אחרי מות קדושים תשפ"ג

THE HOLY ONE AND THE LORD OF HOSTS
WE shall start our investigation by pondering the revelation granted to Isaiah: “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts.” Since it is necessary to affirm that the Lord of hosts is holy, it would seem logical to assume that whatever is meant by “holy,” it needs be explicitly attributed to the Lord of hosts. The idea of the holy is in itself not implied in the idea of the Lord of hosts. We shall, therefore, have to see what these terms convey when they are used independently of each other. How does Isaiah use the concept the Lord of hosts and how that of the holy? Let us look at a number of passages in which God is referred to as the Lord of hosts [italics added]: O Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, that sittest upon the cherubim; Thou art the God, even Thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; Thou hast made heaven and earth. (37:16) Thus saith the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last, and beside me there is no God. (44:6) For I am the Lord thy God, who stirreth up the sea, that the waves thereof roar, the Lord of hosts is His name. (51:15) Therefore saith the Lord, the Lord of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel: Ah, I will ease me of mine enemies; and I will turn my hand upon thee, and purge away thy dross with lye. (1:24–25) For the Lord of hosts hath a day upon all that is proud and lofty, and upon all that is lifted up, and it shall be brought low. (2:12) For, behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah stay and staff, every stay of bread, and every stay of water. (3:1) Hark, a tumult in the mountains, like as of a great people! Hark the uproar of the kingdoms of the nations gathered together! The Lord of hosts mustereth the host of the battle. (13:4) Therefore I will make the heavens to tremble, and the earth shall be shaken out of her place, for the wrath of the Lord of hosts and for the day of His fierce anger. (13:13) One could multiply the quotations almost at will; they would all show the same character and would well find their places in the above grouping. The Lord of hosts alone is God; he is at the beginning of time and at the end of it; he alone and no one besides him. He is the creator of heaven and earth; he is the sovereign power over all nature, as well as over all the kingdom of men. Of this Sovereign Lord it is maintained that he is “the Mighty One” who deals with his enemies, Jew or gentile, as he pleases. He acts, however, as a judge, who “purges away the dross with lye.” He brings low the haughty and the proud. He executes punishment, when punishment is required; and, as he does so, like a war lord he mustereth his armies. For Isaiah, the “Lord of hosts” expresses the idea of divine transcendence, of elevation above everything created. This idea of transcendence is connected with divine might and power, which is exercised by the universal sovereign in his capacity as the Supreme Judge and Ruler. Isaiah uses the phrase, the Lord of hosts, consistently in this sense. No less consistent and definite is he in his handling of the word, holy. In the entire book of Isaiah, the word occurs most frequently in the phrase, “Q’dosh Yisrael,” the Holy One of Israel. Again we shall look at some verses in which the term is mentioned [italics added]: Sing unto the Lord; for He hath done gloriously; this is made known in all the earth. Cry aloud and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion; for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee. (12:5–6) And thou shalt rejoice in the Lord, thou shalt glory in the Holy One of Israel. (41:16) “When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee, and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee; when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned, neither shall the flame kindle upon thee. For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Savior. (43:2–3) And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and they that are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. (10:20) These passages show that “the Holy One of Israel” occurs in contexts whose message is opposed to those that speak on behalf of the Lord of hosts. The “Holy One of Israel” is the cause of joy and happiness. He is the friend of the poor and the needy; he protects them when they are in trouble. He is the Savior. He is “with thee”; he is in “the midst of thee.” He is the One on whom man should rely. The idea is put forward with such conviction that it is recommended by Isaiah as a cornerstone for the foreign policy of the Jewish state of his time. Caught in the power struggle between Assyria and Egypt, the people seek their salvation in a political alliance with Egypt. Thus they reject God on whom alone they ought to rely. It is noteworthy, however, that in the various passages that deal with this theme, God is referred to as the Holy One of Israel. Concerning those who are for the Egyptian alliance, the prophet proclaims that they “trust in chariots, because they are many and in horsemen, because they are exceeding mighty; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel.” The policy suggested by Isaiah is a different one. “For thus said the Lord God,” and again he is referred to as, “the Holy One of Israel: In sitting still and rest shall ye be saved, in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength.” In times of crisis, one should have trust in the holiness of God. Instead of making alliances with military might, one should ally oneself with the Holy One. Faith in him brings salvation in peace and quietude. These attributes of the Holy One are rather different from those by which the Lord of hosts makes himself manifest. The Lord of hosts is transcendent, the Holy One is immanent. The Lord of hosts is far removed, he is above man and all creation; the Holy One of Israel is near. The Lord of hosts judges; the Holy One of Israel saves. Quite obviously, the Holy One is not the mysterium tremendum. He is close in the midst of Zion; the cause of joy and happiness. The mysterium tremendum seems to describe the Lord of hosts more aptly. It is rather significant that, after having heard the threefold “Holy, holy, holy,” Isaiah should exclaim: “Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips … for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts [italics added].” Not the Holy One, but the beholding of the Lord of hosts is the cause of his terror. One who reads the Bible in English might, however, point to at least one passage in which the Holy does appear as orge theory, the divine wrath. The Revised Version, verse 17, chapter 10, reads: And the light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame; and it shall burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day. This surely is an activity that, in the light of so many other passages, we would expect to be performed by the Lord of hosts. Reading the text in the Hebrew original, one realizes easily that the English version is rather misleading. V’haya or Yisrael l’esh uq’dosho l’lehabah should be translated as: And the light of Israel shall become a fire, and his Holy One, a flame. The Hebrew haya l’ means to become; it expresses a change of status, condition, or nature. Light is normally something very beneficial. So is, of course, the light of Israel, which is an appellation for the God of Israel here. The prophet, however, warns that the light of Israel will change its nature, as it were. It will cease being light and become a consuming fire. Similarly—and it should be obvious because of the parallelism in the text—the Holy One will become a flame. Far from associating any form of destructiveness with the concept of the Holy One, the words imply the opposite. The Holy One will suppress his natural quality. He will change and become a destructive force. He will cease manifesting himself as the holy and will act in another capacity like a flame. The same distinction, which is made by Isaiah between the two concepts referring to God, we also find in the Psalms. We shall list only a few examples [italics added]. Who is the King of Glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle…. Who then is the King of glory? The Lord of hosts; He is the King of glory. (24:8, 10) Nations were in tumult, kingdoms were moved; He uttered His voice, the earth melted. The Lord of hosts is with us…. Come, behold the works of the Lord, who hath made desolations in the earth. He makes wars to cease unto the end of the earth; He breaketh the bow and cutteth the spear in sunder…. I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth. The Lord of hosts is with us. (46:7–12) For, lo, the kings assembled themselves, they came onward together. They saw, straightway they were amazed; they were affrighted, they hasted away. Trembling took hold of them there, pangs, as of a woman in travail. With the east wind thou breakest the ships of Tarshish. As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of the Lord of hosts. (48:5–9) In these, and other passages, the psalmists employ the phrase, the Lord of hosts, in the same sense as does Isaiah. It is to be noted that in the last quotation Zion is referred to as the city of the Lord of hosts. The usual appellation for Zion is ir ha–qodesh, the city of the holy, or har ha–qodesh, the mount of the holy. Here, however, as the psalmist describes the mighty deeds of judgment, performed by God who uses the east wind as the messenger to do his bidding, all this is witnessed in the city of God, who has made himself manifest on this occasion as the Lord of hosts. The distinction we have established is further strengthened as we compare the psalmist’s use of qadosh in contrast to “the Lord of hosts.” In which context does the idea of the holy occur in the Psalms? We shall look at some of the passages [italics added]. Sing praise unto the Lord, O ye His godly ones, and give thanks to the name of his holiness. For His anger is but for a moment, His favour is for a lifetime. (30:5–6) Our soul hath waited for the Lord; he is our help and our shield. For in Him doth our heart rejoice, because we have trusted in the name of His holiness. (33:20–21) A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in the habitation of His holiness. (68:6) I also will give thanks unto thee with the psaltery…. I will sing praise unto thee with the harp, O thou Holy One of Israel. (71:22) As with Isaiah, the manifestation of divine holiness is the cause for rejoicing and thanksgiving. Far from signifying separateness, the idea of the holy conveys a sense of intimacy and relatedness. We insist on the correct translation, the name of His holiness, in place of the usual, His holy name. The name of His holiness means the manifestation of divine holiness. Such manifestation is a sign that “his anger is but for a moment, His favour is for a life-time.” “His holy habitation” might be a point in space. Only the term does not occur in the Bible once. “The habitation of His holiness” is the indwelling of divine holiness, it is divine holiness, the saving force immanent in creation. By means of this, his association with the world, God is “the father of the fatherless and a judge of the widows.” A most striking support for our analysis of the term, holy, one finds in Hosea: My heart is turned within Me, my compassions are kindled together. I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim; for I am God, and not man, the Holy One in the midst of thee, and I will not come in fury [italics added]. (11:8–9) The familiar traits of the Holy One, as we found them in Isaiah and the Psalms, are stated here almost in the form of a definition. With Hosea too, the Holy One is “in the midst of thee.” His signs are neither fury nor anger, but compassion and love. The same idea is corroborated interestingly by comparing two passages of Amos with each other. In both cases God takes an oath, once “by His holiness” and once, “by Himself.” It would, however, be mistaken to assume that both have the same meaning. When God swears “by His holiness” (4:2), it is against the “kine of Bashan,” “that oppress the poor, that crush the needy.” He swears by His holiness, because it is his concern for the poor and the needy that causes him to resolve what he plans to do in order to save them. But when He swears “to deliver up the city with all that is therein” (6:8), no mention is made of the oppression of the poor. Those that are “at ease in Zion” and “secure in the mountain of Samaria” are punished because of their pride and depraved life. What is resolved this time is not for the sake of the poor and needy, but purely as punishment for the haughty and the degenerate. This time no reference need be made to God’s holiness. He swears “by Himself,” and the oath is announced in the words: “Saith the Lord, the God of hosts.” Jeremiah, too, when he mentions God taking an oath “by Himself” links it to the Lord of hosts and says: The Lord of hosts hath sworn by Himself: Surely I will fill thee with men, as with the canker-worm, and they shall lift up a shout against thee. (51:14) In these words judgment is announced in the name of the Lord of hosts. But when according to the psalmist, God promises David that he will sustain him and his dynasty for ever, he swears again “by His holiness”: Once I have sworn by My holiness: Surely I will not be false unto David; his seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before Me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and be steadfast as the witness in the sky. (89:36–38) The sustaining and protecting attribute of divine mercy and love is God’s holiness. Most revealing are those biblical passages which make use of both terms, the Holy One and the Lord of hosts. There is, for instance, God’s answer to Hezekiah’s prayer. It is couched in the form of an address to Sennacherib, king of Assyria. In its opening words we find the sentences: Whom hast thou taunted and blasphemed? And against whom hast thou exalted thy voice? Yes, thou hast lifted up thine eyes on high, even against the Holy One of Israel! [italics added] This speech, at the inception of which God is referred to as the Holy One of Israel, concludes with the words: “The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.” Between the beginning and the close of the address Sennacherib is put in his place. In his pride, he imagined that his conquest of nations and countries were his own doings, whereas, in reality God used him as his instrument. But now Sennacherib’s time has come. Because of thy raging against Me, and for that thine uproar is come up into Mine ears, therefore will I put My hook in thy nose, and My bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou comest. Quite obviously, the judgment to be executed over Sennacherib is a task for the Lord of hosts. Thus, it is the zeal of the Lord of hosts that shall perform it. On the other hand, the conqueror king of Assur did not taunt and blaspheme the Lord of hosts. He did not know him. Had he known him, he would have thought better of it. What was his message to Hezekiah? Let not thy God whom thou trustest beguile thee, saying: Jerusalem shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria. Now, of course, the God in whom Hezekiah trusts that he will protect Jerusalem is the God who is “in the midst of thee,” the Holy One of Israel. It is the Holy One, on whom Israel relies, that was blasphemed, when Sennacherib declared him not to be relied upon. It is, however, the Lord of hosts that brought low his pride and conceit. As the Lord of hosts executes judgment on Sennacherib, so he grants power and dominion to another conqueror, Cyrus, to fulfill a divine mission. This mission, however, is related also to the liberation of God’s people. Cyrus is chosen “for the sake of Jacob My servant, and Israel Mine elect.” Thus, in the description of the events in which Israel and Cyrus are together involved, the Holy One and the Lord of hosts occur alternately. We read: Thus saith the Lord, The Holy One of Israel, and his Maker: Ask Me of the things that are to come; concerning My sons, and concerning the work of My hands, command ye Me. I, even I, have made the earth, and created man upon it; I, even My hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts have I commanded. I have roused him up in victory, and I make level all his ways; he shall build My city, and he shall let my exiles go free, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts [italics added]. The calling of Cyrus, granting him victory and success, putting it into his heart that he rebuild God’s city and let the exiles go are matters which only the divine sovereign can perform. He has the power to do it, because he is the Lord over the universe, the creator of heaven and earth. Therefore, the prophecy concludes, “saith the Lord of hosts.” In the beginning of the prophecy, however, these weighty matters are related to the exiles themselves. God speaks “concerning My sons and concerning the work of My hands,” meaning Israel. Here he is called the Holy One of Israel. The most striking passage of this type is found in chapter 5 of Isaiah. It is the familiar verse: “But the Lord of hosts is exalted through mishpat, and God the Holy One is sanctified through s’daqah. (5:16) The distinction between justice and righteousness is parallel to the distinction between “the Lord of hosts” and “the Holy One” and to the distinction between being exalted and being sanctified. This becomes more obvious, if we compare the Hebrew terms mishpat and s’daqah with each other. Mishpat is justice based on adherence to the law; s’daqah is doing right with charity or compassion. Mishpat is dispensed with authority; s’daqah with kindness. He who administers mishpat must not consider the person; only because one does consider the person does one practice s’daqah toward him. The one who enacts mishpat is a judge; he is above you; he who practices s’daqah is a friend who is with you. God dispenses justice, mishpat, as the Lord of hosts; he practices righteousness, s’daqah, as the Holy One. As the one who imposes justice, he is exalted; doing s’daqah, he is sanctified. To be exalted indicates remoteness; it is a quality properly ascribed to the Lord of hosts. To be sanctified is befitting the Holy One. We are not yet in a position to define the meaning of being sanctified. However, on the basis of the parallelism between the three pairs of opposite terms in the sentence, we may well venture the guess that as the exaltation of the Lord of hosts through justice implies distance between the judge and the judged, so the sanctification of the Holy One by his acts of s’daqah is somehow related to the fact that he is “in the midst of thee.” A closer look at the context in which the verse we are discussing occurs, will show clearly why there is reference made to a two-fold manifestation of God’s action. Declaring the woes that await the people who indulge in a life of unbridled pleasures and, thus, showing no regard for the work of God, the prophet exclaims: And down goeth their glory, and their tumult, and their uproar … and man is bowed down, and man is humbled, and the eyes of the lofty are humbled; but the Lord of hosts is exalted through mishpat, and God the Holy One is sanctified through s’daqah. Then shall the lambs feed as in their pastures, and the waste places of the fat ones shall wanderers eat. (5:14–17) The verse we have analyzed speaks of two functions of God, as the dispenser of justice and as the one who practices s’daqah. The context, in which these two functions are mentioned, speaks of two types of people: the lofty and arrogant ones and those who are meek like lambs; the “fat ones” and the “wanderers” who are the homeless poor. God deals with both of them. As to the former, they are silenced and humbled, justice is done to them; as to the latter, they are the meek ones who inherit the land, s’daqah is practiced toward them. For “the fat ones,” he appears as the Lord of hosts; for the “lambs” and “the wanderers” he is the Holy One. Thus, the Lord of hosts is exalted through justice and God the Holy One is sanctified through s’daqah. Neither is this stylistic idiosyncrasy limited to Isaiah. In Psalm 89 the psalmist addresses himself to God with the words: “O Lord God of hosts” (vs. 9) and praises him for all his transcendent majesty: Sedeq and Mishpat are the foundation of Thy throne; mercy and truth go before Thee. (vs. 15) However, as we read on, we hear of a people that walks in the light of God’s countenance. Of them it is said: In Thy name do they rejoice all the day; and through Thy s’daqah are they exalted. For Thou art the glory of their strength and in Thy favor our horn is exalted. For [it is due] to the Lord, our shield, and to the Holy One of Israel, our king. While the incomparable Sovereign of the Universe is addressed as the Lord of hosts, the one in whom people rejoice because he treats them with s’daqah, with kindness and charity, who is the source of their strength, is the Holy One of Israel. It may be intriguing to compare the use of the word exalted by the psalmist and the place it has in the verse of Isaiah, which we have discussed. Isaiah said that the Lord of hosts was exalted through justice. The psalmist, on the other hand, said of the people that they are exalted through s’daqah. Both usages belong to the same world of discourse. Justice exalts God, it elevates him. But the more he is exalted, the further removed he is from man. Through divine s’daqah the people are exalted and elevated. And the more they are elevated, the closer they are to God. The most surprising affirmation of our analysis thus far we find in I Samuel. In the opening chapters we encounter two prayers of Hannah; in the one she addresses the Lord of hosts, in the other she acknowledges the Holy One. Let us compare the two prayers with each other. O Lord of hosts, if Thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of Thy handmaid, and remember me, and not forget Thy handmaid. (1:11) In the second prayer, she says: My heart exulteth in the Lord, my horn is exalted in the Lord, my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; because I rejoice in Thy salvation. There is none holy as the Lord, for there is none beside Thee; neither is there any rock like our God. (2:1–2) The two prayers betray two exactly opposite moods. The first may be called a prayer of intercession, the other is one of thanksgiving. The first one, Hannah prayed “in bitterness of soul” and she “wept sore.” She was a barren woman. The second prayer she recites in a spirit of elation. Her prayer was answered; God blessed her womb. In the prayer of intercession, she addresses God as the Lord of hosts. What is her situation? She feels that God has abandoned her. He does not look on her affliction. She is not remembered; she is forgotten, forsaken by God. God is far removed from her; he is inaccessible to her. Thus she calls on the Lord of hosts. It is what God is to her at the moment. But, later, she was remembered after all, she was not forgotten. God turned toward her; he did look on her affliction. And now, she exults in God, rejoices in his salvation. What happened to her is what centuries later Isaiah would declare of “the humble and the neediest among men” who shall “increase their joy in the Lord” and shall exult in “the Holy One of Israel.” The surprising thing, of course, is that this woman “from the hill-country of Ephraim” knows how to pray anticipating the ideas and the style of an Isaiah and of the psalmist by centuries. The God of her salvation, the cause of her joy and exultation is the Holy One, he is the rock on whom to rely. Hannah distinguishes between the concepts of God as the Lord of hosts and that of God as the Holy One exactly as was done generations later by Isaiah and the psalmists. Feeling God’s remoteness, his anger or judgment, she calls him the Lord of hosts, experiencing his salvation, the “light of his countenance” turned to her, she knows him in his manifestation of the Holy One. Occasionally we find the expression, Redeemer—the Holy One of Israel. Since God, the Holy One, is “in the midst of thee,” since he is the rock on whom one may rely, the salvation of the poor and the needy, it is natural that God acting as the Redeemer should be linked to his manifestation as the Holy One. But the two concepts are not identical. The Redeemer has a function which is not always implicit in that of the Holy One. The Redeemer has to redeem and thus he has to deal with those who prevent redemption, who would hold His people in subjugation. He is the Redeemer because he is the Holy One; but as the Redeemer he cannot remain “in the midst of thee” altogether. He must also direct his attention toward the oppressors and confound their plans and aspirations. Let us consider some of the passages that mention the Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. They are all found in Isaiah. In chapter 41 we read: Fear not, thou worm Jacob and ye men of Israel; I help thee, saith the Lord, and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. Behold, I make thee a new threshing-sledge having sharp teeth; thou shalt thresh the mountains and beat them small, and shalt make the hills as chaff. Thou shalt fan them, and the wind shall carry them away, and the whirlwind shall scatter them; and thou shalt rejoice in the Lord, thou shalt glory in the Holy One of Israel. (vss. 14–16) We are now familiar with some of the ideas in these verses. After the encouragement and promise of help, we are prepared for the mentioning of the Holy One of Israel. We also expect that those saved should “rejoice and glory” in the Holy One of Israel. However, a new term is introduced and connected with the Holy One; the term—Redeemer. But an activity, too, is described which we do not normally associate with the Holy One of Israel. It is the activity of threshing the mountains and scattering them like chaff in the wind, symbolizing of course the reduction of the enemies or whatever obstacles that may stand in the way of redemption. Help for Israel requires action against the taskmaster. In other passages, too, where the combined phrase occurs, the two-fold function is unmistakable. One may, however, easily see how the two-fold function of the Redeemer combines within itself the two manifestations of God, as the Holy One of Israel and as the Lord of hosts. God’s activity as the Redeemer moves in two directions; against those who oppress and to those who are to be redeemed. For the oppressor the Redeemer is the Lord of hosts; for the redeemed, the Holy One. Accordingly, there are some passages which combine the Redeemer, the Lord of hosts, and the Holy One of Israel. In the midst of the prophecy about the approaching downfall of Babylon, Isaiah exclaims: Our Redeemer, the Lord of hosts is His name, the Holy One of Israel. (47:4) The reader of the verses immediately preceding this exclamation will find that the heavy blows predicted against Babylon are indeed such as are normally said to emanate from the Lord of hosts. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yes, thy shame shall be seen; I will take vengeance, and will let no man intercede. On the other hand, immediately following the exclamation and explaining why the “daughter of the Chaldeans” will no longer be called “mistress of kingdoms,” it is said: I was wroth with My people, I profaned Mine inheritance, and gave them into thy hand; thou didst show them no mercy; upon the aged hast thou very heavily laid thy yoke. The implication is that because of the cruelty with which Babylon treated Israel, God turns from his anger against them. He acknowledges his inheritance and will no longer let it be profaned. He will treat mercifully those to whom no mercy was shown. We are reminded of that other verse in Isaiah about the Lord of hosts who is exalted through justice and God the Holy One who is sanctified through s’daqah. It is the Redeemer, the Lord of hosts, dispensing justice for Babylon, the Holy One of Israel, treating with mercy his people. Unfortunately, often the subtle nuance of meaning gets lost in the translation. For instance, verse 5 in chapter 54 of Isaiah is rendered: For thy Maker is thy husband, the Lord of hosts is His name; and the Holy One of Israel is thy Redeemer, the God of the whole earth shall He be called. The dual function of the Redeemer is lost in such a translation. The word, husband, suggests an intimate relationship; to call him the Lord of hosts introduces a jarringly incongruous notion. The Hebrew for husband is, of course, baal; the masoretic reading, however, gives us the verbal noun, boel. The baal is; the boel does. The prophet wishes to indicate that Israel’s Maker makes Himself her “husband” again. The promise follows immediately after the words: “and the reproach of thy widowhood shalt thou remember no more.” Israel will no longer remain husbandless, for her Maker will possess her again. The passage recalls the complaint of Israel, in which the same verb, boel, occurs and it should be understood in its light. The complaint was: O Lord our God, other lords beside Thee have had dominion over us. (26:13) Only the Hebrew text, using the same terminology in both cases, shows that the promise was meant to counter the complaint. God becoming once again the “husband,” takes sole “dominion” over Israel; he replaces the “other lords,” who misused Israel. Now, of course, the two-fold function of the Redeemer appears in our text, too. Only by shattering the yoke of the “other lords” can God make himself Israel’s Lord. In order to re-possess Israel, the Redeemer must act in history as the Lord of hosts; he has compassion on “the widow” and becomes her “husband” again as the Holy One of Israel. HOLY AND AWESOME It would seem that our analysis has to contend with a difficulty that arises from the fact that occasionally qadosh is combined with nora, holy with awful or awesome. There are two such passages in the Bible; both are found in the Psalms. In view of the numerous passages on which our interpretation is based, two exceptions to the rule would not weigh heavily. Nevertheless, since the term holy, with reference to God, is employed with such uniform and consistent meaning, exceptions that would indicate a meaning contrary to the one found everywhere else do require careful examination. One of the passages we find in Psalm 99. Qadosh and nora are placed there in rather uncomfortable neighborliness for our taste. We have in mind the phrase: “Let them praise Thy name—great and awful. Holy is he.” It seems to associate the awful with the holy, declaring the awful to be holy. Beginning with the second verse, we shall quote the Psalm in its main parts: The Lord is great in Zion; and He is high above all the peoples. Let them praise Thy name as great and awful. Holy is He. Thou hast executed mishpat and s’daqah in Jacob. Exalt ye the Lord our God and prostrate yourselves at His footstool; Holy is He. O Lord our God, Thou didst answer them; a forgiving God wast Thou unto them, though Thou tookest vengeance of their misdeeds. Exalt ye the Lord our God and prostrate yourselves at the hill of His holiness; for the Lord our God is holy. We number the quotations, in order to indicate the three distinctive parts of the Psalm. Though distinct from each other, they are similar in conceptual structure, as well as in style. This is quite obvious of the second and third sections, but it is true also of the first one. At first, we shall direct our attention to 2 and 3. The sentence, “Exalt ye the Lord …” is practically identical in both parts. “His footstool” is the same as the “hill of His holiness”; it is Zion, the symbol of God’s presence “in the midst of thee.” In both cases, the reason why he should be exalted seems to be given in the immediately preceding sentence. In 2 it is the execution of justice and s’daqah; in 3, it is the fact that God answered his people when they called to him and he forgave their sins. However, rather hesitantly it is remembered, almost like an aside, that nevertheless they were punished for their misdeeds. And now it occurs to us that in this point too, there is similarity between 2 and 3. In 2, the execution of justice, mishpat, and s’daqah, is mentioned. But God’s answering of prayers and forgiving of sins is certainly an act of s’daqah on his part; and taking “vengeance of their misdeeds” is exercise of mishpat. In both cases then the psalmist calls for exalting of God for the same reason. But we have learned already that the doing of mishpat alone exalts God and the practice of s’daqah sanctifies him. Shall we then say that, Exalt ye the Lord our God and prostrate yourselves at His footstool (or at the hill of His holiness), calls for a two-fold acknowledgment of God’s two-fold actions? Exalt ye the Lord for his mishpat and prostrate ye yourself before Him as an act of worshipful gratitude for his s’daqah? Let us now glance once again at section 1 of the psalm. As 2 and 3, 1, too, presents us with a two-fold manifestation of God. But whereas in the last two sections God makes himself known “in Jacob” by means of mishpat and s’dagah, in 1, the two-foldness of his manifestation comes about by the division between Zion and “all the peoples.” It should be noted that, as the text puts it, God is great “in Zion” and he is “high above all nations.” “In Zion” recalls once again the God “in the midst of thee,” the Holy One of Israel; whereas God “high above all nations” leads to the association with the Lord of hosts. In a sense, this passage too speaks of God’s two-fold function as executing justice and s’daqah. It would seem that the phrase following upon: “Let them praise Thy name as great and awful” is now easily explained. “Great” corresponds to “the Lord is great in Zion” and “awful,” to “He is high above all the peoples.” This is in keeping with what we have found earlier, i.e., that it is his remoteness as the Sovereign and Judge which inspires awe and fear. That “awful” is the manner in which God’s name is known among the nations is explicitly stated by Malachi, who lets God say: For I am a great king, saith the Lord of hosts, and my name is awful [nora] among the nations. (1:14) It was the same prophet who proclaimed that “from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same” God’s name was great among the nations. Yet, they knew him not as Israel did. They knew him by the awesomeness of his name, as the Lord of hosts; with the intimacy of the Holy One he was not known to them. Quite clearly, in our psalm, the idea of the holy is not to be associated with that of nora (awful). Nora describes one specific form of divine self-revelation which is different from that of qadosh. In our psalm the idea of the holy occurs at the end of each section. In the first section, it is even by syntax separated from the preceding sentence. “Let them praise Thy name great and awful” is addressed to God. “Holy is He” stands clearly by itself. It is certainly not spoken to God. It is the private meditation of the author. It expresses the idea that God, who is known in a two-fold capacity in Zion and among the nations, is for him holy. He is holy because He is in the midst of Zion. In the second part of the psalm, we understand its place more readily. Mention is made there of God’s mishpat and s’daqah. We have, however, learned from Isaiah that it is in His capacity as the Holy One that God executes s’daqah. Whereas in the first section, “Holy is He” stands by itself; in the second it should be read as concluding the thought “prostrate yourselves at His footstool” as an expression of gratitude for s’daqah received, “holy is He” as the bestower of s’daqah. If we now compare 2 with 3 we find that although both contain the ideas of mishpat and s’daqah, they do not treat them with the same emphasis. In the second part justice and righteousness are of equal weight, in the third the emphasis is on God’s answering and forgiving, on his s’daqah; of his mishpat we are only reminded by the way, as if it were a second thought. In other words the accent is on God’s holiness. May this be the reason why in this section “his footstool” is replaced by “the hill of His holiness” and why instead of the quiet “Holy is He” we have the triumphant affirmation, “for the Lord our God is holy”? It is the crescendo toward which the psalmist has been moving. The other passage, combining qadosh and nora reads: He hath sent redemption unto His people; He hath commanded His covenant for ever; holy and awful is His name. (Ps. 111:9) As indicated earlier, “His name” is God’s self-manifestation, by which He becomes known. “Holy and awful” would, of course correspond to the combination that we found in the concept of the Redeemer, that of the Lord of hosts and the Holy One of Israel. However, what is the reason here for such a combination? If we read carefully, we notice that as two attributes are associated with God’s name, so are also two actions of God mentioned. On the basis of the principle of parallelism we may, perhaps, assume that “He hath sent redemption to His people” corresponds with “holy” and “He hath commanded His covenant for ever” is paralleled by “awful.” Now, the sending of redemption to His people may well be considered a manifestation of divine holiness. It would indeed be the function of the Holy One of Israel. This is in keeping with what we found thus far in our investigation. As to the second phrase, independently of our present and immediate interest, it requires elucidation. “He hath commanded His covenant for ever,” what exactly does it convey? Fortunately, the idea of the everlasting covenant occurs once more in the same context preceding our text by several verses. The entire passage reads: He hath given food unto them that fear Him; He will ever be mindful of His covenant. He hath declared to His people the power of His works, in giving them the heritage of the nations [italics added]. This time, it is the second part of the passage which offers no difficulty of interpretation. God has shown his power to his people, when he led them into the promised land and gave them the “heritage of the nations.” In this connection, we cannot help thinking of the Lord of hosts. The first part of the text, however, is unclear. Is God mindful of his covenant by giving food to those who fear him? One would be inclined to connect the thought of the fulfilment of the convenant with what follows, with “giving them the heritage of the nations.” By doing that, God was mindful of his covenant with Israel and the patriarchs. Once again, the translation confuses rather than clarifies. The Hebrew rendered here as food is tereph. The verb from which the noun derives, taraph, means to tear, to rape, to rob. The more adequate word for food is okhel. Tereph would normally be food of wild animals, who feed by tearing asunder. There is one verse in the Bible in which both terms occur: The young lions roar after their prey [tereph], and seek their food [okhlam] from God. (Ps. 104:21) Tereph has come to mean food in relationship to the wild life that subsist on prey. In a more general sense, anything torn away by force from its owner, anything taken by force, may be called tereph. Our text does not speak about food at all. It would be the acme of incongruity to call the food given to “them that fear Him” tereph. What God gave them emerges clearly from the context. He gave them “the inheritance of the nations,” the land he promised them. It is this that is referred to as tereph. And tereph indeed it was. It had to be taken by force from the Canaanites and given to the Israelites. Failing a better word, it would be more correct to translate: “He hath given prey unto them that hear Him.” And now the succession of the ideas becomes much more coherent. By giving them tereph, God was mindful of his covenant. In this manner, he has “declared to His people