness: that which comes by obedience. Because God is holy, the Israelites could not serve him when they persisted in their idolatrous practices (Josh 24:19). They were to be separate from all that was unholy (Lev 11:44–45). Stipulations were imposed on them that they might not engage in practices common to other peoples (Num 15:40). Their call to holiness was based on the fact that they had become God’s possession by virtue of his separating them from the nations (Lev 20:26). Thus, holiness should characterize Israel in its distinctiveness in relation to the nations with regard to purity laws (Lev 11:44–45) or moral behavior (Lev 19). The same aspect of holiness pertains to the deut. formula, the holy people. In so far as the people are holy to the Lord, their God (Deut 7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:19), the formula explains their separation from the practices and cult objects of foreign religions; not eating what dies of itself; destroying altars, Asherim, graven images, etc. Deut 26:19 declares that through keeping the whole law Israel will become a people holy to the Lord.
(e) God is not the only divine being typified by the adj. Subordinate divine beings are also qualified by the nom. (Job 5:1; 15:15; Ps 16:3; 89:5 [6], 7 [8]; Dan 8:13; Zech 14:5). The holy ones, saints, are heavenly companions of God. In Dan 7:18 (Aram.) they are those who stand by their God in the war between the Lord and the world powers, and who receive the kingdom.
(f) A ritual that relates the potential holiness of all Israelites to the specific cultic holiness of the priests is found in Num 6. The status of the Nazirite vow is typified by the adj. (Num 6:5, 8). The Nazirite vow was open to all Israelites, male or female, priest or lay. The holiness of the Nazirite was only temporary and noncommunicable and so not confined to the sanctuary or to the priesthood. Nevertheless, he or she was subject to restrictions during their vows, which put them on a par with a ministering high priest.
(g) The holiness of prophets is typified meagerly by the adj. Elisha is called a holy man of God (2 Kgs 4:9).
3. The vb. קָדַשׁ. (a) The vb. refers to a state or the transition into/move towards a particular grade of holiness. The use of the vb. is more uniform in the context of its setting than the nom. and the adj.
(b) The q. connotes the state of that which belongs to the sphere of the sacred. Thus such a subject is in a state distinct from the common or profane. The pf. q. is used most frequently to describe the state of consecration effected by levitical ritual. In Exod 29:21 Aaron, his sons, and their garments were consecrated and were thus recognized as belonging to the realm of the sacred. The censers of the Korahites were regarded as holy because they had been devoted to the Lord (Num 16:37 [17:2]). Accordingly, they were regarded as having entered the sphere of the sacred by virtue of cultic ritual and were accorded a special place in the sanctuary (Num 16:38 [17:3]). The devotion of the censers seems to have created a condition of inviolable holiness that would not allow for their being treated in a common way. The impf. q. is used to depict the transmission of the state of holiness to whatever touched a person or object so consecrated (Exod 29:37; 30:29; Lev 6:18 [11], 27 [20]; cf. Hag 2:12). This process does not necessarily imply that a transferable divine energy exists in the idea of the vb. Rather, it seems that such a person or object entered the state of holiness in the sense of becoming subject to cultic restrictions, as were other holy persons or objects. Stipulations are in place to avoid defilement of the state of the sacred (Deut 22:9; 1 Sam 21:5 [6]; Isa 65:5). It seems best to see the vb. in the q. as serving to delineate the sphere of the divine.
(c) The ni. of the vb., of which God is usually the subject, denotes the self-representation of his holiness in Israel in the face of the gentile world (Ezek 20:41; 28:25; 39:27). God demonstrates his holiness by judging sin (Lev 10:3; Num 20:13; Ezek 28:22) or by adhering to his promises (Isa 5:16; Ezek 38:16). The clearest example is Ezek 36:23. The Lord’s holy name had been profaned through the scattering of the people, and the exiles had contributed to its further profanation. But when the Lord gathers his people from the four corners of the earth, he will manifest himself in them before all the nations as the Holy One, and the nations will acknowledge that he is the Lord. This means that they will recognize the Lord as God, even if he had not been. The acknowledgment of God as holy is also expressed by the ni. (Lev 22:32). The ni. can also connote the passive of the factitive, to be consecrated/to be brought into a state of holiness (Exod 29:43).
(d) But since the normal state of earthly things is common (חֹל, #2687), it requires a special act to bring a thing or person into a state of holiness. The factitive of the vb., to set in a state of holiness, is denoted most frequently by the pi. The focus is on the result of the act of consecration. The subject of the vb. may be God or a person. God made Israel holy (Exod 31:13; Lev 20:8; 21:8; 22:32), restored the holiness of Israel (Ezek 20:12; 37:28), sanctified his name, which was defiled by Israel in the eyes of the nations (Ezek 36:23), and declared the Sabbath to be holy (Gen 2:3). Moses (Exod 19:10, 14), Joshua (Josh 7:13), Job (Job 1:5), and Samuel (1 Sam 16:5) sanctified either the nation or individuals. Solomon consecrated the middle part of the courtyard in front of the temple (1 Kgs 8:64; 2 Chron 7:7). In strict accord with the divine instruction Moses anointed both the sanctuary with its furnishings and the priests with the holy anointing oil (Exod 29:44; 40:9–11, 13; Lev 8:10; Num 7:1). The filling of the sanctuary by the glory of God at the consecration emphasized the limitation of the purely human construction.
