A Study On The Jewishness Of Jesus Christ's Atonement

In The Old Testament, Animals Were Offered For The Sins Of God's People:

• "Then to the sons of Israel you shall speak, saying, ‘Take a male goat for a sin offering, and a calf and a lamb, both one year old, without defect, for a burnt offering." (Leviticus 9:3)

Animal sacrifices were a crucial part of the Old Testament law, serving as a tangible representation of atonement for sin. The offerings needed to be without defect, symbolizing the purity required to approach a holy God.

Jesus Christ Offered Himself As A Sacrifice Once For Our Sins:

• "and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." (Hebrews 9:12)

• "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." (1 John 2:2)

Christ’s sacrifice marked a pivotal shift from the Old Covenant to the New. Unlike the repeated animal sacrifices, His single offering was sufficient to atone for all humanity's sins, signifying eternal redemption.

The Animal Sacrifices Of The Old Testament Were To Be Unblemished:

• "Your lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats." (Exodus 12:5)

• "and he said to Aaron, “Take for yourself a calf, a bull, for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering, both without defect, and offer them before the Lord." (Leviticus 9:2)

These unblemished animals prefigured Christ's purity. Just as the Old Testament sacrifices needed to be perfect, Christ, as the final sacrifice, was without sin.

Christ Is The Final Unblemished Sacrifice For The Sins Of Mankind:

• "knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ." (1 Peter 1:18-19)

Christ’s unblemished life and sacrificial death fulfilled the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, offering redemption that surpasses earthly possessions.

The Animal Sacrifices Of The Old Testament Were Peace Offerings:

• "Then Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them, and he stepped down after making the sin offering and the burnt offering and the peace offerings." (Leviticus 9:22)

Peace offerings were a form of fellowship and gratitude towards God, symbolizing reconciliation and harmony with the Divine.

The Lord Jesus Christ Is Our Peace Offering:

• "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God." (Romans 5:1-2)

• "For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven." (Colossians 1:19-20)

Through Christ, believers find ultimate peace with God. His sacrifice is the means by which reconciliation is achieved, ensuring eternal peace.

The Blood Of Animals In The Sacrifices Served As A Temporary Covering For Sin:

• "And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement." (Leviticus 17:10-11)

• "For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off." (Leviticus 17:14)

The life contained in the blood was critical in the sacrificial system. It provided a means for temporary atonement, foreshadowing the eternal atonement through Christ's blood.

The Shedding Of Blood Was Foundational To The Entire Levitical System:

• "And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Hebrews 9:22)

The necessity of bloodshed for atonement was a central tenet of the Levitical system, underscoring the gravity of sin and the price of redemption.

Insightful Comments On The Shedding Of Blood And The Law:

• "Even though the Law does mention some cleansing rites apart from sacrifice (for example, Num. 19:11–12), we must remember that once a year, on the Day of Atonement, blood was offered for the sins of the entire nation (Lev. 16). As such, all of the cleansing rites of the old covenant were subsumed under the absolute necessity of a blood sacrifice once every year. Likewise, the grain offerings that in some cases could atone for sin were ultimately effectual only because of this annual, “bloody” event. The shedding of blood was absolutely necessary for atonement under the old covenant, and, as we are to infer from these verses, death is also absolutely necessary for atonement in the new covenant." (https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/without-blood)

These comments emphasize the indispensable role of blood in the sacrificial system, pointing to the ultimate necessity of Christ's sacrificial death under the New Covenant.

Offerings In The Old Testament Produced "Pleasing Aromas" (A Theme Of Propitiation) To The Lord:

• "Present with this bread seven male lambs, each a year old and without defect, one young bull and two rams. They will be a burnt offering to the LORD, together with their grain offerings and drink offerings—a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the LORD." (Leviticus 23:18)

The pleasing aroma of the offerings symbolized God's acceptance and the propitiatory nature of the sacrifices.

Christ's Sacrifice Had A "Pleasing Aroma" To God:

• "Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God." (Ephesians 5:1-2)

Christ’s sacrificial love is described as a fragrant offering, signifying God’s pleasure and acceptance of His atonement.

