HOLINESS.—The word ‘holy’ is etymologically connected with ‘whole,’ ‘hale,’ ‘healthy,’ etc. (cf. Ger. heilsam, heilig). Modern lexicographers hesitate to speak with certainty in regard to the primitive meaning of the root whence this group of words is derived. Murray’s English Dict. is content to equate ‘holy’ with the Lat. sanetus, sacer, on the ground that ‘we cannot in Old English get behind the Christian sense.’ It is probable that the sense-development is either from hailo, i.e. inviolate, inviolable, that which must be preserved whole; or from hail in the sense of health, well-being.

In all the passages to which reference will be made, the Greek word is ἅγιος or one of its derivatives, with the exception of Acts 2:27; Acts 13:35, Luke 1:75, Hebrews 7:26, where ὅσιος or ὁσιότης is found. In Acts the words of Psalms 16:10 are quoted twice; ‘thy Holy One’ is a title of the Messiah to whom pre-eminently belongs the OT designation of the theocratic nation,—οἱ ὅσιοι τοῦ θεοῦ, God’s pious ones. ‘The ὅσιος, the German fromm, is one who reverences the everlasting sanctities and owns their obligation’ (Trench, Synonyms of the NT, § lxxxviii.). In Luke 1:75 ‘holiness’ and ‘righteousness’ are closely associated, as is frequently the case both in classical and biblical usage. The words are complementary, though the sharp distinction drawn by Plato (Gorgias, 507 B) cannot be maintained: in the NT ‘righteousness’ cannot be limited to duties toward men, nor can ‘holiness’ be restricted to duties toward God. Righteousness is the manward, as holiness is the Godward aspect of pious character and conduct. Hence Jesus, our High Priest, is ‘holy’ (Hebrews 7:26); in His filial reverence and in His devotion to His Father’s will there is no flaw; He is, therefore, fitted to appear in the presence of God to do priestly service on our behalf. The LXX Septuagint usually renders חָסִיד (‘godly’ or ‘beloved’) by ὅσιος (Deuteronomy 33:8, 2 Samuel 22:26, Psalms 4:4 etc.), but קָדו̇שׁ is generally translated ἅγιος (Exodus 19:6, Numbers 6:5, Psalms 15:1, etc.).

Both ἅγιος and קָדו̇שׁ are used when holiness is ascribed to God as well as to persons and things. The question, therefore, arises—What is the primary meaning which underlies and connects these different applications of the word? If the fundamental idea is , the progress of thought is from the negative to the positive, from men and things to God, from the cleansing which is an essential qualification for use in the service of God to purity as the central attribute of God Himself. But if the fundamental idea is Divinity, separation becomes a derivative conception; the progress of thought is then from the positive to the negative, from God to external things and persons. Every devoted to God must be separated from profane or common uses; and every devoted to God is not only thus set apart, but is also under moral obligation to fit himself for drawing near to God by separating himself from all that is sinful.

Those who regard separation as the radical meaning of ἅγιος make it almost synonymous with ἁγνός, which signifies pure, and sets forth a negative conception of holiness. Stevens (Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible ii. 399) follows Trench, and interprets 1 John 3:3—ἐκεῖνος ἁγνός ἐστιν—of God. But, as Westcott (Com. in loc.) points out, ἐκεῖνος in this Epistle always refers to Christ; it is in respect of His true humanity that it can be said ‘He is pure,’ and not only ‘He was pure.’ In His glorified state ‘the result of the perfection of His earthly discipline (Hebrews 5:7 ff.) still abides.’ According to St. John, a ‘hope set on’ ( Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885) Christ is a constant incentive to strive after holiness; and the standard by which the disciple will always measure his attainments is the perfect purity of his Lord. Few will doubt the soundness of the inference which Westcott bases on his exposition of this verse and on his study of the words:

‘Both ἁγνὸς and καθαρός differ from ἅγιος in that they admit the thought or the fact of temptation or pollution; while ἁγιος describes that which is holy absolutely, either in itself or in idea. God can be spoken of as ἁγιος but not as ἁγνός, while Christ can be spoken of as ἀγνός in virtue of the perfection of His humanity. A man is ἅγιος in virtue of his Divine destination (Hebrews 10:10) to which he is gradually conformed (ἁγιάζετκι, Hebrews 10:14); he is ἁγνὸς in virtue of earthly, human discipline.’