the power of His works.” We may now revert to the starting point of this discussion. Our difficulty began with the phrase, “He hath commanded His covenant for ever.” The meaning is that he maintains his covenant, he orders it to stand for ever; he is loyal to the covenant. From the preceding verses, we have learned that God is ever mindful of his covenant by giving his people “the prey,” the “heritage of the nations.” We shall now read our text again. He hath sent redemption unto His people; He hath commanded His covenant for ever; Holy and awful is His name. We believe that the parallelism becomes now evident. As the one who sends redemption to his people, his name is holy; as the one who sustains his covenant by giving them tereph, his name is “awful.” In conclusion, it may be worth noting that the very phrase, holy and awful is His name, indicates that the concept of awful is not included in that of holy. We might then say that qadosh v’nora, holy and awful, expresses two different and opposing attributes of God. In this sense, the idea is similar to that of the Redeemer, who, in his relationship to those to be redeemed, acts as the Holy One and toward those from whose power he redeems, he behaves as the Lord of hosts. There is, however, another term which comprehends the two-fold function of the Redeemer most dramatically. It is the phrase, z’roa qodsho, which should not be translated as His holy arm, but literally as—arm of His holiness. It is the tool which God uses to bring to fruition the plans prompted by his quality of holiness. The phrase occurs in one of the most stirring prophecies of Isaiah, which begins with the unforgettable words: “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger of good tidings.” As we read on, we come across the passage: Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem. For the Lord hath comforted His people, He hath redeemed Jerusalem. The Lord hath made bare the arm of His holiness in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God [italics added]. (52:9–10) What is described in this great prophecy of redemption is, of course, God’s act in history as the Redeemer. We have found in numerous other passages that God is the cause of comfort, joy, and salvation in his capacity as the Holy One. The Redeemer, however, cannot limit himself to dealing with his people alone. All the nations are involved in Israel’s redemption. It is out of their midst that God’s people have to be redeemed. The act of redemption takes place in the sight of all the nations. Because God is the Holy One, he is impelled to redeem; but in order to redeem, his might must become effective in the world. This is symbolized by the baring of the arm of His holiness. The parallel to this passage, one finds in the opening verses of Psalm 98. Oh sing unto the Lord a new song…. His right hand, the arm of His holiness, hath wrought salvation for Him. The Lord hath made known His salvation: His s’daqah hath He revealed in the sight of the nations…. All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God. Salvation is the function of the Holy One, but in history it has to be “wrought”; and that requires an arm. The working of salvation is the revelation of divine s’daqah but it has to take place in the sight of the nations. It must be effective. It is performed by “the arm of His holiness.” It will be rewarding to look at another passage, which associates z’roa, arm, with redemption, but does not use the expression, z’roa qodsho. It occurs in Psalm 77 and reads: Thou hast with Thine arm redeemed Thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. (vs. 16) The reference to the other nations is not lacking here either. The verse immediately preceding the one quoted declares: Thou art the God that doest wonders; Thou hast made known Thy strength among the peoples. However, the reference to holiness, that is the motivating desire to redeem, is lacking … but not altogether. After declaring that he will meditate on all of God’s works and doings, the psalmist introduces his meditation with the sentence: O God, Thy way is in holiness; who is a great god like unto God? We have now all the material we have been looking for: the “arm,” redemption, and the idea of holiness. How do they function in our text, how are they related to each other? Following our method of interpretation, we note that “who is a great god like unto God” says rhetorically the truth that no one is like unto God. It expresses, to speak theologically, God’s incomparability, his transcendence, his remoteness. In other words, it expresses what we have identified as the meaning of the idea, “Lord of hosts.” This, however, is not holiness. Shall we then assume that this too is one of the “double-function passages” which we have discussed; a qadosh v’nora passage? In order to answer the question, we have first to determine what is meant by, Thy way is in holiness. Fortunately, the psalmist explains himself. Toward the end of the psalm, he mentions once again God’s way. Of it, he says: Thy way was in the sea, and Thy path in the great waters, and Thy footsteps were not known. Thou didst lead Thy people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron. This conclusion is most revealing. God’s way was the path across the waters. But it was not God who went across. It was God’s way because he led his people across. His “footsteps were not known,” for who indeed could have imagined that there was a path for men there to be led through the waters! This then is “Thy way in holiness.” It would indeed be the exact concept on the basis of our understanding of the term, the Holy One, the Savior who dwells in the midst of the poor and needy. It is God’s way of holiness, because along with it God exercised his quality of holiness. Thus, we have before us another one of the double-function passages. The psalmist meditates on God’s holiness as well as on his wholly-otherness, on his immanence as well as on his transcendence, his nearness as well as his remoteness. Both qualities are needed in order to accomplish what is to be accomplished. We shall now quote the psalmist’s meditation in its essential structure. He muses on the miracle of the dividing of the waters of the Sea of Reeds and the salvation of the children of Israel O God, Thy way is in holiness; who is a great god like unto God? Thou art the God that doest wonders; Thou hast made known Thy strength among the peoples. Thou hast with Thine arm redeemed Thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. With this introduction, the theme is set. God is holy, but he is also supreme. Because he is supreme and above all other powers, he does wonders; because he is holy, he redeems. Because his way is in holiness, he performs miracles in order to redeem. And now follows the description of how all this was wrought. The waters saw Thee, O God; the waters saw Thee, they were in pain; the depths also trembled. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The voice of Thy thunder was in the whirlwind; the lightnings lighted up the world; the earth trembled and shook. Thy way was in the sea, and Thy path in the great waters, and Thy footsteps were not known. Thou didst lead Thy people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron. Performing the saving miracle at the Sea of Reeds, God revealed himself as the Lord of Nature and as the Shepherd of his people, as the awesome, inaccessible power above all powers and as the Redeemer who will lead us as if “by the hand,” as the Lord of hosts and as the Holy One of Israel. The psalm we have just analyzed has certainly been inspired by “the Song,” the shirah, that Moses and the children of Israel sang after they walked across the Sea of Reeds. There is a great similarity in the ideas and the tone which pervades both texts. At least one phrase has been almost literally borrowed by the psalmist. The words: “Thou didst lead Thy people like a flock” recall the parallel sentence of the song: “Thou in Thy love hast led the people that Thou hast redeemed.” The thought is the same in both places and the verb, and its grammatical form, are identical; it is the Hebrew, nahita. This similarity induces us to have a closer look at the song from the point of view and interest of our study. We note that, after introductory verses, the shirah may easily be divided into two parts. The first deals exclusively with the destruction of Pharaoh and his armies. There is no mention at all of the children of Israel. The second part still refers to what happened to Pharaoh and describes vividly the fear that befalls the Philistines, the Edomites and Moabites, and all the inhabitants of Canaan, when the tidings of these wondrous events reach them. But quite clearly, the emphasis there is on the acts which God performed in order to save his children and to lead them to his sanctuary. The first part is introduced with the words: “The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is His name.” The second part begins with the exclamation: “Who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the mighty? Who is like unto Thee, mighty in holiness?” We believe that this is as it should be, and it is as we would expect it to be in the light of our discussion. It is appropriate that God should be called “a man of war” in a description of the utter destruction of Pharoah and his chariots. But when the emphasis is on redemption and the acts of war appear as prerequisites of the redeeming purpose, we are again confronted with a two-fold manifestation of divine performance. It is no surprise that this section of the song should open with a reference to God that makes mention of his incomparable elevation above all powers as well as of his being “mighty in holiness.” “Mighty in holiness” is the parallel to “Thy way in holiness” in the psalm we have interpreted, just as: “Who is like unto Thee, O Lord among the mighty?” corresponds to: “Who is a great god like unto God?” in the same psalm. However, what exactly is meant by “mighty in holiness”? We would say that the concept is identical with “z’roa qodsho,” the arm of His holiness. It is the attribute of the Redeemer, who uses might for the sake of preserving the purpose he envisages because of his holiness. It is worth observing that the first part of the shirah contains a phrase which is the exact opposite to “mighty in holiness” and thus its stylistic parallel: it is, “mighty in power.” It is an almost perfect correspondence of opposites. “Ne’dar ba’qodesh,” in one place: Ne’dari ba’koah, in the other. The first paragraph, describing the deeds of the warlord speaks of his “right hand” as “mighty in power”; the second paragraph elaborating on God’s doings as the Redeemer, speaks of him as “mighty in holiness.” HIGH AND HOLY There are, however, several passages that seem to suggest that it is the Holy One who is incomparable, that he dwells inaccessibly in a “high and holy” place. The heavens are often called his holy dwelling. We now propose to investigate those passages in order to see what they convey. A rather significant one we find in chapter 40 of Isaiah, where we read: To whom then will ye liken Me that I should be equal? Saith the Holy One. (vs. 25) We have maintained previously that God’s incomparability was an indication of his remoteness and transcendence, proper to his quality as Lord of hosts. Here, however, it is the Holy One who speaks of it. As always, we have to consider the context in which the phrase has its place. Having made the statement about God’s “unlikeness” to anything imaginable, he continues: Lift up your eyes on high, and see: who hath created these? He that bringeth out their host by number, He calleth them all by name: by the greatness of His might, and for that He is strong in power, not one faileth. Quite clearly, the theme of divine transcendence is further sustained. That God is the creator of the heavens and their hosts is an indication of the fact that he cannot be compared to anything created; the “greatness of His might” and his “strong power” illustrate his elevation above all other powers. Nevertheless, transcendence is not the only theme of this verse. The concluding part of the verse hardly requires further interpretation. God uses his might and power in order to preserve the heavenly hosts so that “no one faileth.” In English, the meaning should—probably—be continued as, “no one faileth” in its course or function. The thought of the prophet comes through much clearer in the Hebrew original. The word is ne’dar, which is better rendered as missing. God uses his power in order to preserve each one individually, so that not one shall be lost. As to that “He bringeth out their host by number, He calleth them all by name” surely it could not mean that God is an excellent astronomer who knows the exact number of all the stars and planets and is even familiar with their names. To number is mostly a preserving activity. One usually counts that which one wishes to keep, which is of value; normally, what one counts one does not wish to lose. One counts one’s money in order to know whether one has lost any. And to call someone by name means to know him, to pay attention to him, to turn to him to have some relationship to him. What Isaiah says is that God, who created “these,” continues his interest and care for all these. He numbers them, he knows them individually, he preserves them. God is the Creator, but after the creation he is the Preserver. With his might he created, with his might he sustains and protects. “To whom then will ye liken Me that I should be equal?” gains now in depth of meaning. We feel that this phrase should be understood differently from those of a similar nature, which we have come across earlier in our study. It is not identical in meaning with the exclamation in Psalm 77: “Who is a great god like unto God?” or with that which we have quoted from the song in Exodus: “Who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the mighty?” In both these cases the impossibility of the comparison is with the mighty; in both cases the Hebrew word used is the same; in the Psalms, the singular, el, in Exodus, the plural, elim. In both cases, the subject matter is God’s mightiness, which is incomparable. In our present text no reference is made to might. What is said is that no one may be likened to God. The reason emerges from what follows. God is, indeed, above all creation; yet He uses His might to preserve His creation. By his essential nature, he is far removed from everything created; yet he knows them all “by name.” He infinitely transcends them all; yet he cares for them sufficiently so that “not one shall be missing.” Not only is he incomparable because he is infinite in essence and power; his true unlikeness to anything else is to be recognized in the fact that, notwithstanding his infinitude, he bends down to his creature caringly and preservingly. These thoughts of the prophet are aptly followed up with the application of the universal truth to the historic situation of the Jewish people: Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel: My way is hid from the Lord and my right is passed over from my God? Hast thou not known? has thou not heard that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? His discernment is past searching out. He giveth power to the faint; and to him that hath no might He increaseth strength. (Isa. 40:27–29) How can Israel believe that their way is hidden from before God! It is true that God is far removed from man; nevertheless, he is not the God of the deists. As he knows every one of the heavenly hosts “by name,” so does he know Israel, their way and their right. He is the Creator; but having created the world, he has not abandoned it; he has not grown weary of it. On the contrary, his power and his might sustain the weak and the powerless. How this may be, why the One who infinitely transcends man should be concerned about him, we may never understand. “His discernment is past searching out.” But just because of that, he is even more unequal to anyone to whom he might be compared. “Saith the Holy One” maintains Isaiah. Indeed, only the Holy One can speak like that. We are now better prepared to understand another passage in Isaiah which contains a similar thought. It is found in chapter 57. For thus saith the High and Lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy. (vs. 15) Once again, the opening phrase is concerning divine transcendence. Of this transcendent God it is said that His name is holy. But how does the prophet continue? “I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.” The reference to “the high and holy” place seems, of course, to strengthen the impression gained by the opening line that holiness is in transcendence. Yet, practically in the same breath the prophet also informs us that the God who dwells so high also dwells rather low, with him who is of “a contrite and humble spirit.” But this is exactly what we found expressed in numerous other passages about the Holy One, who is the salvation of the needy and the poor, the source of strength for the lowly, without any mention of divine transcendence. A more literal translation would be more to the point. The Hebrew original does not have, “the high and holy place,” which is rather misleading. We read: “I dwell high and holy, with him also that is of a contrite spirit.” “High and holy” does not qualify a place, but the manner in which God “dwells,” the way in which He is “present.” On the strength of all the passages we have examined, we feel justified in saying that “high and holy” is a paradoxical concept which yet is true of the God of the Bible. “High and holy” is the way God is related to his creation. As the infinite Being, as the Creator, he is inaccessible, he is far removed from everything created; as the Holy One, he is accessible, he is near, he is “in the midst of thee.” He is transcendent as well as immanent. The rabbis in the Midrash used to say of him: rahoq v’qarob, far and near. “I dwell in the high and holy” means: even though I am so far removed by my absolute nature, yet I am near through my actions. And because of that, as I dwell on high, I also dwell with the one of “a contrite and humble spirit” and revive him. We know that in the biblical text by the name of God is meant his manifestation, the acts of self-revelation by which he makes himself known. The opening line of the text under discussion, “For thus saith the High and Lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy,” should be understood as saying: It is true, I am the High and Lofty One and I inhabit eternity. Such am I as the Absolute and Infinite, but my manifestation in the world is holy. The Infinite Being does what is beyond all human comprehension, he dwells high and holy. It is to be noted that whenever God’s “holy habitation” is mentioned in the Bible, often identical with the heavens, it is the “place” from which God turns toward man, knowing him and considering him. In Deuteronomy, we read the prayer: Look forth from the habitation of Thy holiness, from heaven, and bless Thy people Israel, and the land which Thou hast given us, as Thou didst swear unto our fathers. (26:15) God’s “holy habitation” is not what sets God and man apart; it is the point from which his blessings are expected. God relates himself to his people by blessing them and their land. Of the prayers of the priests and the Levites at the time of restoration of the Temple service under King Hezekiah, it is said: And their voice was heard, and their prayer came up to the habitation of His holiness, unto heaven. (II Chron. 