A requisite for Aaron and his sons to serve as priests was the act of consecration, which inter alia entailed dressing in the sacred garments, anointing, ordaining, and eating of the ordination offerings (Exod 28:3, 41; 29:1, 33; 30:30). The priests had to take care not to consecrate the people by means of their garments (Ezek 44:19). Therefore, other garments were to be worn outside the sanctuary for ordinary life. For consecration the altar had to be brought into a state of purity. It was thus necessary to cleanse/purify the altar from the uncleanness of the Israelites. It was performed by the sprinkling of blood and resulted in the atonement of the altar (Exod 29:36; Lev 8:15; 16:19). After this act, the anointing by oil was necessary to bring the altar into a state of holiness. If this process was repeated, the altar became most holy (Exod 29:37; 40:10).
Other matters that were consecrated were the temple (by removing all defilement) (2 Chron 29:5, 17); the Jubilee Year (Lev 25:10); every firstborn male (Exod 13:2); the assembly (Joel 2:16); and parts of the ordination ram that belonged to Aaron and his sons, namely, the breast and the thigh (Exod 29:27), thereby placing them at God’s disposal. In Exod 19:23 the consecration of Mount Sinai by establishing boundaries around it served to keep out all that might have profaned God’s holy presence. The pi. is also used to denote the cultic preparations for going to war (Jer 6:4; 51:27, 28; Joel 3:9 [4:9]; Mic 3:5), for calling an assembly (2 Kgs 10:20) or for appointing a holy period of time, e.g., a fast (Joel 1:14; 2:15).
(e) The consecration consists of a double movement, since the initiation of a new relationship with the divine realm entails a corresponding separation from the earthly sphere (Jenson, 48). Separateness is often thought to be the basic meaning of holiness, but it is more its necessary consequence. Consecration is a separation to God rather than a separation from the world. The theory that the original etymology was separation is now abandoned. The suggestion that the vb. is derived from an original biliteral qd, cut, is attractive but tenuous in view of the uncertainties surrounding the transmission of biliteral roots to the triliteral form. The meaning to separate is favored by many scholars, but the fact that the vb. rarely if ever occurs in a secular sense makes any positive conclusion in this regard difficult, because of the limited evidence on which to base philological comparison.
(f) The pi. is also used to depict the conservation of the holiness of God (Deut 32:51) or the result of the act of consecration. The Israelites are instructed to keep the Sabbath holy (Exod 20:8; Deut 5:12) by refraining from work or carrying loads on the Sabbath (Jer 17:22, 24, 27); it is a sign between them and God (Ezek 20:20; 36:23).
(g) The pu. part. is used like a nom. or adj. to depict or qualify subjects as being put into a state of holiness, e.g., angels (Isa 13:3), the priests (2 Chron 26:18; Ezek 48:11), feasts (Ezra 3:5), and contributions for worship (2 Chron 31:6).
(h) The hitp. denotes the entering of a state of holiness through one’s own fault. In these cases nothing more than cultic qualification is implied. A person consecrated himself when he had been temporarily excluded from the life of the community by uncleanness, or when he came into contact with God. Bathsheba purified herself from her uncleanness after David slept with her (2 Sam 11:4). Priests and Levites had to consecrate themselves when they approached God or performed cultic duties (Exod 19:22; 1 Chron 15:12, 14; 2 Chron 5:11; 29:5, 34; 30:3, 15, 24). Jesse and his sons consecrated themselves for the family sacrifice (1 Sam 16:5). The people had to consecrate themselves to prepare for the deeds that the Lord would perform among them (Lev 11:44; 20:7; Num 11:18; Josh 3:5; 7:13). When God is the subject of the vb., the hitp. denotes God’s self-display of his holiness (Ezek 38:23). The hitp. is also used to depict the celebration of a holy festival (Isa 30:29).
(i) The hi. has the sense of dedication, not with the implication of cultic qualification, but rather of transfer to the possession of God, to whom the person or thing dedicated now exclusively belongs. The hi. focuses on the process of dedication. The dedicated oblations that could not be offered in sacrifice consist of houses (Lev 27:14, 15) and fields (Lev 27:16, 17, 18, 19, 22). It is to be observed that in most cases no actual change of ownership takes place. If an owner dedicated his house and wished to redeem it, he had to pay an additional one-fifth of the estimated value of the property to be restored. The case of the field was much more complicated, since it involved the question of the Jubilee. But the owner could redeem it by adding one-fifth. Firstlings already belonged to the Lord, so they could not be dedicated (Lev 27:26; Num 3:13; 8:17; Deut 15:19). The sacred offerings that the Israelites dedicated to the Lord had to be treated according to the procedures of worship (Lev 22:2, 3). In Judg 17:3, when Micah acknowledged that he had taken the money and restored it to the purpose to which his mother had dedicated it, she neutralized the curse by invoking a blessing on him. Spoils of war (2 Sam 8:11; 1 Chron 18:11; 26:27) and the temple (2 Chron 2:4 [3]) were dedicated to the Lord.
(j) Finally, the hi. is also used to denote the act by which God is honored as holy (Num 20:12; 27:14; Isa 8:13; 29:23) and the act of setting subjects apart for a certain divine purpose (Neh 12:47; Jer 12:3). According to the directions given in the law of Moses, six cities of refuge were set apart (hi.) for the asylum of those who had unintentionally committed homicide (Josh 20:7). Before conception, and between conception and birth, divine intimate awareness and divine separating action (hi.) led up to the moment of appointment of Jeremiah as prophet (Jer 1:5).