Just As The Blood Of Lambs and Goats Were Offered For The Sins of Israel In The Old Testament, So Jesus Christ Had His Blood Shed For The Sins Of Mankind:

• "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:28)

• "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29)

Jesus, the Lamb of God, fulfills the sacrificial system’s ultimate purpose, offering His blood for the forgiveness of sins, not just for Israel, but for all humanity.

The Fraudulent Nature Of The Charismatic Movement

"If these faith healers have the same ability as the apostles, why do they do their “healings” in church buildings, in front of people who already believe? Signs are given for unbelievers; Christians do not need to be convinced that Jesus is the Christ—they already believe.

Why don’t modern faith healers do what Christ and the apostles did and perform a public healing on someone that everyone knows is crippled? The answer is simple: they can’t.

If miraculous healings were still occurring today, it would be very easy to prove. Anyone could take a camcorder to the healing crusade and film the miracle for all to see. But why is this not happening?

If Charismatics were healing crippled legs, withered hands, cut-off ears, blind eyes, deaf ears, palsy, hemorrhages, etc., like Christ and the apostles, they would be on the nightly news, 60 Minutes and 20/20. Sadly, the only Charismatic faith healers who make the news are there because of fraud, adultery, theft, prostitution, and the like.

If Charismatic healers could raise the dead, like Christ and the apostles, then they could prove it by doing it in front of a large group of witnesses."

Brian M. Schwertley, The Charismatic Movement: A Biblical Critique, p. 33-36

The Charismatic Movement Violates 1 Corinthians 14

"There is often speaking in "tongues" without proper interpretation (contrary to 1 Corinthians 14:28); unless this requirement is met, it does absolutely nothing to edify the church (14:4-5). The biblical requirement of speaking in turn is frequently not observed (14:27-30); rather, a number of individuals speak at the same time (this lapse in proper church order is inexcusable, for "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets," 14:32)."

Brian M. Schwertley, The Charismatic Movement: A Biblical Critique, p. 20

Does Protestantism Have A Problem With Subjectivity?

• Discussion:

          -Leila Miller wrote an article attempting to illustrate how the concept of Sola Scriptura is unworkable, resulting in hopeless doctrinal confusion and disorder. The author characterizes non-Catholic interpretations of biblical texts as being inherently relativistic, since they do not originate from an infallible teaching authority that issues decrees for everyone else to obey. Rome touts itself to be the solution to all theological and exegetical debates. Following are excerpts from the author in bold letters along with a critique of those assertions:

          "...this new paradigm of each Christian interpreting Scripture for himself means that there are as many interpretations of Scripture as there are Protestants. As you can imagine, this leads to a host of problems for a religion that exists to proclaim Truth."

          The biblical authors intended that their writings be used in instructing believers while absent (Romans 15:4; 2 Corinthians 13:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:5; 1 Timothy 3:14-15). We have no other source to turn to but them today, since the apostles and prophets have all passed away. With that being said, some parts of Scripture are more complex and require in-depth study. Sometimes we may even need other people to explain passages to us. However, that does not require a person to have some ability to infallibly interpret Scripture. The Bereans serve as a historical example of individual interpretation without an infallible authority to guide them (Acts 17:11-12). Therefore, private examination of Scripture is not a "new paradigm."

          "Protestants will tell you that sincere Christians can find the Truth easily, because the "Scriptures are clear" -- and yet Protestants cannot seem to agree on even the essentials of salvation."

           It is a fact there are disagreements that are peripheral and tertiary in nature. Some of those issues are both philosophical and exegetical. For example, the debate in regards to the nature of predestination is one that can be traced back to the days of Augustine. It has not even at this point in time been dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church. Further, anyone who takes even a cursory glance at various historic Protestant traditions knows that there are hardly any differences on the essentials of salvation. Finally, there is the possibility that people reject what Scripture says in spite of its "clear" teaching. That the dogmas of Rome have been laid out in a systematic fashion, does not by itself prove anything. The Magisterium is not quite the silver bullet it is made out to be.

          "Catholics, thankfully, don't have that headache. We know what the Church teaches on every issue that touches on salvation, because Tradition has been handed down intact throughout the centuries, both written and orally, and those teachings are accessible to all."