This clear and helpful distinction assumes that the primary meaning of ἅγιος must be sought in the revelation of the essential nature of God; the various meanings of ἅγιος may thus be traced in orderly sense-development from its root το ἅγος, ‘religious awe,’ ‘reverence.’ ‘Holy is his name’ (Luke 1:49) is the starting-point; things and persons are holy by reason of their being destined for Divine uses; the secondary meaning of separation from defilement arises at a later stage, as clearer perception of the nature of God also reveals the need of preparation for His service by cleansing from all impurity.

This conclusion must be tested by a brief study of the Jewish conception of holiness. The etymology of קָדו̇שׁ (LXX Septuagint generally ἅγιος, sometimes καθαρός, never ὁσιος) is disputed. Little can be learnt from the use of cognate words by non-Israelitish peoples. The profound and indeed unique meaning of holiness in the religion of revelation can be ascertained only from a careful investigation of the phraseology of the OT writers. An excellent sketch of the probable history of the word, which assumes that its fundamental idea is separation, is given in Sunday-Headlam’s Romans (note on 1:7); but it is acknowledged that ‘there is a certain element of conjecture … which is inevitable from the fact that the earlier stages in the history of the word had been already gone through when the Hebrew literature begins.’ There is, therefore, scope for further inquiry.

Kittel (PR^E^{[Note: RE Real-Encyklopädie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.]}³^{[Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} vii. 566 ff.) maintains that the root-idea of the word is positive. Things are not holy because they are separated from other things; they are separated from other things because they are holy. When holiness is ascribed to vessels, animals for sacrifice, etc., either order of thought is suitable. But this is not the case when, e.g., the temple, Zion, and heaven are called holy; they are holy because they are the abode of God. If the primary meaning of holy is that which belongs to God and is devoted to His service, persons may be called holy who stand in a close relation to God, inasmuch as they are in a special sense His servants. Very instructive is Numbers 16:5 ‘In the morning the Lord will show who are his, and who is holy.’ As applied to persons and to the nation, holiness acquired a deeper significance. In the Law of Holiness (Leviticus 17 ff.) the command. ‘Ye shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy’ (Leviticus 19:2), is seen to involve both external requirements referring to ritual, and inward requirements referring to moral character.

The holiness of God means, if the positive idea is primary, His ‘essential Divinity.’ Kittel’s exposition accords with Bengel’s saying that God’s glory (כָּבו̇ד) is His disclosed holiness, and His holiness (ק̇סֶשׁ) is His inner glory. God’s holiness is ‘that which proves Him to be God; that which is worthy of God.’ Cf. ‘The Lord God hath sworn his holiness’ (Amos 4:2), with ‘The Lord God bath sworn himself’ (Amos 6:8). If it be said that this definition is vague, the reply is that ‘the Divine essence cannot he expressed in a single formula which is suitable for all stages in the development of the OT idea of God.’ It is a manifest advantage of this view that the evolution of the idea of holiness finds its explanation in the historical evolution of the idea of God. An early stage is seen in 1 Samuel 6:20 ‘Who is able to stand before the Lord, this holy God?’ None may approach Him save those who have complied with the prescribed regulations (cf. 1 Samuel 21:5). As the moral nature of God was more clearly apprehended, the conception of His holiness was spiritualized; in Hosea 11:9 ‘I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee,’ the Divine holiness is the ethical motive of the resolve, ‘I will not come in wrath ((Revised Version margin)) into the city.’ Kittel rightly distinguishes God’s glory from His holiness: ‘Olory’ is a cosmic predicate of God, and refers to the outshining of His attributes, which may be metaphysical or moral; but ‘holiness’ has always a tendency to acquire an ethical significance, and becomes at last solely His moral glory.