4. The nom. קָדֵשׁ. The nom. has as reference the shrine/cultic/religious prostitute (Gen 38:21). The nom. appears in a passage that describes the building of high places, pillars, and Asherim (1 Kgs 14:24). However, Asa put the male shrine prostitutes out of the land (1 Kgs 15:12), and Jehoshaphat exterminated the rest of the male shrine prostitutes (1 Kgs 22:46 [47]). A law in Deut prohibits the practice of cult prostitution by the daughters of Israel and likewise by the sons (Deut 23:17 [18]). Apart from the bare allusion to these, always in connection with actual or implied condemnation, nothing is told about their function. This must be inferred from extrabiblical material. Many considered that the processes of nature were controlled by the relations between gods and goddesses. By engaging in sexual intercourse with devotees of the shrine they believed was that this would encourage the gods and goddesses to do likewise, with the result that a person’s desire for increase in herds and fields, as well as in his own family, could be realized.
P-B 1. The Qumran community was an apocalyptic, priestly community in which the ordinances of purification that were originally obligatory only for the priests were made binding on all the members. The temple cult was replaced by special ways of obedience, such as washing, cultic meals, and especially observance of the calendar. The nom. and adj. were used for the self-designation of the community. The community described itself as the saints (1QM 6:6), God’s holy people (1QM 14:12), men of holiness (1QS 8:17), and the council of holiness (1QS 8:21). It is the eschatological temple, a house of holiness for Israel, an assembly of supreme holiness for Aaron (1QS 8:5). Its members formed a unity with the heavenly community of angels, who were likewise called holy ones (1QS 11:8; 1QH 11:12) (NIDNTT 2:228; cf. also Naudé).
2. The context of the book of Enoch shows that suffering qualifies the righteous as holy (1 En 48:7).
3. The term saints was also used for the members of the Jerusalem cultic community. Antiochus’s men wanted to profane the sanctuary and the saints, i.e., those who were true to the law and had by their suffering demonstrated that they steadfastly belonged to the Lord (1 Macc 1:46).
4. Israel’s writings were now also called holy (1 Macc 12:9). From now on the Scriptures were to form the new pivotal point for the system of holiness in Judaism, thereby replacing the cult. Hence, those who obeyed the Torah were in particular regarded as holy. Holiness focused more and more on daily life (NIDNTT 2:227).
5. In rabbinic Judaism the application of the word group is for the most part controlled by the OT. Occasionally new constructions were ventured, like the holiness of the hair to indicate that the Nazirites had to cut off their hair because it was dedicated to God. Because of the holiness of the name of God it was never pronounced. The holiness of the Torah is seen supremely in the fact that the reading of it stands at the heart of synagogue worship, encircled by a series of prayers referring to it. The particular expression for the holiness of the scrolls in RL is that they make the hands unclean (Zabim 5:12). A cultic washing of the hands was necessary after touching them—the hands having become holy through the holiness of Scripture and needing to be made unclean again after contact. The person who fulfills God’s commandments and leads a pious life pleasing to God is often called holy (cf. also TDNT 1:97–100).
NT In the NT God is seldom described as holy (John 17:11; 1 Peter 1:15; Rev 4:8; 6:10). Christ is only once called holy in the same sense as God (Rev 3:7). The concept of holiness in the NT is determined rather by the Holy Spirit. Following from this, the proper sphere of the holy in the NT is not the cult but the prophetic. The sacred no longer belongs to things, places, or rites, but to the manifestations of life produced by the Spirit (Stronstad, 5–28).