            This reasoning sounds good in theory, but has not proven itself to be effective in real life. It is even naïve as to how solutions to everyday problems are discovered. Further, there are just as many divisions within the Roman Catholic Church as there are Roman Catholics themselves. For example, they disagree on the relationship between Scripture and tradition. They disagree on the number of teachings which should be considered infallible, and even what they are. Catholics disagree as to the meaning of several passages in the Bible. Many Catholic biblical scholars do not even uphold the inerrancy of Scripture. Other issues have arisen, such as a threat of schism within the Church of Rome with more traditionalist folks on the issue of homosexuality:

            "Much of the dissent has remained within the Vatican walls, as Francis’s opponents worked to stonewall reforms. A few high-ranking church leaders have questioned him publicly about his teachings. But the simmering opposition has suddenly exploded across the Catholic world, with a former Vatican ambassador accusing the pope of covering up sexual abuse — and demanding that Francis step down. The accusations came in a 7,000-word letter written by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò that could be viewed as an act of courage or unprecedented defiance. Either way, it sheds light on the opposition movement, and particularly its insistence that homosexuality within the church — and Francis’s inability to keep it at bay — is to blame for the sexual abuse crisis."...“We are a step away from schism,” said Michael Sean Winters, a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter. “I think there is a perception among the pope’s critics that there is vulnerability here — on the part of the pope and in the Vatican generally.”

           If that is not bad enough on its own terms, consider also Rome's teaching on the death penalty being subject to change. Note the words of Edward Feser, a Catholic philosopher:

           "For another thing, if the Pope is saying that capital punishment is always and intrinsically immoral, then he would be effectively saying – whether consciously or unconsciously – that previous popes, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and even divinely inspired Scripture are in error. If this is what he is saying, then he would be attempting to “make known some new doctrine,” which the First Vatican Council expressly forbids a pope from doing. He would, contrary to the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI, be “proclaim[ing] his own ideas” rather than “bind[ing] himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word.” He would be joining that very small company of popes who have flirted with doctrinal error. And he would be undermining the credibility of the entire Magisterium of the Church, including his own credibility. For if the Church has been that wrong for that long about something that serious, why should we trust anything else she teaches? And if all previous popes have been so badly mistaken about something so important, why should we think Pope Francis is right?"

           Consider this excerpt from Ignitum Today on the issue of Catholics being divided on the dogma of transubstantiation:

           "According to John Young, theologian and philosopher, “Protestants reject transubstantiation, and so do many Catholic scholars. The average Catholic is vague concerning the nature of the Eucharistic presence of Christ, and one can sympathize with him, in view of the lack of clear teaching about the Most Blessed Sacrament." He further asserts, “The basic objection to the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence is not that it is against Scripture, but that it is against reason.” Theologian and professor at Virginia Seminary, Charles P. Price similarly believes that “most Catholics, without realizing it or perhaps considering it, actually believe in Consubstantiation,” as did Luther, and even a Catholic would be hard-pressed to refute the allegation."

           Is not the dogma of the Mass essential to Roman Catholicism? Indeed it is. Yet, the above excerpt plainly tells us that a significant number of Roman Catholics do not agree with official church teaching on this issue. Consequently, claims of unity existing within the Roman Catholic Church have been greatly inflated. Should we conclude from this that the Magisterium needs an infallible interpreter in order for it to make sense to us? The root cause of this rejection of Catholic teaching by Catholics themselves is not the biggest issue here. Division over transubstantiation exists in many parts of the Western world.

           Further, the Roman Catholic Church has never given an "infallible" interpretation of most passages of Scripture. It has done so only on a handful of occasions to serve its own purposes. To add insult to injury, while Rome guarantees certainty behind the infallibility of its official decrees, it never promises that the theological reasoning used to support a decree is accurate itself. Consider the words of the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online:

           ''the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.

           "At base, the divide between Protestants and Catholics boils down to authority. If there is no earthly, human authority, if everyone gets to decide for himself what the Bible means, then we have a system of subjectivity and chaos."