The fact that the conception of holiness varies with the conception of God explains the occasional deterioration of the idea. When stress was laid upon the transcendence of God, stress was also laid upon ritual purity. But, in general, later Jewish teaching has insisted upon moral as well as ceremonial purity as being essential qualifications for the service of the Holy One of Israel. Rightly to understand the meaning of ‘holy’ as used by our Lord and His contemporaries, it is needful to remember that for rabbinical Judaism holiness became ‘synonymous with purity of life, purity of action, and purity of thought’ (see Jewish Encyc. vi. 441^b). Holiness is ‘an ideal state of perfection attained only by God’ (Jerus^.^{[Note: Jerusalem.]} Ber. ix. 13a); but ‘man grows in holiness the more he aspires to the Divine will, rising above the sensual’ (Yoma, 39a). Dalman says (Words of Jesus, p. 202) that ‘the Holiness’ (הַקּדִשׁ) became a Divine title (Siphre, Num. 112, ed. Friedm. 33a).

The NT passages which fall within the limits of this article may be classified according as (1) holiness is ascribed to things, places, or persons by (a) the Evangelists, (b) our Lord; (2) holiness is ascribed to Christ (a) in the Acts, (b) in the Epistles.

1. Holiness in the Gospels.—(a) The Evangelists speak of ‘the holy city’ (Matthew 4:5; Matthew 27:53), ‘the holy place’ (Matthew 24:15), ‘his holy covenant’ (Luke 1:72): Jerusalem and the temple are holy, as being the abode of God; the covenant made with Abraham is holy, as being a revelation of the gracious purpose of God in choosing a people to serve Him in holiness (Luke 1:75; see above on ὁσιότης). Persons are described as holy, because they are devoted to God’s service: in the Gospels mention is made of ‘the holy angels’ (Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26), ‘his holy prophets’ (Luke 1:70), and Herod is said to have recognized the holiness of John the Baptist (Mark 6:20); in such uses of the word there is included an assertion of the moral purity which is an essential qualification for the service of God. In Luke 2:23 an OT quotation (Exodus 13:2) explains that the offering of the parents of Jesus, when they presented their child to the Lord in the temple, was a recognition of the fact that every firstborn son was holy as belonging to God. The ascription of holiness to the Divine Spirit (Matthew 1:18 etc.) will be considered in paragraph (b); but here it may be noted that in the story of the Annunciation (Luke 1:35), Mary is told that the Holy Spirit shall come upon her with the result that her child shall be holy (τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον); and that once (Luke 4:1) Jesus is described as ‘full of the Holy Spirit.’ In Mark 1:24 = Luke 4:34 the man with an unclean spirit calls Christ ‘the Holy One of God,’ and according to the true text Simon Peter uses the same title (John 6:69). The phrase is a designation of the Messiah, described by John (John 10:36) as ‘him whom the Father consecrated’ (ἡγίασε. For this and other uses of ἁγιάζειν see art. Consecration). Finally, holiness is ascribed to God in the Magnificat, and the whole context (‘his mercy,’ etc.) shows that ‘holy is his name’ (Luke 1:49) is a declaration of the moral glory of God.

(b) Our Lord never speaks of any person, save the Father and the Spirit, as holy; and only once does He describe any thing as holy. His command, ‘Give not that which is holy to the dogs’ (Matthew 7:6), is a proverbial expression whose origin is probably some Jewish exclamation of horror at the thought of profaning altar-flesh, which had been offered in sacrifice to God (Leviticus 23:6 ff. LXX Septuagint τὰ ἅγια). A similar saying is quoted from Aristotle: ‘Do not fling wisdom into the street’ (μήτε ῥίψαι σοφίαν εἰς τοὑς τριόδους, ap. Themist. p. 234).

The application of our Lord’s words need not be limited to preachers of the gospel; and it is certain that they do not sanction any doctrine of reserve in the statement of truth; their obvious meaning seems to be that holy themes are not to be exposed to the contempt of the profane. John Wesley’s comment (Sermon xxx.) is both pithy and pertinent: ‘Beware of thinking that any deserve this appellation till there is full and incontestable proof.’ But ‘great and glorious truths’ are not to be forced upon those who ‘contradict and blaspheme.’ ‘Do not begin a discourse with these upon remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost.… The most probable way to make Felix tremble is to reason with him of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come.’