VanGemeren, W. (Ed.). (1997). New international dictionary of Old Testament theology & exegesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
- - - - - - - - - - -
ἅγιος, 3 hagios holy, pure
ἁγιάζω hagiazō make holy, consecrate*
ἁγιασμός, οῦ, ὁ hagiasmos consecration*
ἁγιότης, ητος, ἡ hagiotēs holiness*
ἁγιωσύνη, ης, ἡ hagiōsynē holiness*
1. Occurrences in the NT — 2. Typical contexts in the NT — 3. Greek and Jewish usage (LXX) and theological consequences — 4. God, Christ, and the salvific gifts of God; πνεῦμα ἅγιον — 5. Holiness and consecration of believers
Lit.: R. Asting, Die Heiligkeit im Urchristentum (FRLANT 46, 1930). — J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (1961) 284–86. — P. Chantraine and O. Masson, "Sur quelques termes du vocabulaire religieux des Grecs: la valeur du mot ἄγος et de ses dérivés," Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung (FS A. Debrunner; 1954) 85–107. — S. Djukanovic, Heiligkeit und Heiligung bei Paulus (Diss. Bern, 1939). — J. Efros, "Holiness and Glory in the Bible," JQR 41 (1950/51) 263–77. — J. A. Eliott, The Elect and the Holy (NovTSup 12, 1966). — D. Flusser, "Sanktus und Gloria," FS Michel 129–52. — E. Gaugler, Die Heiligung im Zeugnis der Heiligen Schrift (1948). — B. Häring, Das Heilige und das Gute. Religion und Sittlichkeit in ihrem gegenseitigen Bezug (1950). — J. Haspecker, BL 694–96. — van Imschoot and H. Haag, BL 686–91. — O. R. Jones, The Concept of Holiness (1962). — P. Jovino, L’Église Communauté des Saints dans les Actes des Apôtres et dans les Épîtres Pauliniennes (1975). — L. E. Keck, "The Poor Among the Saints in Jewish Christianity and Qumran," ZNW 57 (1966) 54–78. — K. G. Kuhn, TDNT I, 97–100. — G. Lanczkowski, F. Horst, H.-D. Wendland, and G. Gloege, RGG III, 146–55. — M. Lattke, TRE XIV, 703–708. — H. P. Müller, THAT II, 589–609. — F. NÖtscher, "Heiligkeit in den Qumranschriften," RevQ 2 (1959/60) 163–81, 315–44. — E. Pax, SacVb I, 372–75. — O. Procksch, TDNT I, 88–91, 100–115 (A., B., E.). — S. P. J. J. van Rensburg, Hagios in die Nieu-Testamentiese voorstelling (Diss. Pretoria, 1958). — idem, "Sanctification According to the NT," Neot 1 (1967) 73–87. — D. W. B. Robinson, "Who Were ‘the Saints?’." RTR 22 (1963) 45–53. — B. Schneider, "Κατὰ Πνεῦμα Ἁγιωσύνης (Romans 1, 4)," Bib 48 (1967) 359–87. — H. Seebass, DNTT II, 223–29. — J. A. Soggin and E. Esking, BHH II, 681–83, 694f. — G. Stählin, RGG III, 178–80. — G. Walther, "übergreifende Heiligkeit und Kindertaufe im NT," EvT 25 (1965) 668–74. — E. Williger, Hagios. Untersuchungen zur Terminologie des Heiligen in den hellenisch-hellenistischen Religionen (RVV 19/1, 1922) 72–108. — R. Wolff, "La Sanctification d’après le NT," PosLuth 3 (1955) 138–43. — P. Benoit, "Agioi en Col. 1, 12: Hommes ou Anges?" Paul and Paulinism (FS C. K. Barrett; 1982) 83-101. — H. Cazelles, et al., DBSup X, 1342-1483. — M. Lattke, TRE XIV, 703-8. — W. Zimmerli, ".‘Heiligkeit’ nach dem sogenannten Heiligkeitsgesetz," VT 30 (1980) 493-512.
1. This word group occurs with relative frequency in the NT: Ἅγιος occurs 230 times (among others, Matt 25:31 Koine, etc.; John 7:39 P66* L Koine W, etc.; Acts 6:3 A C* H, etc.; 8:18 P45, 74 A C Koine D, etc.; Rom 15:19 A C D G, etc.; 1 Cor 2:13 Koine, etc.; 1 Thess 5:27 88mg; Rev 4:11 Koine, etc.; 15:3 296 2049; 22:21 א Koine, etc.), distributed over nearly all the NT writings (except for Galatians, James, 2-3 John), with special significance attaching to Luke (20 occurrences in Luke, 53 in Acts), Romans (20 occurrences), and Hebrews (18 occurrences). Ἁγιάζω occurs 28 times, ἁγιασμός 10 times (not in the Gospels or Acts), ἁγιότης only in Heb 12:10 and 2 Cor 1:12 P46 א* A B, etc. (the v.l. ῾απλότης [אc D G Koine, etc.] is preferred in UBSGNT; πραότης 88 635 is also found), and ἁγιωσύνη only in Rom 1:4; 2 Cor 7:1; 1 Thess 3:13.
Thus ἅγιος κτλ. stands out clearly from the other NT words for "holy": → ἱερός occurs only 3 times (and once in the shorter ending of Mark), its derivatives (with the exception of ἀρχιερεύς and ἱερεύς) not more than 13 times, and only ἱερόν (almost without exception the NT t.t. for the Jewish temple) more frequently (70 times and once as a v.l.); ὅσιος only 8 times (not in the Gospels or Paul!), ὁσίως only in 1 Thess 2:10, and ὁσιότης only in Luke 1:75; Eph 4:24.
2. Ἅγιος is used in 90 of 230 cases in the combination πνεῦμα ἅγιον, which has its greatest concentration again in the Lukan writings (13 in Luke, 41 in Acts); the form πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης in Rom 1:4 (→ 4) is unique. In second place follows the absolute use of the subst. adj. (οἱ) ἅγιοι (the article occurs nearly without exception) for Christians in general (Rom 8:27; Eph 6:18, etc.) and by Paul for the early church in Jerusalem (e.g., Rom 15:25, 26, 31; 1 Cor 16:1, etc.), with a total of 61 occurrences.