           The claim of Protestants being "subjective" is ironic, since Roman Catholics *subjectively* believe the Roman Catholic Church to be objectively authoritative. We all have to make personal decisions in searching for truth. No one is exempt from using his fallible reasoning faculties in analyzing written and spoken content. Everybody has to fallibly interpret communicated messages. Roman Catholics cannot have their cake and eat it too. They must fallibly interpret every word of church teaching, whether they retrieve information from Papal Encyclicals, Ecumenical Council documents, the catechism, hearing priests during Mass, or the Code of Canon Law. 

           Roman Catholics can and do possess individualized, subjective interpretations of Roman Catholicism. They must judge for themselves the validity of the Roman Catholic Church in order to argue their position. Catholics apologists *subjectively* appeal to evidence, which has to be analyzed in their own minds and by those who encounter their claims. In making this kind of an argument, Catholics are severing the very branch of logic that they sit on because one could not even begin to submit to some outside authority without *subjectively* making the choice to do so. They are not in any better of a position to understand spiritual truth than anyone else. The belief of Catholics in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church is itself fallible.

            When interpreting Scripture, a person should take into account historical context and various literary devices. Commentaries, lexicons, concordances, and dictionaries are useful in matters of biblical interpretation. Not every argument or interpretation is equally valid. If one must have some special authority in order to give grounds for his beliefs, then how does he become a Roman Catholic in the first place? One cannot argue for an authority by appealing to that same authority. There has to be external sources verifying at least to some degree its reliability or credibility, which, once again, requires a person to sift through information on his own.

           On what basis does one establish the authority of the Roman Catholic Church? Since such a process involves using one's own powers of reason to evaluate evidence, then the person investigating is acting just like a Protestant or anyone else. Rome's "infallible" certainty is but a mirage. Having a representative available like the pope to preside over a whole group only means that Catholics have decided for themselves to believe the claims he makes on religious issues. It does not make hard questions go away. Rome can only provide organizational unity. If Sola Scriptura is invalidated because of divisions, then the same standard applies to the Magisterium.

Do Not Conform To This World

"Anyone can be a non-conformist for nonconformity's sake. ... What we are ultimately called to is more than non-conformity; we are called to transformation. We notice that the words conform and transform both contain the same root form. The only difference between the words is found in the prefixes. The prefix con means "with." To conform, then, is to be "with the structures or forms." In our culture a conformist is someone who is "with it." A nonconformist may be regarded as someone who is "out of it." If the goal of the Christian is to be "out of it," then I am afraid we have been all too successful.

The prefix trans means "across" or "beyond." When we are called to be transformed, it means that we are to rise above the forms and the structures of this world. We are not to follow the world's lead but to cut across it and rise above it to a higher calling and style. This is a call to transcendent excellence, not a call to sloppy "out-of-it-ness." Christians who give themselves as living sacrifices and offer their worship in this way are people with a high standard of discipline. They are not satisfied with superficial forms of righteousness. The “saints” are called to a rigorous pursuit of the kingdom of God. They are called to depth in their spiritual understanding.

The key method Paul underscores as the means to the transformed life is by the “renewal of the mind.” This means nothing more and nothing less than education. Serious education. In-depth education. Disciplined education in the things of God. It will call for a mastery of the Word of God. We need to be people whose lives have changed because our minds have changed.

True transformation comes by gaining a new understanding of God, ourselves, and the world. What we are after ultimately is to be conformed to the image of Christ. We are to be like Jesus, thought not in the sense that we can ever gain deity. We are not god-men. But our humanity is to mirror and reflect the perfect humanity of Jesus. A tall order! To be conformed to Jesus, we must first begin to think as Jesus did. We need the “mind of Christ.” We need to value the things he values and despise the things He despises. We need to have the same priorities He has. We need to consider weighty the things that He considers weighty. That cannot happen without a mastery of His Word. The key to spiritual growth is in-depth Christian education that requires a serious level of sacrifice.

That is the call to excellence we have received. We are not to be like the rest of the world, content to live our lives with a superficial understanding of God. We are to grow dissatisfied with spiritual milk and hunger after spiritual meat. To be a saint means to be separated. But it means more than that. The saint also is to be involved in a vital process of sanctification. We are to be purified daily in the growing pursuit of holiness. If we are justified, we must also be sanctified."