30:27) God’s “holy habitation” is not really very far away. It can be reached through prayer. Isaiah prayed: Look down from heaven, and see, even from the habitation of Thy holiness and of Thy glory; where is Thy zeal and Thy mighty acts, the yearning of Thy heart and Thy compassions, now restrained toward me? (63:15) God’s zeal and mighty acts are due to the yearning of His heart and to His compassion. Could anyone have known of God’s nearness more intimately than the one who knew of “the yearning” of God’s heart for man! It is that intimacy which the prophet is missing and it is for its renewal that he prays. But he directs his plea to the heaven, to God’s holy habitation. Even though it is high, yet it is God’s “holy place,” whence prayers are answered. Needless to say, the place is not a geographic point, but the quality of holiness with which God relates himself to the world and to man. The psalmist, too, uses the concept of God’s “holy habitation” in the same way. In psalm 20 we read: Now know I that the Lord saveth His anointed; He will answer him from the heaven of His holiness with the mighty acts of His saving right hand. (vs. 7) The passage is a typical double-function one. He saves and he does so with mighty acts. It is the dual function of the redeemer. Because he dwells on high, he has the power to save; because his habitation is also holy, he has “the yearning and compassion” to save. Thus he answers his anointed from “the heaven of His holiness.” In another place, the psalmist calls on man to “extol Him that rideth upon the skies, whose name is the Lord.” And he adds: A father of the fatherless and a judge of the widows is God in the habitation of His holiness. (68:5) Though God is exalted above the skies, yet it is from the habitation of His holiness that he acts like a father and protector of orphans and widows. God turns his attention toward the inhabitants of the earth, “To hear the groaning of the prisoner; to loose those that are appointed to death” (Ps. 102:21); but in order to do so, he looks down “from the height of His holiness, from heaven.” Jeremiah mentions the term m’on qodsho, the habitation of His holiness. The passage may, however, require some elucidation in order to be seen in its full significance. It runs as follows: The Lord doth roar from on high and utter His voice from the habitation of His holiness; He doth mightily roar because of His sanctuary. (25:30) The Hebrew, navehu, in the text, is God’s sanctuary in Zion. It is the n’ve qodsho, the habitation of His holiness, which occurs in the Song of Moses and the children of Israel, to which God was leading his people in his love. The same word, navehu, is used by King David when, on his flight from Zion because of Absolom’s rebellion, he says to the priest Sadoq: “If I shall find favour in the eyes of the Lord, He will bring me back and show me … His habitation.” Jeremiah juxtaposes, “m’on qodsho,” the habitation of His holiness, to navehu, to his “earthly habitation” in Zion. His “mighty roar because of His sanctuary” is a symbolical expression of his sorrow over the destruction of the Temple in Zion, which has become necessary. God’s “holy place” in Zion symbolizes God’s nearness to his people; it is a witness to his divine providence; it is a manifestation that “great is in thy midst the Holy One of Israel.” The destruction of the Temple is the elimination of that manifestation; it is the withdrawal of the Holy One from the midst of the people. The divine “yearning and compassion” have to be curbed; the quality of divine holiness has to be controlled, its function must be withheld. Thus, it is from the habitation of His holiness on high that God roars because of the destruction of the habitation of His holiness below. God’s quality of holiness is tragically involved in the destiny of Zion and her people. HOLY, THE LORD OF HOSTS We are now in a better position to appreciate the entire significance of the revelation that was granted to Isaiah, with whose consideration we have started our study. “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory.” In the light of our analysis, one might say that the exclamation declares a coincidence between opposites. It would seem that the “Holy” and the “Lord of hosts” represent contradictory forces of divine self-revelation. The one stands for love, mercy, and compassion; the other, for might, anger and judgment. The one speaks of God as near, a friend and a protector; the other, as remote, a stern judge, and even as the Wholly Other. But however contradictory both functions may be, they are attributes of the One God. The Lord of hosts is the same as the Holy One of Israel. The Lord of hosts is holy. In God, both attributes are one. This brings the “Lord of hosts” himself closer to the world and to man than he appeared by his own characteristics. If he is holy, then even the divine anger and judgment must somehow be related to God’s nearness, to the “yearning and compassion.” Only because God remains related to his creation does he act in it; because he considers man does he address himself to him even though with his “anger” and “judgment.” In our opinion that “the whole earth is full of His glory,” is a further elaboration of the same theme. Quite obviously it is a statement about divine immanence. If God’s glory is present everywhere, then God is not inaccessible. It should be noted that the manifestation of kabod, of the divine glory, may be brought about by both, the quality of holiness and that which distinguishes the Lord of hosts. The “high holiness” of God, as we have defined it, is explicitly called by the psalmist the greatness of God’s glory, when he says: All the kings of earth shall give thanks, O Lord…. Yes they shall sing the ways of the Lord; for great is the glory of the Lord. For though the Lord be high, yet regardeth He the lowly, and the haughty He knoweth from afar. Though I walk in the midst of trouble, Thou quickenest me. (138:4–7) Occasionally, in his prophecies of redemption, Isaiah makes reference to the glory of God, which is being revealed through his comforting acts of salvation. While these and similar revelations of kabod may well be ascribed to the Holy One, others are obviously the function of the Lord of hosts. The psalmist calls the Lord of hosts, melekh ha–kabod, king of glory. The glory of God often appears through his power and judgment. According to Isaiah, the glory of God will be feared, “for distress will come in like a flood, which the breath of the Lord driveth.” The relationship between glory and judgment is found in Ezekiel, who says: And I will set my glory among the nations, and all the nations shall see My judgment that I have executed, and My hand that I have laid upon them. (39:21) This is, however, an activity that we have found always emanating from the Lord of hosts. Both the Lord of hosts and the Holy One reveal the divine glory in the earth. Both express qualities of divine immanence and nearness. Even his judgment is, though beyond human understanding, not apart from his yearning for his creation and for his compassion with it. For holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts. HOLY—THE WORD AND ITS MEANING Thus far, we have investigated the manner in which the term qadosh, holy, is used in the Bible in relationship to God. We have tried to derive the meaning from the work that the word is doing in the numerous passages in which it occurs. However, in order to grasp the application of the concept of holiness to man and to objects, we shall have to attempt to discover the basic meaning of the term, holy, as it appears in the Bible. In our opinion this appears mainly in those passages in which “holy” has no religious significance at all. There are quite a few such passages in the Bible. We shall list most of these neutral passages together so that the meaning of the word may emerge with accumulative force. We underline the word which is a derivative of the root, qadosh, holy. And they set apart Kedesh in Galilee in the hill country of Naphtali, and Shechem … and Kiriath-arba … these were the appointed cities for all the children of Israel … that whosoever killeth any person through error might flee thither. (Josh. 20:7–9) And Jehu said: “Designate a solemn assembly for Baal.” And they proclaimed it. (II Kings 10:20) “I have commanded My designated ones, yes, I have called My mighty ones for mine anger…. Hark, the uproar of the kingdoms of the nations gathered together! The Lord of hosts mustereth the host of battle. They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the Lord, and the weapons of His indignation. (Isa. 13:3–5) Prepare ye war against her. (Jer. 6:4) Pull them out like sheep for the slaughter and prepare them for the day of slaughter. (Jer. 12:3) And I will prepare destroyers against thee, every one with his weapons. (Jer. 22:7) Set ye up a standard in the land, blow the horn among the nations, prepare the nations against her, call together against her the kingdom of Arrarat, Minni, and Ashkenaz … Prepare against her the nations, the kings of the Medes. (Jer. 51:27–28) Prepare ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land unto the house of the Lord your God. (Joel 1:14) Blow the horn in Zion, prepare a fast, call a solemn assembly; gather the people, prepare a congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children. (Joel 2:15–16) Proclaim ye this among the nations, prepare war; stir up the mighty men; let all the men of war draw near, let them come up. (Joel 4:9) Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord God, for the day of the Lord is at hand, for the Lord hath prepared a sacrifice, He hath designated His guests. (Zeph. 1:7) As usual, we have adopted the old translation of the Jewish Publication Society of America. However, we deviated from it in the quotation from II Kings, Isaiah, and Zephaniah, as well as in the first two quotations from Joel. As far as possible, we have retained the rendering, prepare. The passage in Joshua has, of course, no significance whatever of sanctification in the religious sense. The cities of refuge were not sanctified. They were set apart to serve for a specific purpose. The Revised Version has “appointed,” which may be even more exact than “set apart.” It brings out more strongly the positive idea of being set apart for something. The cities were designated to serve as places of refuge. It is in this sense that Jeremiah uses the term. “Prepare them for the day of slaughter,” means of course mark them out, give them over for that day. Similarly, “prepare ye war against her,” stands for, determine, mark her out for war. The nations and the kings that are to be “prepared” against Babylon, are the powers that have been chosen to wage war against her. In the light of these passages we have translated m’qudashay in Isaiah, as “My designated ones,” and not “My consecrated ones.” As with Jeremiah, God marks out the nations that are to wage war against Babylon, so here too, he causes the warriors, whom he has designated for the task of destruction, to do their work. “My consecrated ones,” while not wrong, is misleading because of its religious connotation. The Revised Version has here, “my sanctified ones,” which is meaningless. M’qudashay are the armies that gather from all the corners of the earth, as “the weapons of His indignation.” God calls them m’qudashay because they have been given a specific task; they have been designated by the divine plan to perform in a certain manner. Nor should one render the phrase, hiqdish q’ruav, in Zephaniah as, “He hath consecrated His guests.” He has invited his guests, would be much nearer to the correct sense. We prefer here the Revised Version, which has: he hath bid his guests. To invite implies to mark out from among others and to designate with a definite purpose in view. As to our deviations in translation in the quotations from II Kings and Joel, they explain each other. Qad’shu som in the two passages we have quoted from Joel should certainly not be translated as, sanctify ye a fast. These are the only two occasions in the Bible where the phrase is met. To sanctify a fast sounds suspiciously un-biblical. Moreover, a careful examination of the texts will show that the rendering, sanctify ye, in this connection is a misunderstanding. In the first passage from Joel, Qad’shu som is followed by Qir’u asara, call a solemn assembly. Now in the quotation from II Kings, we find the phrase, Qad’shu asara. To translate this phrase, as has been done, as: Sanctify a solemn assembly, is quite wrong. For the text continues: “And they proclaimed it”; or in more exact literal conformity with the Hebrew, vayiqrau, “and they called it.” According to the context, Qad’shu asara, means, call ye, or, proclaim ye a solemn assembly. As such the term is in keeping with what we have found to be neutral, not specifically religiously significant. What Jehu said was: set apart a day. That the Bible informs us with the word, vayiqru, that they called such an assembly as they were asked to, proves that Qad’shu asara in II Kings is identical in meaning with Qir’u asara, call a solemn assembly, which is used by Joel. One might say that Qad’shu in this context equals Qir’u; the meaning in both cases is obviously the same: call ye a solemn assembly, designate a day to be observed as such. For this reason we translate in Joel, Qad’shu som, Qir’u asara, as: designate (or proclaim) a fast, call a solemn assembly. Similarly, in our second quotation from Joel, Qad’shu Qahal, should not be rendered as, sanctify the congregation. As such the phrase would keep rather strange company. It is immediately preceded by “gather the people” and followed by “assemble the elders, gather the children.” The verb, sanctify, flanked by the verbs, gather and assemble, would be poorly placed. It jars on the ear as well as on the mind. Prophets did not write like that. Meant is, preparing a congregation, the bringing together of a congregation for the occasion. It is synonymous with “gather” and “assemble.” It is the appointing of the people as a congregation for the observance of the fast proclaimed. On the basis of the passages we have listed and discussed, we conclude that the word, qadosh, does have a meaning without any specifically religious connotation. Qadosh is that which is set apart, marked out, assigned, designated. We are employing these many descriptions in order to indicate that no one by itself gives us the full meaning. The qadosh is set apart from others but it is also assigned to something; it is marked out, but for a definite purpose and it is thus designated as something to something. To make a something qadosh is to remove it from one context and place it into another. The cities of refuge set apart by Joshua at first belonged to one group with all other cities of the land. Later, they were singled out, removed from their group and equipped with a function which related them to a different context of functions and significances. Originally, the day to be proclaimed a fast is like any other day. In order to be designated as a day of fast, it has to be selected, set apart from all other days and associated with a new meaning or purpose. The primary neutral meaning of the idea of the holy is fully retained in its specifically religious implication. Holy, in the religious sense—and as the word is normally understood—is that which has been removed from its original frame of reference and placed into one in which everything derives its position by reference to God. This is quite obviously so, when we consider the purely ritualistic meaning of the idea. Holy objects, animals, etc., are holy because they have been severed from their “natural” place within the neutral scheme of things and given a function within a realm that is reserved for the service of God. Their character is now determined by the form of their relatedness to the divine, the purely ritualistic meaning of the term is still rather close to what we have found to be its primary non-religious significance. Essentially it means: being set apart from and being assigned to. The assignation, however, is a specific one: assignation to God. Our main interest in this study is, however, not to deal with the purely ritualistic aspect of the holy. Quite obviously, there are various forms and grades of holiness that designate a man in his relatedness to God. We may distinguish between the ritual and the spiritual aspects of holiness. The holy in relationship to man belongs in the category of the spiritual as does the holiness of God. One might, however, consider the sanctification of the priests as the bridge between the spiritual and the merely ritualistic. Much more than mere ritual is involved in the appointment to priesthood. We adduce this clearly from a passage in Numbers. We have in mind Korah’s rebellion against Moses and Aaron. He and his follower sought priesthood. In answer to their request, Moses had occasion to explain how priesthood comes about. He puts it this way: In the morning the Lord will show who are His; and who is holy, and will cause him to come near unto Him … and it shall be that the man whom the Lord doth choose, he shall be holy. (16:5–7) These are most illuminating words. Holiness, nearness, and being chosen are mentioned and related to each other. The holy one is brought near to God. The chosen one is brought near to God. One is brought near by being chosen. Furthermore, the one whom God chooses is holy. This gives us the definition: to be holy is to be chosen by God by being brought near to him. This is the spiritual factor in the sanctification of man for priesthood. To sanctify may be said to mean, to choose in order to bring near. What in the neutral meaning of the term, holy, meant to be assigned to or, to be designated for, becomes in the spiritual-religious sense nearness, closeness, a personal relation between God and the priest. We may now better appreciate the nature of the application of the concept of the holy to God, as it revealed itself to us in the previous section of this chapter. While the concept of choosing does imply “singling out” and “separating from,” it is not yet sanctification. Sanctification consists of bringing near, establishing the relation, the closeness of association. To single out or separate or to withdraw from is a necessary prerequisite of sanctification. This is, in fact, explicitly so stated in I Chronicles, where it is said of the appointment of Aaron: “and Aaron was separated that he should be sanctified as most holy.” Separation is quite clearly not sanctification; it is a pre-condition for sanctification. The holy is separated away, but it is not holy because of its separation. It is holy because it is near, because it is close to God. It can be close because it is withdrawn from association and involvements that would render nearness to God impossible. How does all this affect the application of the idea of the holy to God? We have found that holiness in the priest and—anticipating what yet has to be shown—in man in general is nearness to God, standing in personal relationship with him. Correspondingly, holiness in God should mean nearness to what alone there is besides God, his creation. As far as man is concerned, it is God turning toward him with love and compassion; it is, indeed, as we have found it, the Holy One “in the midst of thee.” As with man the pre-condition for human holiness is separation from that which may prevent nearness to God, so with God, too—as it were—separation and withdrawal are the prerequisite of his holiness. But God is already separate by his essential nature; he is unlike anything created; he is Absolute and Infinite. However, as the Absolute he cannot be near; he cannot dwell in the midst of his people. The Infinite is unrelated to the finite by its essential nature; it is indifferent toward it. Thus God, too, as it were, has to separate himself from his absoluteness in order to turn with care and consideration toward his creation; he has to “withdraw” from the “natural” indifference of his infinitude in order to be “the father of the orphans and the judge of the widows in his holy habitation.” He has to “curb” his Wholly Otherness so that he may come near for the sake of his holiness. It is the awe-in-piring greatness of his holiness that he who is infinitely removed draws near and makes himself accessible. YE SHALL BE HOLY The spiritual aspect of holiness arises most forcefully from the relationship that, according to the Bible, exists between God and Israel. Only on the basis of that relationship could the children of Israel be commanded: Ye shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy. With Israel, holiness has a two-fold significance: it is a condition and a goal. They are God’s holy people, God has sanctified them; they shall become a kingdom of priests and a holy nation unto God; they have to sanctify themselves. God has sanctified them in the manner very similar to the designation of the priests, by choosing them and bringing them near. In Deuteronomy, it is said: For thou art a holy people unto the Lord Thy God: the Lord Thy God hath chosen thee to be His own treasure, out of all the peoples that are upon the face of the earth. (7:6) Israel was made a holy people by God by his choosing them from among the other nations and taking them unto himself. This is a form of sanctification very similar to the ritualistic one. The people themselves were passive. They were singled out and brought near to God. They had as little share in it as the Aaronites, who were chosen to serve in the sanctuary. Strangely enough, this people that is sanctified by God is commanded to sanctify itself. Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am the Lord your God. And keep ye My statutes and do them. I am the Lord who sanctify you. (Lev. 20:7) These words almost convey the idea that Israel has to sanctify itself because it is already sanctified by God. At least in one other place it is indeed put so, though in somewhat different phrasing. Toward the end of the chapter in Leviticus, from which we have quoted, we read: And ye shall be holy unto Me, for I the Lord am holy, and have set you apart from the peoples that ye should be mine. We have found that God sanctified Israel by setting them apart and taking them to be his. It is the essence of their being sanctified by God. The children of Israel are thus commanded to be holy because God, who made them holy, is holy. That they shall sanctify themselves and be holy because God is holy is, of course, expressed repeatedly. However, in the above quotation from Leviticus (20:7) the reason that holiness is demanded of them is: “for I am the Lord Thy God.” In yet another passage, the command to be holy seems to be related to their redemption from Egypt. For I am the Lord that brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy for I am holy. (Lev. 11:45) Not only Israel’s obligation to become holy, but God’s own holiness is here related to the Exodus. Our wonder increases as we hear further that God’s sanctifying Israel is linked to his bringing them out of Egypt. I am the Lord who sanctify you, that brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God. (Lev. 22: 32–33) We have collected now a rather confusing combination of ideas. Israel shall be holy because God is holy; they shall be holy because God is their God. They shall be holy because God has made them holy. Because God has brought them out of Egypt to be their God, they shall be holy, for he is holy. God, who has brought them out of Egypt in order to be their God, made them holy. The confusion is due to a multitude of concepts, which—at first sight—appeared to be unrelated to each other. Actually, a form of strict logical consistency prevails among them and connects them with each other. The phrase, “for I am the Lord thy God,” which we have found to be used parallel to, “for I am holy,” is indeed logically identical with it. What is meant by “I am the Lord thy God” becomes clear if, recalling what has been stated in Chapter 1, we shall render it as: I am Y thy Elohim. As we have found in the first chapter of our study, this does not mean: I God, am God, the God whom you acknowledge to be God. Similarly, the two quotations that make mention of the Exodus should read: “I am Y that brought you up from the land of Egypt to become your Elohim.” God became their Elohim by bringing them out of Egypt. “Your Elohim” is God who has redeemed them, who has guided them and protected and saved them; the God who is with them, “in the midst of thee.” But this is exactly what we have found to be the function of the Holy One of Israel. Thus, “Sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am holy,” is identical with, “sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am Y thy Elohim.” But in redeeming the children of Israel from Egypt, God chose them from among the nations and took them to be his. This again we have found to be the meaning of their sanctification by God. Thus, through the Exodus God revealed his own holiness and in doing so, acting because of his holiness as their redeemer, he also sanctified them in choosing them and taking them for his own. Thus the various passages we have quoted say one and the same thing, i.e., sanctify yourselves and be holy for God is holy. He revealed to them his holiness by making himself their Elohim through his redeeming acts; in making himself their Elohim, he sanctified them by taking them unto himself. We are then left with the one concept which requires interpretation, the command that Israel become holy because God is holy. What is the connection between Israel’s obligation to become holy and God’s being holy? God sanctified the priests and Israel by choosing them and bringing them near to himself. This is passive holiness. One is actively holy by bringing about the same relationship to God by one’s own effort and endeavor. “Sanctify yourself,” therefore, means: seek the nearness of God, choose him, relate yourself to him, cling to him. This is necessary because God is holy; he is your Elohim. And he cannot be yours unless you are his. God is not holy because he saves; he saves because he is holy, because he is near, because he is with you, because of his love and compassion, because of his “yearning” for you. His nearness is not a spatial determination, but one of the spirit. His holiness is the bond between himself and his creation. Thus, it requires mutuality. In his mercy, he may help man, even though man does not acknowledge him. But he cannot be near man unless man is near Him. Nearness in the spirit is mutuality of relationship. God sanctified Israel by choosing them and taking them to himself. He brought them near to himself because he is holy. But his holiness must be met with holiness. He took them for his own, but they cannot be his own in the spirit unless they choose him as he chose them, unless they draw near as they were brought near. They cannot be his very own unless they give themselves to him to be his very own. Therefore, “Ye shall be holy, for I Y your Elohim am holy.” How does man sanctify himself, how does he choose God and move close to him? In the numerous passages that enjoin on Israel to become holy, the obligation is connected with listening to the voice of God and doing his will. Nor is this limited to any specific aspect of the law, the ritual or the sacrificial. Israel sanctifies itself by striving to fulfill God’s will in all matters in which it has been revealed or it may be ascertained. The characteristic passage, supported by all the other related passages, is: Now therefore, if ye will hearken unto My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be Mine own treasure from among all peoples; for the earth is Mine; and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. (Exod. 19:5–6) As the various passages show this applies to every branch of the divine commandments, those “between man and God,” as well as those “between man and man.” The idea should be understood in its two-fold relevance. Holiness is not the child of faith. One can have faith in a God who is far removed, who is “hiding his face.” Faith in itself is not relation to God; it is essentially one-sided. The strength of faith is believing in God, even though he is “hiding his face,” even though he seems to be silent and indifferent to man’s personal destiny. Faith is not mutuality. Holiness is living with God, near him, in his company. But how can a mere man do that? How can a human being move near God, establishing contact in actuality with the divine? But for the moments of God’s self-revelation, when God turns to man in convincing human experience, how can man be with God in reality? And even those rarest of moments are altogether God’s doing and not in the least initiated by man. According to biblical teaching, man comes near to God by doing God’s will. God revealed to man His will, so that by doing His will man may link himself to God. God is in His voice, in the covenant. By hearkening to His voice and keeping the covenant man holds on to God; it is his very real bond with God. Thus he comes close to God, thus he answers God’s holiness by sanctifying himself through his own nearness to Him. The idea also implies that holiness does not originate in what a man does but in the fact that he does it in fulfilling the divine will or intention; that what is done is done for the sake of God. Holiness is not ethics, for instance. Holiness is a specifically religious category. The highest form of ethics may be unrelated to holiness. It is a noble thing to do the good for its own sake, but it is not holiness. Holiness is being with God by doing God’s will. Now, it is the will of God that man should act ethically. But if he acts ethically for the sake of the good, he is an ethical man; if he does so for the sake of God, in order to do God’s will, he is striving for holiness. The connection between sanctification and listening to the voice of God may help us to clarify another concept which has its place within the realm of thought that we are investigating. It is the concept of sanctifying God or of its opposite, that of profaning his name. At least in one place, both are related to the keeping of God’s commandments. The passage is found in Leviticus: And ye shall keep My commandments and do them: I am the Lord. And ye shall not profane the name of My holiness; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am Y who hallow you, that brought you out of the land of Egypt, to become your Elohim. (22:31–33) We are introduced here to the idea that God, too, has to be hallowed or sanctified. The idea of course occurs in other places as well and we shall yet turn our attention to them. Here, however, it is linked to the keeping of God’s commandments. We have found earlier that Israel, who is sanctified by God, has to sanctify herself. Now we hear that God, who is holy, has still to be hallowed. This is indeed surprising. In which sense may it be said that God will be sanctified by human action? How is it to be understood that the sanctification of the divine, or its profanation, are dependent on the keeping of God’s commandments or on their rejection? By doing the will of God man chooses God, he holds on to Him and lives in His company. He sanctifies himself. But man’s sanctification is the answer to God’s holiness. He is to become holy because God is holy. It is the human end of the mutuality which is required by holiness. The revealed will of God, His voice and His law, is the instrument of man’s sanctification. As man does the will of God, he moves to God in response to God’s movement toward him; he sanctifies himself responding to God’s holiness. Thus by keeping the commandments as a means of human sanctification, man acknowledges God’s holiness, which requires that man too be holy. Thus God is being hallowed. On the other hand, the violation of God’s commandments is a rejection of the instrument of human sanctification and of the demand, “Be ye holy, for I Y your Elohim am holy.” It implies a denial of God’s holiness. It is tantamount to a profanation of “the name of his holiness.” To put it in simpler language, the violation of God’s will is an act of separation between man and God. It is a deed against the manifestation of divine holiness that God is “in the midst of thee.” It is an attempt to remove God from the midst of men. It is a rejection of his quality of holiness. But he who does the will of God establishes closeness. He does what needs doing in order to bring God into the midst of men. He acts in harmony with God’s holiness, making it manifest in the world through his own way of living. In this way, God is being hallowed through the deeds of man. SANCTIFYING GOD’S NAME The profanation and sanctification of God’s name forms one of the major themes in Ezekiel. Although with Ezekiel the concept is not directly connected with the keeping of the commandments, in essence the idea is the same as we have analyzed it in the preceding section. Ezekiel does not mention either the Lord of hosts or the Holy One of Israel. He uses the term shem qodsho, name of his holiness, or—as we interpret it—the manifestation of his holiness. A recurring subject in his prophecy is the profanation of this name and what God will do so that it may be sanctified again. A striking passage is, for instance, the one that we find in chapter 36: And when they came into the nations, whither they came, they profaned the name of My holiness; in that men said of them: These are the people of the Lord, and are gone forth out of His land. (vs. 20) The strange idea is conveyed here that the exiles profaned the divine name in being exiles, in having moved from their native land. The traditional Jewish interpretation is that, since they are God’s people, God should have protected them and their land. To their enemies, the fact that they are in exile proves that their God is unable to protect them. He is lacking in power. This is a lowering of the glory of God. They brought about this degradation of the divine name through their sins, which were the cause of their expulsion from their land. On the basis of our analysis, we would call a suggestion that God was lacking in power a desecration of the name of the Lord of hosts and not of the name of His holiness. However, independently of our own investigation, we find it difficult to accept the traditional interpretation because of the local textual evidence in Ezekiel. The profanation of God’s name, which is here attributed to Israel, in another passage is the doing of God himself. Thus God promises: “Neither will I cause the name of My holiness to be profaned any more” (39:7). This has occasioned a great deal of embarrassment for translators. How is it conceivable that God could have actively brought about the profanation of his name. It has been toned down to, “neither will I suffer My holy name to be profaned any more.” The fact is that the Hebrew original is ahel, which is the active causative. God himself profanes the name of his holiness. Indeed, when the destruction of Jerusalem is prophesied, the prophet says so in a manner which does not permit any circumlocution. Thus saith the Lord God: Behold I will profane My sanctuary, the pride of your power, the desire of your eyes, and the longing of your soul; and your sons and your daughters whom ye have left behind shall fall by the sword. (24:21) God himself does the profaning. It is true, no explicit mention is made here of the name of his holiness. So it would seem if one reads only the English translation, but the Hebrew has, miqdashi, which means, my holy, my sanctified place. This comes very close to the profanation of his name. When King David spoke of the same sanctuary, he said: “to build Thee a house for the name of Thy holiness.” The miqdash is holy because it is dedicated to God’s name of holiness. In our terminology it is the visible symbol that God dwells in the midst of Israel; it symbolizes the manifestation of God’s holiness, the “name” of his holiness. God threatens that he himself will bring about the profanation of the manifestation of his holiness, as he later promises not to do so again. What then is meant by such profanation that can be executed by the people as well as by God? We may elucidate the meaning of profanation by discovering what is meant by sanctifying the name. This is what is said about it; this is what God promises to do for the sake of the name of his holiness: And I will sanctify My great name … and the nations shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the nations, and gather you out of all the countries, and will bring you into your own land. (36:23) It is then by taking back Israel unto himself, purifying them and placing his spirit within them, that God sanctifies his name, revealing himself as the Holy One. The thought is repeated several times. With your sweet savour will I accept you, when I bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries wherein ye have been scattered; and I will be sanctified in you in the sight of the nations. (20:41) By redeeming them from among the nations and accepting them again God is being sanctified. This is stated even more clearly in the following verses: Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Now will I bring back the captivity of Jacob, and have compassion upon the whole house of Israel; and I will be jealous for the name of My holiness…. when I have brought them back from the peoples and have gathered them out of their enemies’ lands and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations. (39:25–27) God is jealous for the name of his holiness and thus he is motivated to have compassion on Israel and to redeem them from among the nations. But we have found that to redeem them, to have compassion, to accept, to take Israel for his own, are the manifestations of the Holy One of Israel. In exile, God’s face is hidden; he seems to be far removed from his people, as if he no longer considered them. God is not revealed as the Holy One of Israel. Thus he is jealous for the name of his holiness. He takes his people back for his own and in this act of reconciliation, God once again becomes known as the Holy One. He sanctifies his name; he makes manifest his attribute of holiness. It is important to note that in all our quotations God is said to be sanctified “in you” or “in them” and “in the sight” or “before the eyes” of the nations. God’s sanctification is his self-revelation as being “in the midst of thee.” This comes to expression most powerfully in the passage referred to already, in which God promises not to cause again the profanation of the name of his holiness. This is the passage in its entirety: And I will send a fire on Magog, and on them that dwell safely in the isles; and they shall know that I am the Lord. And the name of My holiness I will make known in the midst of My people Israel; neither will I cause the name of My holiness to be profaned any more; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord, the Holy One in Israel. (39:6–7) One is reminded of the dual-function passages in Isaiah, of the Redeemer, Lord of hosts, and Holy One of Israel. The Holy One is in Israel, the quality of his holiness will be made known in the midst of his people. But the nations, too, will know that he is Y for the power of Magog will be shattered and the oppressed and persecuted will go free. We may therefore say that God sanctifies the name of his holiness by acting again as the Holy One; by revealing himself as the one who is with the poor and needy, who may well rely on him. But when God withdraws, when he “hides his face,” when he withholds the manifestation of his attribute of holiness, he profanes the name of his holiness. He suppresses his “yearning and compassion,” he violates the quality of his relatedness to his creation. But man too can profane God’s name of holiness. When man withdraws from God, when he removes himself from association with him, when he severs the relationship, he rejects God’s nearness; he denies the manifestation of God’s holiness, he profanes it. We believe that it is of such profanation that Ezekiel accuses Israel. A careful reading of one of the key passages seems to indicate it. We already had occasion to quote it in part; we shall now analyze it