In addition, ἅγιος is often (traditionally) associated on the one hand with things, places, and persons connected with the (Jewish) cult and the OT-Jewish tradition: with things, γραφαὶ ἅγιαι in Rom 1:2, νόμος ἅγιος in Rom 7:12, ἐντολὴ ἁγία καὶ δικαία καὶ ἀγαθή in Rom 7:12, cf. 2 Pet 2:21; with places, πόλις ἁγία in Matt 4:5; 27:53; Rev 11:2, etc., τόπος ἅγιος in Matt 24:15; Acts 6:13; 21:28, always referring to the temple, the holy mountain of the transfiguration, 2 Pet 1:18; and with persons, προφῆται ἅγιοι in Luke 1:70; Acts 3:21; 2 Pet 3:2 (always in gen.; in the post-Pauline period also οἱ ἅγιοι ἀπόστολοι, Eph 3:5). On the other hand, τὸ ἅγιον can designate anything at all which belongs to God (Matt 7:6; Luke 2:23; Heb 8:2), including the earthly (κοσμικόν) "sanctuary" of the first covenant in Heb 9:1, the σκηνὴ … ἥτις λέγεται Ἅγια (v. 2), ἡ λεγομένη Ἅγια Ἁγίων, the "Holy of Holies" (v. 3), and the temple "Holy Place" (vv. 12, 25; mss. 69 and 1912 add τῶν ἁγίων); in Heb 10:19; 13:11; 9:24 it is applied figuratively to the true heavenly sanctuary of which the earthly is only a copy (ἀντίτυπα).
Ἅγιος occurs as a designation for God in the direct address of prayer in the high-priestly prayer of Jesus in John 17:11 (πάτερ ἅγιε) and also in Luke 1:49 (Ps. 110:9 LXX: ἅγιον τὸ ὄνομα); 1 Pet. 1:15, 16 (Lev. 19:2) 1 John 2:20; Rev 4:8: ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος ὁ θεός (Isa 6:3) ὁ παντοκράτωρ; 6:10 (ὁ δεσπότης ὁ ἅγιος καὶ ἀληθινός). Similarly in relation to the world of God, the angels are called "holy" in Mark 8:38 par. Luke 9:26; Acts 10:22 (sg.); Jude 14 (ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν); Rev 14:10; the term is also used frequently in the christological realm: ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ in relation to Christ in Mark 1:24 (par. Luke 4:34); John 6:69; cf. Rev 3:7; the absolute τὸν ἅγιον καὶ δίκαιον ἠρνήσασθε in Acts 3:14 (cf. the reference to John the Baptist in Mark 6:20); τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἱὸς θεοῦ in the announcement of Jesus’ birth, Luke 1:35 (cf. ὁ ἅγιος παῖς, Acts 4:27, 30). Of special theological significance are statements regarding God’s "holy" gifts of salvation: κλῆσις ἁγία in 2 Tim 1:9; διαθήκη ἁγία in Luke 1:72 (cf. the connection with ἀπαρχή and ῥίζα in Rom 11:16); figuratively, θυσία ζῶσα ἁγία in Rom 12:1; and ἡ ἁγιωτάτη πίστις in Jude 20. Here the salvific character of God’s gifts is connected with their origin in the holy God himself.
In the same way, finally, believers themselves are regarded as holy (see above), i.e., called out of the world about them into the presence of God as a holy people (ἔθνος, 1 Pet 2:9), their bodies a holy temple of God (ὁ γὰρ ναὸς θεοῦ ἅγιός ἐστιν, 1 Cor 3:17; cf. Eph 2:21), their children holy in the sense of "belonging to God" (the opposite is ἀκάθαρτα: 1 Cor 7:14), which can also be said of women (v. 34; 1 Pet 3:5). This holiness manifests itself in pure and undefiled conduct (Eph 1:4; 5:27; Col 1:22 [with ἄμωμος]; cf. 1 Pet 1:15: ἅγιοι ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε; similarly in 2 Pet 3:11). The holiness of the Christian life derives from the holiness of God (1 Pet 1:16, quoting Lev 19:2; cf. also Rev 22:11: ὁ ἅγιος ἁγιασθήτω ἔτι). As holy persons Christians demonstrate to each other their new solidarity by means of the holy kiss (φίλημα ἅγιον, Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26). The use of ἅγιος with δίκαιος (Mark 6:20; Acts 3:14; Rom 7:12; cf. 1 Cor 6:1 [over against ἄδικοι]) makes it clear that in addition to its specific meaning the word can occasionally be used in a weakened or figurative sense.
The vb. ἁγιάζω is used 17 times pass. and 11 times act. The following are made holy or are holy (pass.): the name of God (Matt 6:9 par. Luke 11:2); those who believe (John 17:19b; Acts 20:32; 26:18; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:11; 7:14 [twice]; 2 Tim 2:21), who are all consecrated through the one Son (Heb 2:11b; cf. 10:10, 14); everything which God has created (1 Tim 4:5); and, finally, Christ himself, who is consecrated through the blood of the covenant (Heb 10:29 [referring to Exod 24:8]). In pass. constructions God is very frequently to be understood as the subject of the consecration (divine passive). Only in Rev 22:11 is the pass. ὁ ἅγιος ἁγιασθήτω ἔτι to be translated as mid.: "Let … the holy (person) still be holy." Similar relationships emerge in act. constructions: God sanctifies Christ (John 10:36) and believers (17:17; 1 Thess 5:23); Christ also sanctifies himself (John 17:19a), believers (Heb 2:11a), and the Church (Eph 5:26; cf. Heb 13:12). Cultic usage is reflected in Matt 23:17, 19; Heb 9:13. 1 Pet 3:15 contains the traditional formulation: κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε (cf. Isa 8:13): "in your hearts keep Christ holy [RSV "reverence Christ"] as Lord," i.e., allow oneself to be ruled by him alone.