R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God, p. 163-164

Evaluating Deism As A Worldview

• Discussion:

          -Deism is the belief that God created the universe, set everything in order, and has not been involved with it since. This viewpoint maintains that there is no supernatural intervention by God in creation. It is a rejection of divine providence. It is a rejection of God interacting with human beings. Deists rely solely on reason in their rejection of miracles and divine revelation.

          We as Christians should regard this system of thought to be outright heretical, since God has indeed given to us divine revelation. We know that He is active in creation. The Bible describes in ample detail His character. God desired fellowship and communion with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. 

           The Old Testament records Him intervening for Israel on multiple occasions. He redeemed the Jewish people from Egypt. In fact, God the Son descended from heaven above in flesh to make atonement for our sins. There may be times in this life when the Lord may seem distant, but we know very well that He is concerned about the affairs of man.

          Deism is not at all coherent as a philosophy. Reason has its limits. How can a person on the basis of creation alone (physical entities) deduce the existence of logic and reason (non-physical entities)? How can one derive morals from observing nature without reference to divine revelation? Why reject the possibility of miracles when creation itself is a miracle?

          Would it make sense to worship a god who does not interact with man? Is such a god even worthy of our worship and time? Would such a god even have a reason to exist? It is not enough to merely posit the existence of God. It must be understood that He is present and interacting with creation. Deism is a rather awkward position for one to espouse.

Giving Thanks In The Christian Walk

        One major theme of Scripture is thankfulness. There are literally dozens of exhortations in the Bible, from the Psalms to the Pauline epistles, for the saints to be showing appreciation for and rejoicing in the things of God. It is from Him that all blessings, temporal and eternal, flow (James 1:17). God is the ultimate source of our provisions in life. Acknowledging our blessings cultivates a peace that is rooted in the knowledge of God’s faithfulness and promises.

        The fundamental reasons for giving thanks to Him should be evident to any sincere, faithful Christian. We have been redeemed and forgiven of our sins (Colossians 1:14). We have been rescued from the kingdom of Satan (Colossians 1:13). We can also show thankfulness to God for the natural world and its beauty. These are blessings which God has given to us.

        A person cannot praise God without also giving thanks to Him. A person cannot worship God to the fullest extent without also giving thanks to Him. The aforementioned point accounts for Scripture associating ingratitude with sin (Romans 1:21-32; 2 Timothy 3:1-5). If we are unthankful, then how can we really trust in God? If we are not trusting in God while professing to follow Him, then we bring dishonor to His majesty. We fail to recognize His goodness.

        The Lord is the source of all wisdom. We are to be appreciative for whatever gifts that He has bestowed to us (Matthew 7:11). Every gift or blessing that we have originates from Him. Every good thing no matter how small by human standards is from Him. This reality is called divine providence. We are not to approach life in a secular way that leaves out the workings of God.

        Thankfulness is good for our souls. It reinforces humility and selflessness. It counteracts our tendency to boast. It keeps anger and resentment at bay. Giving thanks serves as a constant reminder of the blessings we do have. Giving thanks takes our focus off potential things we may desire to have, thus making us happier. Complaining only makes life unbearable for oneself and others.

        Thankfulness changes our perspective of matters in this life. It is an inward state of heart, which points to God and brings glory to Him. The test of whether we are truly thankful does not lie in good times, but in our times of trouble and unease. We should be thankful, even in the midst of suffering and persecution (James 1:12; 1 Peter 4:12-19). Thankfulness acknowledges that things usually can be much worse than what they are, which itself is a blessing in disguise.

        A refusal to show heartfelt gratitude is one of the biggest mistakes that one can make in the Christian life. The preaching of the gospel is to be done in thanksgiving to God. The gospel itself is a call for all people to give thanks to God. If we refuse to give thanks to God, then already existing bitterness will fester in our minds and so rob us of the supernatural peace that surpasses all understanding (Philippians 4:4-8). 

Are Christians Sinners Saved By Grace?