as a whole. And when they came unto the nations, whither they came, they profaned the name of My holiness; in that man said of them: These are the people of the Lord, and are gone forth out of His land. But I had pity for the name of My holiness, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations, whither they came. Therefore say unto the house of Israel: Thus saith the Lord God: I do not this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for the name of My holiness, which ye have profaned among the nations, whither ye came. (36:20–22) We have underlined the recurring idea of coming among the nations. The seemingly unnecessary repetition is quite obviously a stylistic method of emphasis. It contains the point the prophet wishes to make. One senses it especially, since it is conceptually connected with the burden of Israel’s guilt—they are the people of God and they are gone forth out of God’s land. Now, to have been driven out from one’s land may be the result of guilt, but it is no guilt in itself. The continuous repetition of the idea that “they came among the nations, whither they came,” however, suggests that they came freely, voluntarily. They were, of course, exiles, but their conduct in the land of their exile was such that it gave occasion to the host nations to conclude that they “are gone forth from His land.” They had settled down as if they never meant to return, as if they were glad to have left the land. The emphasis here is on “His land.” They reject God’s land. But the land is God’s because it is the place wherein he makes manifest his nearness to Israel. Rejecting God’s land, they reject God’s nearness to his people, they separate themselves from God, who desires to dwell in their midst. Thus they profane the name of his holiness. That this is the issue at stake, one may gather from the change in the minds of the nations that is brought about as a result of God’s being jealous for the name of his holiness. In connection with that it is said: And the nations shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity, because they broke faith with Me, and I hid My face from them. (39:23) It is regarding this matter that the nations are originally mistaken. The behavior, the way of life, of the exiles causes them to believe that the people of Israel have rejected God. And so indeed they did. As God, however, takes pity on his name and restores his association with Israel, even though they do not deserve it, the nations learn to understand the true meaning of the exile of God’s people. God’s name becomes sanctified again, not through Israel but as a result of God’s intervention in the course of history. If, however, man’s separation from God and rejection of God’s nearness indicates man’s profanation of God’s holiness, then man’s clinging to God and living testimony to his nearness is a form of sanctifying the name of his holiness through human behavior. We believe that Isaiah speaks of such a form of sanctification in a passage which normally causes a great deal of difficulty to commentators. The verses are found in chapter 8. The translation from which we usually quote runs as follows: Say ye not: A conspiracy, concerning all whereof this people do say: A conspiracy; neither fear ye their fear, nor account it dreadful. The Lord of hosts, Him shall ye sanctify; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread. (vss. 12–13) This, of course, is an obscure passage. What conspiracy has the prophet in mind? Even more difficult is the parallelism in the text. According to it, to sanctify the Lord of hosts would be the counter balance to the demand not to acknowledge as a conspiracy everything that the people are willing to adjudge as such. What, however, could be the possible connection between these two concepts? As to our first problem, we prefer the R. V.’s rendering of the Hebrew Qesher, as confederacy. The reference in the preceding context to “Rezin and Remaliah’s son” shows that the prophet’s subject is the policy of alliances of the time. Qesher stands here for association, alliance. The people enter into alliances because they are afraid of Assyria. The prophet warns against such alliances. They are not to be relied upon; nor is the power to be feared whom they fear. Instead of relying on alliances, they should rely on God; instead of trembling before Assyria, they should fear God. Now, we have heard Isaiah declare often enough that Israel should rely on the Holy One of Israel. It was the “policy” recommended by him in place of the alliance with Egypt; the same policy is recommended here in a different constellation of power politics. God’s people should withdraw from participation in power politics and instead put its trust in God. However, such reliance on God alone is a sanctification of God. It is based on man’s conviction that God is to be relied upon, that he is the savior, that he is near, that he looks upon man with love and compassion; in other words, it is the affirmation that God is the Holy One. It is not affirmation by mere words; it is entrusting one’s life unto him in the face of an overwhelming enemy, at a moment of supreme crisis. Not to be afraid, because he who fears God need fear no man; not to rely on alliances with any earthly power, because he who is allied to God needs no other alliances; such complete trust that God is near and helps, all appearances to the contrary, is the highest form of sanctifying the name of God’s holiness. This is, indeed, how Jews understood the meaning of qiddush ha–shem, the Sanctification of the Name, through the ages. To give one’s life for the sake of God in loyalty to his command is the act of supreme trust and reliance on him. In the knowledge of His nearness, death itself is being conquered. In Ezekiel, God is sanctified through divine action, which reveals that God is near his people; in the passage we have just discussed, Isaiah speaks of God’s sanctification through human action, which testifies to man’s faith in the nearness of God. In our opinion, both these forms of sanctification are encountered in chapter 20 of Numbers in the closest proximity. According to the biblical narrative, Moses and Aaron failed at the waters of Meribah. The traditional Jewish interpretation is that their failure consisted in smiting the rock, which eventually yielded water, instead of talking to it, as they were told by God to do. Of their punishment for this transgression the Bible says: And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron: ‘Because ye believed not in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.’ These are the waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel strove with the Lord, and He was sanctified in them. (vss. 12–13) It is surprising to hear that Moses and Aaron were punished for not sanctifying God before the children of Israel, since the passage concludes with the words, “and He was sanctified in them.” We believe that the moment of great crisis in which the children of Israel found themselves in a waterless wilderness was an occasion for a two-fold sanctification of God: the one, in Ezekiel’s style, God sanctifying Himself and revealing through His saving act His compassion with the people; the other, in the manner of Isaiah, sanctifying God through complete trust and reliance on Him, Who is near to save. The first form of sanctification did take place; water was given to them and they were saved by the grace of God. Concerning this matter it is stated: “and He was sanctified in them.” The other form of sanctification was at the moment for the responsibility of Moses and Aaron. Had they quietly spoken to the rock to yield up its water, it would have been a more convincing demonstration of their unqualified reliance on God than was the angry smiting of the rock twice. They missed an opportunity to illustrate to the people the attitude of ultimate reliance on God at a time of crisis. It is of this that the Bible says: “Because ye believed not in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel.” God was sanctified through His own act of salvation; but did not sanctify Him by complete trust that His salvation was near because He was the Holy One. THE “HIDING OF THE FACE” It is hardly possible to pass over the fact that a number of prophets either do not mention the Holy One at all, or refer to Him only incidentally, whereas the term, the Lord of hosts, they use quite frequently. This in itself need not be too surprising. The material that has been preserved in the name of some of those prophets whom we have in mind is not very extensive. That there is no reference to the Holy One in the few chapters of Micah nor in the not much more voluminous books of Haggai and Malachi may be of no specific significance. The scanty references in Jeremiah are, of course, much more unexpected. We raise the point mainly because Jeremiah and Zechariah use the term, Lord of hosts, in a two-fold manner. They use it, as it is done by Isaiah, the Psalms, and in other books of the Bible, to indicate the remote mightiness of God, who executes judgment and punishment; but they also speak in the name of the Lord of hosts in order to announce hope and to promise salvation. We, however, would expect that hope and salvation should be prophesied in the name of the Holy One, a term almost completely absent from the writings of these two prophets. In numerous places, Jeremiah speaks in the name of the Lord of hosts as Isaiah would; but the prophecy, too, that once again “the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride” will be heard in Jerusalem, is associated with the Lord of hosts. Zechariah is conspicuous for the frequent mentioning of the Lord of hosts. But the great chapter of comfort begins with the words: “Thus saith the Lord of hosts.” In it we find, for instance, those precious words, faith in which has sustained Israel through its Exile: There shall yet old men and old women sit in the broad places of Jerusalem, every man with a staff in his hand for very age. And the broad places of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the broad places thereof. (8:4–5) But this prophecy too, as others of similar quality, is prefaced by the words: “Thus saith the Lord of hosts.” While this strange deviation from a pattern that we have found in other books of the Bible has no direct bearing on our analysis of the concept of the holy, we feel that it requires an explanation. The way they employ the term, the Lord of hosts, seems to indicate that with them the Lord of hosts absorbed the function of the Holy One. This is all the more surprising since both Jeremiah and Zechariah, when they do refer to the holy, do it in the manner we would expect. We have discussed earlier in our study Jeremiah’s mention of the term, m’on qodsho, habitation of his holiness, which bears out our interpretation. When Babylon’s punishment is prophesied, Jeremiah says: For she hath been arrogant against the Lord, against the Holy One of Israel. (50:29) The verse recalls a passage in Isaiah, which we had occasion to analyze. Similarly, it was said of the king of Assyria: Whom hast thou taunted and blasphemed? And against whom hast thou exalted thy voice? Yea, thou hast lifted up thine eyes on high, even against the Holy One of Israel. (Isa. 37:23) As we saw, Sennacherib “taunted and blasphemed” by declaring that it was foolish for Israel to rely on God for help and salvation. But it is exactly what the Holy One of Israel is to Israel, the One to rely upon. Thus Sennacherib has lifted up his eyes against the Holy One of Israel. Similarly does Jeremiah declare about Babylon that she was arrogant against the Holy One of Israel, believing that Israel was helpless and completely handed over into her grip. There was nothing for them to hope for. This, too, was blaspheming the Holy One of Israel. The Holy One of Israel occurs in one other place in Jeremiah, rather interestingly for our purpose, in closest proximity to the Lord of hosts. The theme is still the fall of Babylon. In that connection it is said: For Israel is not widowed, nor Judah, of his God, of the Lord of hosts … for their land is full of guilt—of the Holy One of Israel. (51:5) We have departed from the generally accepted translations. The grammatical form of the Hebrew, miq’dosh Yisrael, of the Holy One of Israel, is the exact parallel to, me-YHWH S’baoth, of the Lord of hosts, and to, me’Elohav, of his God. The phrase, “for their land is full of guilt,” is an insertion which refers to the reason why Babylon is being punished. This is well borne out by the entire context. The purpose of the insertion is to remind Israel that even though she is not widowed, what is done to Babylon is not done altogether for Israel’s sake. She herself may not deserve her deliverance. Nevertheless an important statement is made about the relationship between God and Israel. In spite of all appearances to the contrary, Israel is not forsaken by God, who is the Lord of hosts and the Holy One of Israel. Once again we are reminded of Isaiah. We are first of all reminded of the dual function of the Redeemer. In the case of Jeremiah He is the Lord of hosts who executes judgment over Babylon, “for their land is full of guilt”; and He is the Holy One of Israel and therefore Israel’s cause is not forgotten. In addition, the association between Israel’s status as a possible widow and the concepts of the Lord of hosts and the Holy One of Israel, recalls that specific passage in Isaiah, which we have discussed earlier, in which Israel is promised that the reproach of her widowhood she will remember no more, For Thy Maker is thy husband, the Lord of hosts is His name; and the Holy One of Israel is thy Redeemer, the God of the whole earth shall He be called. (Isa. 54:5) While Jeremiah applies the term, the holy, as expected, Zecharaiah employs it most originally in the two places in which it has been preserved for us. At this stage in our discussion we shall introduce only one of the passages. In that great chapter of comfort, to which we have already alluded once, we read the following: Thus saith the Lord: I return unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; and Jerusalem shall be called The city of Truth; and the mountain of the Lord of hosts the mountain of holiness. (8:3) According to this prophecy, the name of Zion will undergo a change. When God returns to Zion, the mountain of the Lord of hosts will be called the mountain of holiness. Why this change? The reason for it seems to be well supported by our analysis. Prior to God’s return to Zion, Israel experiences divine judgment; as if God had departed, withdrawn from the midst of his people. At such a stage of history Zion is not the visible manifestation of the Holy One of Israel. In her ruin, Zion is a witness to judgment and divine anger. It is the mountain of the Lord of hosts. But when God, through the act of Israel’s deliverance, returns to Zion, he reveals himself once again as the Holy One “in the midst of thee.” At that time, what was known as the mountain of the Lord of hosts will rightly be called again, the mountain of holiness, the manifestation of God’s nearness and indwelling in Israel. However, this passage in Zechariah may contain the clue for which we have been seeking in order to solve our present problem, i.e., the use of the term, Lord of hosts, as the remote Judge and as the near Redeemer. Jeremiah and Zechariah have something in common; both are witnesses to the judgment executed over Zion and her people. Their prophecies of redemption are made from a situation of either expected or fulfilled doom. The Holy One has severed his association with Israel. He treats them as the Lord of hosts. It is as such that he deals with them at this stage of their history. We recall how at a time of a similar personal experience Hannah turned in prayer to the Lord of hosts and only after her prayer was granted, did she in her joy address God as the Holy One. There are at least two psalms which affirm the thought that at a time of estrangement and separation from God, one addresses oneself to the Lord of hosts. The one is an intercession on behalf of Israel as a whole. In Psalm 80 we read: O Lord God of hosts, how long wilt Thou be angry against the prayer of Thy people? Thou hast fed them with the bread of tears, and given them tears to drink in large measure. … O God of hosts, restore us; and cause Thy face to shine and we shall be saved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O God of hosts, return, we beseech Thee; look from heaven and behold and be mindful of this vine, and the stock which Thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that Thou madest strong for Thyself. It is burned with fire, it is cut down; they perish at the rebuke of Thy countenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O Lord God of hosts, restore us; cause Thy face to shine and we shall be saved. (vss. 5, 8, 15–17, 20) The mood is very similar to the one we find in Hannah’s first prayer, only it arises from a national experience of being forsaken by God. God has punished Israel and they plead that the punishment be taken from them; God has left Israel and they pray that he may return. Significantly, the appellation is to the Lord, or God, of hosts. We know, however, that God, when he “returns” and saves is the Holy One. Thus, the deeper meaning of the prayer is that God, who deals with them at the present as the Lord of hosts, may make himself known again as the Holy One. The idea breaks through rather intensely in the refrain that God may cause his face to shine so that they may be saved. The moment is then one of “the hiding of the face”; and the shining of the face is identical with being saved. But we know from Ezekiel that the “profanation” of the name of holiness by God is his withdrawal from Israel; and the hour is that of the “hiding of the face.” Correspondingly, God’s return in his people, the revelation of his holiness, is the hour in which he causes his face to shine. For in the context of the passage in which we have heard God declare that he will be “jealous” for the name of his holiness, we read: Neither will I hide My face anymore from them; for I have poured out My spirit Upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord God. (39:29) When God makes manifest his holiness, his “face shines” on man; but at the time of the “hiding of the face” one can turn only to the Lord of hosts. The other psalm which we have in mind, begins rather surprisingly: How lovely are Thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts. (84:2) The opening phrase sounds as if it were spoken by a man at ease, who enjoys the nearness of God. However, anyone who might think so is soon disabused, for the psalmist continues: My soul yearneth, yea, even pineth for the courts of the Lord. This is an indication that the psalm was composed by someone who was banished or, against his will, separated from “the courts of the Lord.” In his yearning love for the sanctuary of God, he was recalling in memory the loveliness of God’s tabernacles. The reference to the sparrow that “hath found a house and the swallow a nest for herself” suggests that the individual experience at the root of the psalm is exile and homelessness. Thus the psalmist pleads from the heart of his experience of separation: O Lord of hosts, hear my prayer; give ear, O God of Jacob. Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of Thine anointed. For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand: I had rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God than to dwell in the tents of wickedness. Clearly, these are still the words of one whose “soul yearneth” for the threshold of God’s house and who is yet condemned to dwell in the tents of wickedness. The phrase, “look upon the face of Thine anointed,” reminds one of “cause Thy face to shine and we shall be saved” of Psalm 80. The experience is similar: as if God’s face were turned away, as if he did not see, did not consider. Thus, as expected, the intercessions in the psalm are addressed to the Lord of hosts. Nevertheless, the mood of this psalm is rather different from that in the prayer of Hannah or in the plea on behalf of Israel in Psalm 80. The tone of agony, almost despair, is absent here. This psalmist, too, pleads with God in a moment of the hiding of the face; yet, even though it is the Lord of hosts whom he approaches, he does so in a spirit of confidence and reliance on God. The psalm comes to a hopeful conclusion with the words: O Lord of hosts, happy is the man that trusteth in Thee. This is, indeed, the authentic strength of faith. It is rather easy to trust in the Holy One of Israel. For this means to trust in God who is near, who makes himself known as the Redeemer, who does cause his face to shine. The test of faith comes in “the hour of the hiding of the face” when God is known as the Lord of hosts, when he comes as a judge to execute justice. When notwithstanding such experiences, a man can turn to Him in quiet confidence and speak: “O Lord of hosts, happy is the man that trusteth in Thee,” he has lived by his faith. Even when God treats him as the Lord of hosts, the man of faith trusts in Him, even in the Lord of hosts. For is not holy, holy, holy the Lord of hosts! Even though He may hide His face, He is the same One, who is also the Holy One, no matter what His momentary specific manifestation may be. From these considerations, we may derive two points. We have seen that in times of “the hiding of the face” one turns to the Lord of hosts. It is the essence of the moment that the closeness to God has been shattered, the contact has been lost. Yet, in spite of it all, it is the Lord of hosts that now becomes the source of hope. For God is God. This may explain why, beginning with Jeremiah, the term, the Holy One, hardly occurs in the prophetic writings. Most of the prophets of the post-exilic period do not mention the concept of the Holy One at all. With Jeremiah, begins the gloom of “the hiding of the face.” More and more God makes himself manifest as the Lord of hosts. Whatever hopes of future redemption are held out to this people, it is done against the background of divine judgment and active wrath. It is the hour of the Lord of hosts; it is to Him that they must turn for their redemption. It is noteworthy that all the prophecies of comfort found either in Jeremiah or Zechariah contain within themselves a very natural reference to the prevailing situation of ruin and desolation. We shall list only a few from among them. There is, for instance, the passage in Jeremiah, where although the Lord of hosts is not mentioned, yet the promise of redemption is made against the present experience of “the hiding of the face.” For thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning the houses of this city and concerning the houses of the kings of Judah, which are broken down for mounds, and for ramparts; whereon they come to fight with the Chaldeans, even to fill them with the dead bodies of men, whom I have slain in Mine anger and in My fury, and for all whose wickedness I have hid My face from this city: Behold I will bring it healing and cure, and I will cure them; and I will reveal unto them the abundance of peace and truth. (33:4–6) Not even the promise of cure and healing and abundance of peace can be made in the name of the Holy One in the sight of the rubble of the houses turned into mounds and ramparts and covered with the bodies of the dead. Similarly, in the same chapter, when the prophecy is made that “this place” will once again become “a habitation of shepherds causing their flocks to lie down,” the present condition of “this place” cannot be overlooked, “which is waste, without man and without beast.” The prophecy is proclaimed in the name of the Lord of hosts. The same reference to the present moment of “the hiding of the face” we also find in all the prophecies of salvation by Zechariah. For example: For thus saith the Lord of hosts, who sent me … unto the nations which spoiled you: ‘Surely, he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. For, behold, I will shake my hand over them, and they shall be a spoil to those that served them’; and Ye shall know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me. (2:12) They are still among the nations and are being spoiled. Even though God will shake his hand over the nations, so that they in turn will become a spoil to their former servants, at the moment they are still serving the nations. Therefore, even the prophecy of hope is introduced with, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, and concluded similarly. The very promise of future redemption implies the present condition of rejection. Most revealing, however, is the conclusion of chapter 2 in Zechariah. The passage opens with the well-known words: Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord. The verse reminds us of the one in Isaiah: “Cry aloud and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion; for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee.” (12:6). Zechariah, however, does not mention the Holy One of Israel, whereas Isaiah does. In our opinion, the difference between them is that whereas Isaiah can declare, “for great is … in the midst of thee,” Zechariah may only announce, “for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee.” God who is in the midst of thee is the Holy One of Israel; but as long as he is on the way to dwell in the midst of thee, he is not yet in the midst of thee, he is not yet revealed as the Holy One. The promise that God will dwell in the midst of Zion is repeated in the next verse in Zechariah, upon which follows the conclusion: “and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto thee.” The prophet who brings the good tidings is of course sent before the fulfilment of the promise. He is sent by God at a moment when God has not yet returned to Zion; he is sent by the Lord of hosts. But then follows the most illuminating part of the prophecy: And the Lord shall inherit Judah as His portion in the land of holiness and shall choose Jerusalem again. Be silent, all flesh, before the Lord; for He is aroused out of the habitation of His holiness. While the Holy One is still not mentioned, the concept of the holy occurs twice. The land in which Judah is once again taken to be God’s portion is the land of divine holiness, as the place which makes manifest again God’s association with Israel through Israel’s redemption. More significant, however, is the phrase: “for He is aroused out of the habitation of His holiness.” We have shown above that m’on qodsho, habitation of holiness, indicates God responding to man with the quality of His holiness. During Israel’s exile God is silent; God does not respond, he is as if removed and apart. Yet, even when his manifestations are those of the Lord of hosts, he is yet holy. His attribute of holiness is not activated, as if it were at rest, “asleep.” But when the hour of redemption approaches, one witnesses in silent awe how God is “aroused” out of the habitation of his holiness to come and dwell in the midst of Zion. THE HOLY AND THE MYSTERIUM TREMENDUM We have shown that the biblical concept of the holy, far from being one with the mysterium tremendum, indicates its very opposite, i.e., the attribute by which God relates himself to the world as the source of human salvation, as the one who is near, notwithstanding his Wholly-otherness. God, of course, is the Wholly Other and as such the mysterium tremendum is rightly associated with him, but through his attribute of holiness he covers up, as it were, the mysterium, in order to be near his creation and to make himself accessible for man. It is through holiness that the remote moves close, that the transcendent becomes immanent. There are, however, a number of passages in the Bible, which do seem to associate the holy with the fear and danger associated with the mysterium tremendum. Before we enter into a deeper analysis of these passages, we may state in general that they all have one thing in common: the holiness, which seems to be the source of the trembling and the peril, is not directly associated with God, but with some object or place which is considered holy as being, somehow, related to God. In the first revelation that was granted to Moses at the beginning of his mission, he was told not to approach and to take off his shoes because the ground on which he stood was one of holiness. Nadab and Abihu, who died when they offered strange fire before God, came near the sanctuary, a place sanctified. The danger for the Kehathites emanated from the holy vessels should they touch them or see them without their covers. Uzza was slain because he touched the ark. When King Uzziah, even though not a priest of God, burnt incense in the sanctuary, leprosy broke out on his forehead, because he desecrated the sanctuary. In all these cases, the danger is not due to closeness with God, but to contact with sanctified objects or places. In view of the consistently spiritual meaning of the term of the holy as a divine attribute, it is difficult to accept the theory that in these passages we have remnants of the primitive concept of holiness as avanda, the almost demonic divine mightiness which spells danger for everyone who comes near it. Nor is it likely that, if such primitive ideas should indeed have been retained, that they should uniformly be applied to holy objects and places, but never to God himself. There is one important distinction between the primitive avanda or mana and the peril that threatens in the Bible from the holy. Avanda works automatically, blindly, with the power of a natural force. Some authors refer to it as divine electricity. The danger in the Bible is due to some improper action. It is not the approach that is dangerous, but the wrong approach. Moses does stand on holy ground; he is ordered to take off his shoes. The sons of Aaron are obviously punished for offering “a strange fire” which they were not commanded to do. Uzzah did not die of touching the ark, as if he had been in contact with a high-power wire. He was killed because he touched the ark, which he was not permitted to do. “God smote him for his error.” Neither was the leprosy of Uzziah caused by some automatically effective mana. It was punishment for transgression. This may explain why the Bible associates the peril only with holy things. Holy objects or places are holy either because they are dedicated to God or because God uses them for the manifestation of his holiness. In either case they are set apart for God; they do symbolize God’s nearness, his indwelling. Through their sanctification, they become indeed what they symbolize. Because of that they have to be treated with awe and respect. There are, therefore, ritualistic rules regulating the reverent approach to them. He who violates these rules, acts with disrespect, or even abuse, toward the One whose nearness they symbolize. It is in this way that the passage in Numbers, too, which we have quoted, must be understood. In the light of the other passages, which we have discussed, it should be understood that not to touch the holy vessels and not to look at them without their being covered is the law of approach for the Kehathites. As with Uzzah, it is not the touching or the seeing that spells disaster, but the breaking of an explicit law, which in this case is equal to sacrilege. So it happened to the men of Beth Shemesh, who gazed upon the ark of God. They did not die of gazing at the ark; but because they gazed, as they were not permitted to do as a sign of reverence, they were punished by God. The connection between God’s nearness and the peril of the improper approach to his holy places is dramatically illustrated by what is said by Moses to Aaron concerning the death of Nadab and Abihu. Explaining the significance of the event to Aaron, Moses says: This is it that the Lord spoke, saying: Through them that are nigh unto Me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified. God is sanctified, whenever his quality of holiness is made manifest. This may be done by God Himself, who—as we saw in Ezekiel—may sanctify the name of His holiness by accepting Israel again and redeeming them from among the nations. It may be done by man, as Israel was enjoined by Isaiah “to sanctify Him” by relying on God unquestioningly, because He is near. And now we hear of a third form of sanctification: punishment for improper approach to the sanctuary. It is sanctification because this, too, reveals that God dwells in the midst of his people. The holy place is the visible and tangible symbol of the nearness of God. Because God is indeed near, the symbols are true and testify to God’s indwelling, to his holiness. Only because they are such true symbols, does one have to treat them with awe and can one offend against God by approaching them contrary to the prescribed form of service. When then men are punished for improper approach, God’s holiness is affirmed; He is sanctified. Most significant, however, is the phrase; “Through them that are nigh unto Me I will be sanctified.” It relates sanctification to nearness. The further removed God is, the less the likelihood that man may approach Him without due respect. The Infinite cannot be approached at all. Only because He is near, can one violate the boundaries set by awe and respect. The nearer one is to Him, the greater the risk of trespassing the set boundaries. Only a priest, who is engaged in the temple service, will make the mistake of offering “a strange fire.” The nearer the person, the greater the risk that he may become too “familiar” with the tangible accoutrements that symbolize divine holiness. Thus it is through those who are nearest to Him that God will be sanctified. We are now in a better position to appreciate those last words Joshua addressed to the people before his death: Ye cannot serve the Lord, for He is a holy God; He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. If ye forsake the Lord, and serve strange gods, then He will turn and do you evil, and consume you, after that He hath done you good. (24:19) Is this an indication that God’s holiness excites fear and trembling? We do not think so. Human transgressions are to be feared, the forsaking of God by man. There is of course a connection between God’s holiness and human transgressions. Only God, who is close to man and considers man, can be forsaken by man. Were He not holy, He could not be forsaken. Only because He is holy and considers man does He consider human transgressions too. Only because He is holy and turns toward man with His providential care does it matter to him how man lives. Only because He is a holy God is He also a jealous God. The Infinite, the transcendental Wholly Other, cannot be approached by man either rightly or wrongly; it can neither be forsaken by man nor can it be jealous for man. Only the Holy One knows man; only because God knows man is man a responsible being, a being responsible to God. Because God is holy, man is graced by responsibility. In responsibility lies man’s risk as well as his chance. For He is a holy God and, being a holy God, He is a jealous God. The ritualistic rules regarding the treatment of sanctified places and objects also have their spiritual counterpart. We find it in Psalm 24. Who shall ascend into the mountain of the Lord: And who shall stand in the place of His holiness? He that hath clean hands and a pure heart. Who hath not taken My name in vain and hath not sworn deceitfully. (24:3–4) Because God is near, man may ascend to the place of His holiness. Because he may ascend, he should ascend. Since he should ascend, let him know how to ascend. Let him accept His nearness by drawing nigh. Let him sanctify Him, who by revealing His will and His law for man, sanctified man. HOLY AS ADJECTIVE AND AS NOUN In this study, we have been rather insistent on translating such terms as z’ro’a qodsho or shem qodsho not as they normally are rendered as “his holy arm” or “his holy name” respectively, but as “the arm of his holiness” or as “the name of his holiness.” The adjective, holy, is qadosh; in these and similar terms, however, we have the noun, qodesh in a construct with a possessive suffix, meaning “his holiness.” It is not for the sake of pedantry that we prefer our rather cumbersome English to the simpler rendering of the word as an adjective. The adjectival form is confusing and often misleading; it very often obscures and distorts the Hebrew concept. For example, “his holy arm” was interpreted as being holy because it is God’s. This, and similar terms, give rise to the idea that holy meant either belonging to God or being of God. And since no one gives an arm to God, and one cannot speak of ritual sanctification of the divine arm, the conclusion was drawn that to be holy meant to be of God, to be God. It was only a very short step from here to the misleading thought that holy was an “otiose epithet,” identical with the nature of God. The exact Hebrew rendering could never have given rise to such misinterpretations. We believe that one has to distinguish carefully between holy as adjective and holy as noun, as it occurs often in the construct. Holy is that which has been sanctified either ritually or spiritually. For instance, a holy place (Exod. 29:31), a holy people (Deut. 7:6), a holy camp (ibid. 23:15), a holy man (II Kings 4:9), Aaron, God’s holy one (Pss. 106:16), a holy congregation (Num. 16:3), etc. These things or persons are holy, because they have been made holy in one way or another. However, the makom qadosh, the holy place, where the “ram of consecration” was prepared is not to be confused with the Admat qodesh, on which Moses stood, when God appeared to him in Midian. The first one is a holy place, dedicated as such to the divine service of the tabernacle. The ground on which Moses stood was not dedicated or consecrated in this sense at all. Nor does the text refer to it as adama q’dosha, holy ground. It was ground like any other ground. It possessed only the momentary distinction that God made his presence known to Moses there. God revealed him His nearness, His concern for Israel. At that spot, he revealed himself as the Holy One. This is what the Bible calls not holy ground, but ground of holiness, i.e., ground associated with God’s revelation of his holiness. Its distinction lasts as long as the revelation lasts. Similarly, “his holy arm” should be z’ro’o ha–q’dosha, which is meaningless. The Hebrew has z’ro’a qodsho, which must be rendered as, “the arm of his holiness”; referring to the power that God employs in order to execute the plans prompted by his attribute of holiness. “His holy name” would be a name reserved for God alone. But the name of God, as we have shown stands in the Bible for the actions by which God makes himself known in the world. “His holy name” would mean, “his holy manifestation,” and we are back again to the spurious interpretation, according to which everything that appertains to God is holy, because holiness is identical with divine nature. But the Bible does not speak of “his holy name,” but of “the name of his holiness,” which is a specific type of divine manifestation, i.e., that of his holiness. Neither is sh’me qodsho (Pss. 20:7), his “holy heavens,” but “the heaven of his holiness,” whence—as we saw—he reveals his holiness by answering the prayers of those who call him. Kise qodsho (ibid. 47:9) is not his holy Throne, but “The Throne of his holiness,” implying that God who rules and judges like a king, yet dispenses s’daqah because of his quality of holiness. Zion is called, har ha–qodesh, (Joel 4:17; Zech. 8:3) “the mountain of holiness,” the mountain on which God, through his sanctuary, reveals that he is the Holy One who dwells in the midst of Zion. In the same sense does Isaiah speak of “cities of Thy holiness,” emphasizing the aspect of their distinction due to God’s manifesting his