Ἁγιασμός has its decisive role in NT parenesis, and often appears with a prep. to characterize the comprehensive goal of the new conduct of those who believe: εἰς ἁγιασμόν in Rom 6:19 (over against εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν), v. 22 (over against death as the fruit of the life lived under the power of sin); ἐν ἁγιασμῷ in 1 Thess 4:7 (over against ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ); 1 Tim 2:15; and ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος in 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2: "sanctified by the Spirit"; cf. Rom 15:16 (ἡγιασμένη ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, referring to the Gentile world, presented to God as an offering). Such phrases are also used more specifically to describe the relationship of men to their wives: τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ in 1 Thess 4:4 ("in holiness," i.e., in a manner corresponding to the will of God, "and honor," over against ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας); cf. also in general the preceding verse and Heb 12:14. In 1 Cor 1:30 δικαιοσύνη and ἀπολύτρωσις are used with ἁγιασμός to refer to the final salvation accomplished through Christ.
In Heb 12:10 ἁγιότης designates the holiness of God in which those who belong to God participate. By contrast the same word is used to designate Christian conduct in a series of mss. at 2 Cor 1:12 (→ 1).
Paul uses ἁγιωσύνη to speak of the believers’ perfect holiness (ἐπιτελοῦντες ἁγιωσύνην) achieved through cleansing from every defilement of flesh and spirit (2 Cor 7:1) or their holiness which proves itself in blamelessness (ἀμέμπτους ἐν ἁγιωσύνῃ) before God’s judgment (1 Thess 3:13). In Rom 1:4 (→ 4) πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης replaces the usual πνεῦμα ἅγιον.
3. Like ἁγνός the verbal adj. ἅγιος is connected with ἅζομαι "stand in awe" and referred originally to the deity whose manifestations are accompanied by marvelous signs and call forth fear and awe. Ἅγιος is attested as early as Herodotus, who uses it in a less specific sense to refer to holy places (e.g., v.119). A similar usage appears in Aristophanes (e.g., Lys. 256) and Plato (e.g., Criti. 116c: ἱερὸν ἅγιον, a phrase which occurs frequently, esp. later, e.g., Pausanias x.32.13) among others, and has the general sense of "venerable, awe-inspiring." In the Hellenistic period ἅγιος appears as an epithet of oriental deities (e.g., Pap. Oxy. no. 1380, ll. 34, 36), and can even refer to the veneration of Epicurus by the Epicureans: ἅγιον καὶ ἁγιώτατον καὶ ἵλεων (Philodemus Piet. [ed T. Gomperz, 1866] 96) and—mockingly—to the Egyptian veneration of animals: ὡς ἁγιωτάτοις ἱεροῖς (Plutarch Quaest. Conv. iv.5.2 [670a]). On the whole ἅγιος is relatively rare; it does not occur as an expression for a human ethical or personal quality, nor does it signify holiness (of the divine) as such but rather holiness together with the proper reactions to it, i.e., respect, reverence, and awe.
In contrast to extrabiblical Hellenistic literature ἅγιος is found rather frequently in the LXX, over 700 times, preponderantly as the rendering of Heb. qāḏôš or qōḏeš); moreover, new forms appear, among others: ἁγιάζω, e.g., Gen 2:3; ἁγιασμός, e.g., Jer 6:16; ἁγιότης, only in 2 Macc 15:2; and ἁγιωσύνη, e.g., Ps 29:4 (only 5 occurrences). Ἱερός and ὅσιος, on the other hand, recede sharply. Ἅγιος appeared especially well-suited to serve as an equivalent because, like qḏš, it made possible the articulation of the holiness of God as a claim grounded in the power and perfection of God and thus addresses human beings out of this extra- and supraworldly reality. In this way it could become an epithet of God (Lev 19:2; 1 Kgdms 2:2; Isa 31:1; Hos 11:9), of his name (Isa 60:9), of his spirit (Ps 50:13), of his places of worship (Ex 3:5; Lev 7:6; Ps 2:6), indeed of everything associated with the cult, i.e., everything in the world which directly belongs to or is oriented toward God. New is the idea that the pious, who respond appropriately to this claim of God, are also called "holy" (Exod 19:6: ἔθνος ἅγιον; Deut 7:6: λαὸς ἅγιος); this idea refers primarily to God’s election of the people and thus expresses God’s right of ownership over the people (Lev 11:44f.; Ps 33:9; Hos 11:12). This leads to the demand to belong entirely to God: Exod 19:22 (of the priests); Judg 13:7; 16:17 (of a Nazirite); Deut 26:19 (of the people which does God’s will); 28:9. Offenses against cultic purity are defilements of the holiness of God and result in the loss of union with God (Lev 19:2ff.). The danger of cultic conformity and legalism is unmistakable. Isa 6:3–7 illustrates how the individual recoils before the holiness of God in the knowledge of one’s own incommensurability, but can then be commissioned through the consolation and call of God.
From this perspective ἁγιάζω denotes the process of the dedication and surrender of objects and persons to God whereby these are removed from the claim of the ordinary (Exod 13:2), just as God himself can appropriate certain things (Gen 2:3: the sabbath; Jer 1:5: the prophets) and will finally achieve the sanctification of his name through the people (Isa 29:23) or punish their refusal (Deut 32:51).