• Discussion:

          -The problem of sin, or violations of divine law, is one that impacts the entirety of mankind. It is for that reason we have justly incurred for ourselves eternal condemnation by God. However, He has provided to us one way of deliverance from that curse through Jesus Christ. God has made known to us the greatness of His love and mercy. Our fates would be irreversible apart from His grace. Consider the following points:

             *Those who work are given only what is owed to them (Romans 4:4).

             *Those who do not work are declared righteous by God, deemphasizing claims of personal worth (Romans 4:5).

             *God makes righteous the ungodly through faith (Romans 4:5).
             *Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6-10).

          Does it follow, then, that Christians can continue to live in sin after conversion? Absolutely not. Consider this aspect of Paul's argument:

             *The Law is not nullified, but upheld, by faith (Romans 3:31).
             *Grace sets us free from the shackles of sin (Romans 6:1-2).

           We are called to put away the deeds of the flesh. Those are consistent with our old way of living. We have been purified to serve the living God. Our new calling is a higher one from the lifestyle that we had prior to the experience of conversion.

           The very reason that boasting is excluded from justification before God is that we are all sinners, not deserving of His salvation. We did not do anything to appease Him, but He did everything necessary to rescue us. God saved us, regardless of our fallen condition.

          It may sound pious to deny that we are sinners saved by His grace, but that notion is actually narcissistic. It is not the truth as to who and what we are (1 John 1:7-10). In fact, Jesus instructed His disciples to pray for the forgiveness of sin on a daily basis (Matthew 6:11-13). Other texts attesting to our sinfulness would include Psalms 130:3-4, Proverbs 20:9, and Ecclesiastes 7:20.

          If we fail to live up to our calling, then we have Jesus Christ as our advocate before God (1 John 2:1). Heaven is not reserved for people who are already righteous, but sinners who have been saved by the grace of God. Doing good works does not make us a Christian, but divine grace does. That the gospel decries man attempting to earn salvation is proof to our sinfulness (Romans 3:20; 24; Ephesians 2:8-9).

          To deny that we are sinners saved by the grace of God is the preaching of a false gospel. It amounts to calling calling Him a liar. Our sin nature does not immediately disappear in its totality at conversion. Even the greatest of saints like Abraham and King David sinned during the course of their earthly lives. Believers are called saints because they have been consecrated by the Holy Spirit. It is the grace of God that transforms our nature in this life.

Liberty Requires Sacrifice

"Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present generation, to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the pains to preserve it."

John Adams, Letter to Abigail Adams April 26, 1777

The Meaning Of Holiness

"The primary meaning of holy is “separate.” It comes from an ancient word that means “to cut,” or “to separate.” To translate this basic meaning into contemporary language would be to use the phrase “a cut apart.” Perhaps even more accurate would be the phrase “a cut above something.” When we find a garment or another piece of merchandise that is outstanding, that has a superior excellence, we use the expression that it is “a cut above the rest.”

God’s holiness is more than just separateness. His holiness is also transcendent. The word transcendence means literally “to climb across.” it is defined as “exceeding usual limits.” To transcend is to rise above something, to go above and beyond a certain limit. When we speak of the transcendence of God, we are talking about that sense in which God is above and beyond us. Transcendence describes His supreme and absolute greatness. The word is used to describe God’s relationship to the world. He is higher than the world. He has absolute power over the world. The world has no power over Him. Transcendence describes God in His consuming majesty, His exalted loftiness. It points to the infinite distance that separates Him from every creature. He is an infinite cut above everything else.

When the Bible calls God holy, it means primarily that God is transcendentally separate. He is so far above and beyond us that He seems almost totally foreign to us. To be holy is to be “other,” to be different is a special way.

We are so accustomed to equating holiness with purity or ethical perfection that we look for the idea when the word holy appears. When things are made holy, when they are consecrated, they are set apart unto purity. They are to be used in a pure way. They are to reflect purity as well as simple apartness. Purity is not excluded from the idea of the holy; it is contained within it. But the point we must remember is that the idea of the holy is never exhausted by the idea of purity. It includes purity but is much more than that. It is purity and transcendence. It is a transcendent purity."

R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God, p. 37-39, 212