In each of the four Gospels there are passages in which our Lord speaks of the Holy Spirit, viz. Matthew 12:32; Matthew 28:19, Mark 3:29; Mark 12:36; Mark 13:11, Luke 12:10; Luke 12:12, John 14:26; John 20:22. In so speaking He definitely ascribes essential Divinity to the Spirit. Not in this way could He have spoken of ‘a created Intelligence above the angels’ but inferior to Himself. Moreover, this Divine agent is distinguished both from the Father who sends Him, and from the Son in whose name He is sent; and in the NT the phrase which normally describes Him—‘the Holy Spirit’—ascribes to Him the essential attributes of Deity, the moral glory of God.

In this sense Dalman’s words (op. cit. p. 202f.) must be understood when he says, ‘As regards content, there is no difference between “Spirit of God” and “Holy Spirit.” ’ He is careful to point out that, as ‘the Holiness’ had become a Divine title, ‘it might readily be supposed that in the term דוּתַ קֽדְשָׁא “the Holy Spirit,” the word קֽדְשָׁא became in reality a name for God, so that τὁ τνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ would represent it more accurately than τὁ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. But in that case terms like רוּתַ קֽדִשְׁךָ “thy holy spirit” (Psalms 51:11), רוּחָא רְקֽדְשָׁי “my holy spirit” (Targ. Is 42:1), would be impossible. And yet it must be maintained that the addition of קֽדִשָׁא is expressly meant to specify Divinity as an attribute of the Spirit.’ See, further, Holy Spirit.

The last recorded example of our Lord’s use of the word ‘holy’ is in His intercessory prayer. He who never called any human being ‘holy’ prays that His disciples may attain unto holiness. His petitions are both negative and positive: from the corruptions of the world He asks that they may be kept in the name (John 17:11 Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885) which in its fulness it had been His mission to reveal. But it is not enough for them to be kept from entering the domain of the Evil One (John 17:15 ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ, cf. 1 John 5:19 ‘the whole world lieth in the evil one’). If they are to continue Christ’s work, they must be partakers of His holiness, for only in complete devotion of all their powers to the service of God can they share their Master’s joy. Hence He also asks, as in absolute self-sacrifice He consecrates Himself, that ‘they themselves also may be consecrated in truth’ (John 17:19). In these petitions the love of Christ for His own finds full expression, and they are fitly introduced by the unique phrase ‘Holy Father’ (cf. ‘Father,’ John 17:1, and ‘righteous Father,’ John 17:25). In this glorious name of God ‘all excellences meet’; purity and tenderness unite, majesty and pity combine. Christ regards this all-sufficient knowledge of God as ‘an ideal region of security,’ in which His disciples will be safe from harm. As long as they are ‘in the name,’ it will be impossible for thoughts of God’s holiness to suggest that it is dangerous to approach the Holy Father (cf. 1 Samuel 6:20; 1 Samuel 21:5, and see above). Nor can the revelation in Christ of His ‘pitying tenderness Divine’ lead to sinful presuming on His grace, and to neglect of moral purity, without which none may hold communion with the Holy Father. Therefore, as in the OT the conception of holiness varies with the conception of God, so in the NT the climax of the revelation of the Father in the Son is reached in the harmonizing of the ‘many-hued’ manifestations (cf. πολυποίκιλος, Ephesians 3:10) of His glory in the pure, white light of His holy love. The opening petitions of the Lord’s Prayer teach that His Kingdom will come and His will be done ‘as in heaven, so on earth,’ when in His Church on earth as in heaven the name of the Holy Father is hallowed (Matthew 6:10 Ἁγιας θήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου … ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς).