In late texts (οἱ) ἅγιοι designates those who belong to God: Dan 7:21; Tob 8:15; 12:15; 1 Macc 1:46. The Qumran community in particular designates itself as "Community of the Holy Ones" (1QSb 1:5) or as "saints of his [God’s] people" (1QM 6:6; cf. also 1QS 5:18, 20; 11:8, etc.; see also C. Brekelmans, OTS 14 [1965] 305–29; L. Dequeker, OTS 18 [1973] 108–87).
On the whole, then, it is clear that NT usage of the word group ἅγιος κτλ. presupposes the language and theology of Hellenistic Judaism. Therefore ἅγιος κτλ. is frequently shaped by traditional usage. In the NT, as in Judaism, it centers on the being and claim of God to whom persons, appearances, and objects stand in a definite relationship. On the other hand, the word group is also filled with new content and is used in new ways (→ 4, 5), just as God himself is experienced in new ways, i.e., as the merciful and redeeming one whose holiness does not create fear and distance, but who through the gift of the Spirit is immediately present to those who believe in such a way that they live primarily not from the demand but from the gift of holiness.
4. Ἅγιος κτλ. are used only 10 times in connection with God and not much more frequently in connection with Christ (→ 2). But more than one-third of all NT occurrences refer to the Holy Spirit as God’s eschatological gift associated with salvation, and about one-fourth refer to those who believe as "saints" or as those who are dependent on sanctification. This points to the likelihood of a theological emphasis within the biblical use of language characterized by new beginnings—over against the OT and Judaism. The decisive center of concern is the activity of the holy God and the new relationship of believers to God. For the most part the holiness of God itself is expressed in traditional ways; but such formulations are altogether absent from Paul’s letters. The first petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9 par. Luke 11:2), which bears a verbal resemblance to the first petition of the Jewish Kaddish prayer, has as its goal the eschatological and universal revelation of God’s power and redemptive activity, both of which are included in his "name": may the Holy One secure before the entire world (ἁγιασθήτω, aor. pass.) in a final and decisive way the holiness appropriate to his name (cf. Isa 29:23; John 12:28), to which, then, human beings will respond with praise and exaltation.
As holiness traditionally belonged to the heavenly realm of God (→ 2), so now it belongs especially to the earthly envoy of God, whom the person possessed by demons recognizes as the ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ (Mark 1:24 par. [the LXX applies this epithet to a person only in Judg 13:7; 16:17, to the Nazirite Samson; see also Müller, THAT II, 606]). He is recognized as such because he represents in his person and his redemptive actions (for the demons they are destructive actions) the holiness of God. Peter’s confession (John 6:69) places the revealer of eternal life in immediate proximity to God (cf. 10:36; 1 John 2:20), although even the one of whom the confession speaks cannot avoid the attack of the διάβολος (cf. John 6:70f.). The Lukan announcement of the birth of Jesus regards Christ’s holiness as the result of the πνεῦμα ἅγιον (Luke 1:35).
Of decisive significance is the use of ἅγιος in connection with the divine gifts associated with salvation, especially the gift of the divine Spirit (→ πνεῦμα). Here holy characterizes the Spirit as the self-impartation and divestiture of God in such a way that the Spirit finally constitutes for the believer the experiential presence of God or Christ. This distinguishes the Spirit from all forms of human enthusiasm or ecstasy but allows it nonetheless to emerge as the eschatological sphere of existence for believers. A survey makes clear, however, that in only about one-third of the pertinent NT references to the πνεῦμα is the attribute ἅγιος used (5 of 13 in Matthew, 4 of 6 in Mark, 14 of 17 in Luke; 2 of 21 in John, 41 of 57 in Acts, 5 of 31 in Romans, 2 of 28 in 1 Corinthians, 2 of 14 in 2 Corinthians, 0 of 17 in Galatians, 2 of 13 in Ephesians, 5 of 7 in Hebrews, and none of 16 in Revelation).
Pauline statements containing πνεῦμα ἅγιον are largely confined to the Spirit which is given to or dwells within the believer (frequently ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ), in contrast, e.g., to Eph 1:13; 4:30. Paul’s uses of πνεῦμα without ἅγιον refer more to the divine Spirit as the decisive sign of the eschaton.
This sheds light on the phrase κατὰ πνεῦμα ῦγιωσύνης, which appears in the NT only in Rom 1:4 (cf. Isa 63:10f.; Ps 51:13: rûaḥ haqqodeš; LXX nevertheless in both cases τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, in contrast to T. Levi 18:11: πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης referring to the gift of the Spirit to the saints of the end time). Without going into the question of the precise delineation of the expression which Paul has appropriated, one recognizes that the stress of the text rests on the eschatological Spirit of God as the power which has effected the enthronement of Christ. Paul has almost certainly taken over an expression (and a conception) which was foreign to him (on the whole issue see E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans [1980] ad loc.); whether it was from Hellenistic Jewish Christianity (e.g., W. Kramer, Christos, Kyrios, Gottessohn [1963] 118f.) or was a "nostalgic" reminder of the original kerygma of Peter known in Rome through Pentecost pilgrims (Schneider, 380; cf. also O. Kuss, Römerbrief I [1957] ad loc.) cannot be discussed here. Paul interpreted the tradition christologically (by placing τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ in front of it) and set κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης in relation to the proclamation and acknowledgment of the Exalted One which takes place under the influence of God’s Spirit.
In the post-Pauline period πνεῦμα ἅγιον is used in an increasingly formal and colorless sense, above all by Luke, especially in Acts. On the one hand, this is due to the solidification of the language of the Church. On the other hand, this change may also have taken place because of the audience of the Lukan writings, for whom the divine Spirit had to be clearly distinguished from the spirit of human ecstasy, which is all the more important since it is Luke himself who in Acts demonstrates the presence of the Spirit by means of pneumatic phenomena (1:8; 2:2–4, 15f.; see Procksch, TDNT I, 104f.; E. Schweizer, TDNT VI, 404–13). Likewise in John the phrase πνεῦμα ἅγιον (only 1:33; 14:26, referring to the παράκλητος [whereas 14:17; 15:26; 16:13 have τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας]; 20:22) reveals Church language and is related to baptism and the post-Easter presence of the Exalted One in the Spirit, whereas the absolute πνεῦμα primarily signifies the power emanating from Jesus and the Father which makes possible the recognition of Jesus as the Redeemer.
5. Through God’s calling and Christ’s work of redemption those who believe are saints: κλητοὶ ἅγιοι (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; cf. Col 3:12), ἅγιοι (2 Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1, etc.; → 2), or ἡγιασμένοι ἐν Χριστῷ Ἱησοῦ (1 Cor 1:2; cf. 6:11); Gentile Christians are an offering ἡγιασμένη ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Rom 15:16; cf. 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2), grafted onto the holy root of the old people of God (probably the patriarchs) and therefore themselves holy (Rom 11:16f.). The Church is the holy people (1 Pet 1:16; 2:9); Christ gave himself up for the Church ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ … ἵνα ᾖ ἁγία καὶ ἄμωμος (Eph 5:26f.). "Holy" does not refer here to a state or a quality of the believers, but to Christ’s setting them apart for God, thus removing them from this world (Col 1:12f.). Through God Christ has become for the believers δικαιοσύνη, ἁγιασμός, and ἀπολύτρωσις (1 Cor 1:30); they have not created their own salvation.
Hebrews in particular describes the redemptive work of Christ as an atoning sacrifice for the sanctification of believers. Christ, simultaneously the one who sanctifies and the brother of those who are sanctified (2:11), overcame the provisional cult in the "Holy Place" and the "Holy of Holies" (9:1, 2, 3, 8) by entering through his bloody death "once for all" (ἐφάπαξ) into the true, heavenly sanctuary of God which he could never have entered without this offering of himself; thus he accomplished the eternal redemption (vv. 11f., 24–26; 10:10, 14). In 10:19ff. the consequences for those who believe are made clear: to fall back into sin is equivalent to destroying Christ’s work of redemption and results in God’s punishment (vv. 29–31). Thus the necessity: διώκετε … τὸν ἁγιασμόν (12:14).
Nevertheless it would be wrong to understand the holiness of believers in the NT as being determined and mediated by the cult (Procksch) or to connect it too exclusively to the work of the Holy Spirit (Seebass)—in spite of 1 Pet 1:2. The concepts borrowed from the Jewish cult serve rather to express the real and binding new position of the believers before God. In terms of content there is a great distance, at least in the earlier layers of the NT, between cultic performances and holiness. This is apparent in 1 Cor 7:14, according to which a non-Christian spouse is sanctified by the Christian partner since the children of members of the congregation are also regarded as ἅγια (as opposed to ἀκάθαρτα). God’s gift of holiness becomes reality in the whole, new people of God, which is the holy temple (3:17), and in mutual διακονία (Rom 15:25, 31), κοινωνία (12:13), and ἀγάπη (Eph 1:15). It is not contact with this world and hence defilement in the classical sense, but relapse into the situation prior to the redemption and liberation achieved through Christ which would make of the very holiness in which they stand before God the occasion of the believers’ failure (cf. 1 Cor 6:1f.); in that respect the Christian is not defiled by an unbelieving spouse (twice in 1 Cor 7:14). Before God the holiness of the community extends into the impurity of individual members (see Walther). There are other instances in which the component "pure" in a fig. sense plays a role (cf. 1 Cor 7:34; Eph 1:4; 5:27, and in connection with parousia and judgment cf. 1 Thess 3:13; 5:23; Col 1:22).
A consequence of the holiness of those who believe is the sanctification (ἁγιασμός) of their lives (Rom 6:19, 22), contrasted occasionally to πορνεία (1 Thess 4:3) and ἀκαθαρσία (v. 7). Rom 12:1 speaks of sanctification or surrender of the entire life to the will of God, using the cultic image of the presentation of bodies as a living (in contrast to animal sacrifice) and holy sacrifice to God. "Holy" here refers to the total orientation to God which includes being totally claimed by God (cf. 1 Thess 5:23). Sanctification can therefore certainly encompass the cultic-sacral realm as well, though the reverse is not the case; i.e., the cultic-sacral can no longer be the authentic realm of sanctification. Accordingly, the NT later applies phrases from the Holiness Code to the total life and conduct of believers, e.g., 1 Pet 1:15f. (ἅγιοι, over against συσχηματιζόμενοι ταῖς πρότερον … ἐπιθυμίαις, v. 14). Holiness or sanctification is, then, the comprehensive acceptance by believers of the holiness of God in order that they may enter into communion with God, not a gradual progression toward religious-ethical perfection.
H. Balz
Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990–). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.