2. The holiness of Christ.—Outside the Gospels holiness is ascribed to Christ in the Acts and the Epistles.—(a) The Acts. St. Peter (Acts 2:27) and St. Paul (Acts 13:35) see in the resurrection of Jesus proof that He is God’s ‘Holy One,’ in whom is fulfilled the Messianic promise that He should not see corruption (Psalms 16:10; (Revised Version margin) renders חָסִיד ‘godly or beloved,’ see above on ὄσιος). In the prayer of the early Church, Jesus is twice described as Jehovah’s ‘Holy Servant’ (Acts 4:27; Acts 4:30), and it is probable that St. Peter has in mind Isaiah 53 when he speaks of Jesus as ‘the Holy and Righteous One’ (Acts 3:14, cf. Acts 3:13). In these passages ἅγιος is applied to the ideal Servant, in whose consecration, even unto death, God’s moral glory was revealed.—(b) The Epistles. Our High Priest, for ever ‘separated from sinners,’ is ‘holy’ (Hebrews 7:26). Here ὅσιος is a comprehensive summary of those inward qualities which were manifested by our Lord’s dutiful submission to His Father’s will: pre-eminently He was ‘pure in heart,’ fitted to exercise, in the presence of God, His ministry of intercession. In Romans 1:4 ‘the spirit of holiness’ is not a synonym of Holy Spirit; holiness is ascribed to the spirit of the Incarnate Son. The πνεῦμα of Christ was human; in this respect He was ‘made like unto his brethren’ (Hebrews 2:17); but His spirit was holy, and in that He was ‘without sin’ (Hebrews 4:15), He was unique among men. His ‘spirit of holiness’ was ‘the seat of the Divine nature’; He was filled with the Holy Spirit, and being ‘essentially filled with God’ was ‘full of Divine unpolluted life’ (cf. Meyer, Com. in loc.). St. Paul declares that it was in complete accord (κατά) with the transcendent holiness which was the characterizing quality of the spirit of Christ that His Divine Sonship should be visibly manifested in the miracle of His resurrection. In 1 John 2:20 ‘Ye have an anointing (χρῖσμα) from the Holy One,’ the reference may possibly be to God the Father; but almost certainly the Holy One is Christ (cf. 1 John 3:3 ‘He is pure,’ and see above). The true reading in Hebrews 7:27 (αὐτοῦ not τὸ αὐτό), ‘His anointing,’ seems to remove all ambiguity. St. John says that Christians have a chrism from the Christ; and there can be little doubt that the predominant reference in chrism is to the Holy Spirit. It is ‘a faint prelusive note,’ and in 1 John 3:24 ‘the full distinct mention of the Holy Spirit comes like a burst of the music of the “Veni Creator,” carrying on the fainter prelude’ (Expos. Bible, p. 170).

The chief contributions to the formal exposition of the NT doctrine of holiness lie beyond the limits of this article. It need occasion no surprise that even to His disciples our Lord should not speak directly concerning holiness until in His farewell prayer He asked that the men called to continue His mission might share His consceration. The reason for His reticence is that ‘in Him, and for them, holiness imported something—far more and other than it did in the religion of the day.… Only as they saw their Lord devote His person in the consummating sacrifice would they be prepared to realize what their Christian consecration involved’ (Findlay, Expositor, vi. [1901] iv. 5). It is also significant that the prayer for His disciples’ holiness should immediately follow the discourse in which our Lord expounds in welcome detail what is involved in the promise of the Spirit whose gracious indwelling is the secret of holiness.

The Gospels are, however, the supreme revelation of holiness. The imitation of Christ is the royal road to holiness; His teaching concerning union with Himself and the bestowment of the Holy Spirit reveals the secret of holiness. The writers of the Epistles, under the guidance of the promised Teacher, unfolded the implications of their own experience and the purpose of the Incarnation, the Passion, and the abiding Priesthood of the Son of God.

The stress laid on the positive idea, which is probably the primary conception of holiness, may serve to guard Christians against the error of supposing that holiness may be acquired by withdrawals and negations, or by compliance with external regulations. Holiness means the attainment of the Divine likeness, and this consists in moral qualities which are all comprised in holy love. The motive to holiness increases in strength as God is more perfectly known. In proportion as the Holy Father is known as He is, will he the gladness of our response to His claims, and the ardour of our desire to be like Him in this world. Into the world Christ sent the men for whose consecration He prayed, and His promise, ‘Ye shall know that ye are in me’ (John 14:20), conveyed to them His assurance that ‘in the world’ they should attain to holiness. Life in Christ is holiness.

Literature.—In addition to the books mentioned in the body of the article, see the Comm. on the various passages, and works on Theol. of NT; also Grimm-Thayer and Cremer, svv. ἅγιος, ὁσιος; art. ‘Holiness’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible; Issel, Der Begriff d. Heiligkeit im NT; Askwith, Christian Conception of Holiness.

J. G. Tasker.

Bibliography Information
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Holiness'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/h/holiness.html. 1906-1918.

Bible Dictionaries Holiness

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

Bible Dictionaries
Holiness