holiness in them or through them. In Deuteronomy (7:6), where the emphasis is that God has chosen Israel to be a nation unto him, they are called, am qadosh, “a holy nation”; holy because God sanctified them. But when Isaiah proclaims the approach of God’s salvation, the time when Zion will be “sought out” and “not forsaken,” he says of the people in Zion that they will be called, am ha–qodesh; which does not mean, “a holy nation,” but, “a nation of holiness.” What Isaiah declares is not the sanctification of Israel through God, but the redeeming acts of God on behalf of Israel. God reveals his holiness by what he does as the Redeemer of Israel. That road, on which God’s redeemed ones will return with singing to Zion is not a derekh ha–qadosh, a holy road, but derekh ha–qodesh, a road of holiness. It is the road of return, of salvation and help, along which God makes potent his quality of holiness. Nor do we find anywhere in the Bible the expression ruah ha–q’dosha, “holy spirit”; but either ruah qodsho, spirit of his holiness, or ruah qodsh’kha, spirit of Thy holiness. It will be interesting to take a good look at the three passages in the Bible where the term occurs. Two of them are found in the same context in chapter 63 of Isaiah. We read there: In His love and in His pity He redeemed them; and He bore them and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled and grieved the spirit of His holiness; Therefore He was turned to be their enemy, Himself fought against them. (vss. 9–10) It is said most appropriately that it was the spirit of God’s holiness that was grieved by their rebellion, for it is the continuation of the thought that God redeemed them in His love and in His pity and cared for them “all the days of old.” We have found in numerous places that God’s redeeming love and caring pity is the activity of his holiness. When they rebelled they offended the spirit of divine holiness that redeemed them and protected them. And Isaiah continues: Then His people remembered the days of old, the days of Moses: Where is He that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of His flock? Where is He that put the spirit of His holiness in the midst of them? That caused the arm of His glory to go at the right hand of Moses? That divided the water before them … that led them through the deep … the spirit of the Lord caused them to rest; so didst Thou lead Thy people. The entire context shows that the spirit of His holiness is the power with which God led them across the waters of the Sea of Reeds, guiding them and saving them. This is, as we know, the work of the Holy One. “He put the spirit of His holiness in the midst of them” means that God as the Holy One was helping them. The passage reminds one very much of the verses in Psalm 77, which we analyzed above. There too, the psalmist describes the miracle of the crossing of the sea, as God “led His people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.” The striking similarity of construction we see in the following. The psalmist begins his meditation by mentioning God’s way in holiness. What is meant by it becomes clarified in the development of the theme, but especially at the point where the term “Thy way” is taken up again in the sentence: Thy way was in the sea, and Thy path in the great waters, and Thy footsteps were not known. Thou didst lead Thy people like a flock. We have found that reintroducing the idea of God’s way, the concept of God’s way in holiness is defined. Isaiah, too, describing the same event in Israel’s history in very similar terms, mentions first “the spirit of His holiness in the midst of them” and, after elaborating the idea further, reintroduces the spirit of God in the words: “The spirit of the Lord caused them to rest; so didst Thou lead Thy people.” This, then, is “the spirit of His holiness in the midst of them”—the spirit of God that leads them and brings them to rest and lets them find peace. It is the power of love and compassion through whose activity God reveals his holiness. Exactly the same is also the meaning of ruah ha–qodesh, spirit of holiness, in the third passage, where it occurs in the Bible. Its place is in psalm 51. We find there: Cast me not away from Thy presence; and take not the spirit of Thy holiness from me. Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation; and let a willing spirit uphold me. (vss. 13–14) To be cast away from the presence of God is to be separated from him. It is the dissolution of the bonds with the Holy One. The restoration of the joy of God’s salvation is a plea that God may act as the Holy One. It is most fitting in this context to pray that the spirit of God’s holiness be not taken from man, that the power of divine holiness may sustain man, that he may stay in the presence and be upheld by God’s salvation. Concluding Notes A Bible scholar of my acquaintance has insisted that shem qodsho is “his holy name” (and similarly in the other cases in which I limit the suffix to the second noun in the construct). His reference to Gesenius-Kautzsch, 135n., is certainly very much to the point. However, we do not mean that, “his holy name” is incorrect, but inexact and therefore confusing. While, normally, it is sufficient to render in translation the pronominal suffix of the second noun of the construct as referring to the entire phrase, Gesenius-Kautzsch fails to prove their point that that is indeed the exact meaning of the Hebrew usage. The example, elile khaspo, may well mean, the gods of his silver, i.e., gods made out of his silver. As such it would contain the sarcastic allusion, not unfamiliar in the Bible, to the fact that man makes himself gods from what he owns and controls. For all practical purposes, khle milhamto may well be rendered, his weapons of war. May it nevertheless not be the case that the Bible preferred to speak of the weapons of his war, since the ownership of the weapons as such is irrelevant? Similarly in Ezekiel 9:1, khle mashhito, the ownership of the instrument of destruction is irrelevant; the men were charged with the task of destruction, each to his destroying task. Again no harm is done if one translates beth t’fillati as “my house of prayer”; the emphasis in Hebrew, however, is on “my prayer.” Beth t’fillati is the house where prayers are offered to God; it is God’s house because of “my prayer.” The literal rendering as “the house of my prayer” may reflect the spirit of the Hebrew concept more exactly. The distinction in meaning between the rendering in translation and the exact Hebrew construction is well illustrated by sa’ade ono. Gesenius misses here the point by translating “his strong strides.” Even an average person may walk with strong strides. The “strides of his strength” conveys a rather different picture from the rather colorless “his strong strides.” Again, the rendering of alize ga’avathi, following Gesenius, as “my proudly exulting ones” is a considerable weakening of the forcefulness of the Hebrew original. The term ga’avathi is paralleled by m’qudashai and gibborai. Those called by God are not the proudly exulting ones. But the exulting ones that are called are God’s pride, representing His might as do His gibborim. In the case of all the other examples to which Gesenius-Kautzsch make reference, it is possible to show that by limiting the pronominal suffix to the second noun of the construct, the meaning of the concept becomes enriched, whereas its application to the entire phrase impoverishes both style and meaning. Be that as it may, it is certainly permissible to refer the pronominal suffix only to the second noun, especially where to do so makes good sense. In fact, there are sufficient examples in the Bible to show that in certain cases no other reference is possible, Cf., for example, Isaiah 41:11; Psalms 41:10, etc. Christian Bible scholars seem to agree among themselves that the original meaning of the term, holy, is hardly recoverable now. On the whole they are inclined to follow von Baudissin’s interpretation that the word, qadosh, probably signifies separation and withdrawal. (W. E. H. E. von Baudissin, Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im Neuen Testament, in Studien zur Semitischen Religionsgeschichte [Leipzig, 1878], II, 20). However, notwithstanding the etymological difficulty of establishing the original meaning of the word, certain concepts are associated with the meaning of the idea of the holy. It would appear that A. B. Davidson in his Ezekiel commentary (Ezekiel, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges [Cambridge, 1893]) has succeeded in interpreting the idea in a manner that was accepted by many scholars after him. According to him, “holy” does not express any definite attribute of the deity. It is a rather general notion of what is meant by the godhead. The holy God is the same as God. He is holy because he is God. Holy is a mere “otiose epithet” for God. Because of that the word may be used rather elastically, depending on what we mean by God. Whatever our idea of the godhead may be, it is the contents of God’s holiness. If one’s idea of the deity is that of some mysterious power before whom one must tremble, then the holy God means the fearsome and frightening super-human being. If, on the other hand, one’s concept of God comprises His righteousness and love, then the idea of the holy will be identical with divine righteousness and love (op. cit., Introduction, pp. xxxix–xl and p.279). This interpretation has been taken over completely by W. Robertson Smith (The Prophets of Israel [London, 1902]). Its force [of the word, holy] lay in its very vagueness, for it included every distinctive character of godhead, and every advance in the true knowledge of God made its significance more profound; thus the doctrine of YHVH’s holiness is simply the doctrine of his true godhead. (pp. 225–26) According to Robertson Smith’s insight, in the Hebrew Bible God alone is holy, because He alone is the true God. Robinson follows in the same tradition, as he reaches the conclusion that the essential fact to be remembered about man’s approach to God is the gradual transformation of man’s ideas about God. In his opinion, only with the eighth-century prophets of Israel does holiness become associated with morality, because only then were the moral ideas of God’s righteousness and love fully comprehended. At this stage, holiness stands for the transcendent majesty of God. The original, primitive concept of holiness as separation and inaccessibility of the godhead because of the mysterious dangers connected with the approach becomes now the transcendent holiness of God which becomes manifest in divine righteousness and grace (The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament, pp. 69–70, 153–54). The idea of transcendence as the meaning of holiness is, of course, closely connected with the concept of the Wholly Other that is the subject of Rudolph Otto’s famous investigation (Das Heilige [München, 1947]). For him the holy is the numinous, the mysterious, the unknown power to which man responds with fear and trembling. There are of course levels of development in the religious experience of the human race. Abraham’s reaction is the classical biblical example of the numinous experience. Standing before God, Abraham sees himself as the creature in his “absolute profanity,” as “dust and ashes.” Sensing God as the Wholly Other, one becomes aware of the unbridgeable gulf between creature and creator. In one’s creaturely worthlessness one experiences God as “absolutely inaccessible,” the mysterium tremendum. However, the holy has an ambivalent quality. While as the mysterium tremendum it is inaccessible, it is also the fascinans that fascinates and attracts. One desires the inaccessible and unapproachable (Das Heilige, pp. 21, 62–65). Otto maintains that in the Hebrew Bible the divine “anger,” “wrath,” “zeal,” “the consuming fire,” are terms related to that of holiness (ibid., p. 91). It is quite understandable that on the basis of his interpretation, he should declare that the holy in itself is indifferent toward the ethical and that it may be considered independently of it. In the history of religious development the holy has to be “moralized.” In its essential nature, it represents the irrational element in religion. Through its moralization, the holy incorporates the rationality of ethical principles and ideals (ibid., pp. 9, 158). Eventually, the holy does become accessible. This, however, is not to be taken for granted. On the contrary, it is altogether due to the incomprehensible grace of God (ibid., p. 68). These various aspects of the holy are neatly united into one pattern by a more recent author. Snaith, in The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, follows in the footsteps of all his predecessors. He accepts Otto’s interpretation that the holy is identical with the concept of the Wholly Other, the mysterium tremendum. He also agrees with Davidson that the holy is a mere “otiose epithet” of the deity. “Whatever that Other was realized to be that was Holiness. ‘Qodesh’ never meant anything else among the Hebrews. It meant precisely that which at any period was recognized to be the inner Nature of the Deity” (ibid., pp. 51–53). He accepts the idea of the “moralizing” of the concept. As with Robinson, with him too, it was brought about by the eighth-century prophets. Since their conception of the Deity “was without parallel,” the idea of the holy became associated with righteousness. For Snaith, too, this association with righteousness gives us the concept of “transcendent Holiness.” Since holiness for him is identical with divine nature, we assume that by transcendent holiness he means the transcendent quality of divine righteousness. It is still holiness as the “otiose epithet,” the meaning being: God is God and not man; and God, who is God, is righteous. Theologians normally understand by the holiness of God his absolute transcendence in the metaphysical sense of the word. Thus Paul Tillich, for instance, declares: “The unapproachable character of God, or the impossibility of having a relation with him in the proper sense of the word, is expressed in the word ‘holiness.’ God is essentially holy, and every relation with him involves the consciousness that it is paradoxical to be related to that which is holy” (Systematic Theology, [Chicago, 1961], I, 271–72). According to Tillich, the idea of the holy expresses the ontological discrepancy between the finite and the infinite, between the absolute and the contingent. The holy is a quality that belongs only to God, the ground of all being. In the light of the preceding interpretations of the term, we might say that to theological-historical research “holy” means the nature of the godhead as that nature is understood at each phase in the history of religion. For the psychological investigator, “holy” expresses the impact made on the human mind by the Wholly Other in its mysterious inaccessibility and otherness. For the theologic-philosophical understanding, the concept of the holy is identical with that of absolute divine transcendence. In Jewish tradition, the word Qadosh is taken to mean separateness. The idea is adopted by the classical commentators of the Bible. The interpretation seems to have its source in a midrashic explanation of the biblical injunction, “Ye shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev. 19:2). The observation is made: “As I am holy, so shall ye be holy; as I am separate, so shall ye be separate” (Torat Kohanim, ch. 11, par. 168 and 170; see also ch. 20, par. 128. Arabic commentators of the Koran also seem to understand the term, holy, as being separate.) In the sense of separateness, Qadosh applies to both, to God and to man. With God it is transcendence beyond everything created. This is how the term is understood, for example, by Nachmanides (Nachmanides Commentary on Leviticus, 19, 2). Applied to man, it is the demand for self-control, separating oneself from certain forms of conduct which are contrary to—or not in keeping with—the will of God. Y’huda Hallevi, explaining the significance of the word, holy, in relationship to God, writes: Holy expresses the notion that He is high above any attribute of created beings…. For this reason Isaiah heard an endless: ‘Holy, Holy, Holy,’ which meant that God is too high, too exalted, too holy, and too pure for any impurity of the people in whose midst His light dwells to touch Him. For the same reason Isaiah saw him sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up. Holy is, further, a description of the spiritual which never assumes a corporeal form, and which nothing concrete can possibly resemble. (Kuzari, Part IV, 3., trans. Hartwig Hirschfeld) Holy, according to Hallevi, apparently means the same as, unlike anything created, transcendent, divine. It is the essence of the separateness of God. Surveying the various types of interpretation, we remain unconvinced. The idea that “holy” is identical with the nature of the godhead, in whichever way that may be understood, is the least convincing. Quite obviously the word Qadosh in the Bible is not an “otiose epithet.” “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of Hosts” does not mean, Godly, Godly, Godly is God. The only proof Davidson offers for his contention—a proof which is repeated by Snaith—are two verses in Amos (4:2 and 6:8). In the one, God swears by His holiness; in the other, by Himself. Davidson remarks that He does so in both cases “without difference of meaning” (op. cit., Introduction, p. xxxix). This is a dictum, but no proof. He is begging the question. If “holy” means what he says it does, then there is no difference of meaning between the two passages. On the other hand, if “holy” should have a specific meaning of its own, there may well be a difference in meaning between the two passages in Amos. That God swears in each case need not mean that that by which he swears is the same in each case. As to the theory of Otto that the holy is the mysterium tremendum, one should note that, as far as the Hebrew Bible is concerned, he does not quote a single passage to sustain his interpretation. He quotes the expression, “Eymat YHVH,” the terror of God, from Exodus (23:27) and from Job (9:34; 13:11). However, neither in these passages is mention made of God’s holiness. Needless to say that we know of the concepts of God’s terror, wrath, and anger from the Hebrew Bible; and Otto is justified in saying that they are the character of the numinous. However, in none of the passages he quotes, are those terms associated with the attribute of holiness. When Jacob awakes from his sleep at Beth El, he is afraid and does exclaim: “How full of awe is this place! this is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven” (Gen. 28:17). The passage might justify the association of fear and awe with the numinous, but Otto should not use it—as he does—to connect the holy with fear and awe. The term, holy, does not occur in that context. There is one more passage which he quotes to prove his point. It is God’s address to Moses from the burning bush: “Draw not nigh hither; put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground” (Exod. 3:5). The word, holy, is mentioned in this sentence. Strangely enough, it is not said here that God is holy, but the ground on which Moses stands. There are many biblical verses in which holiness is attributed to God himself. The most significant aspect of Otto’s study of the idea of the holy is his complete neglect of all the numerous passages which mention the holiness of God. In view of the rich biblical material on divine holiness, one cannot hope to define the idea either by relying on a few passages that speak of the mysterium tremendum but not of holiness or by the one solitary passage quoted which does mention holiness but not in relationship to God. A remarkable failing in Otto’s study is that it does not at all define divine holiness, but presents us with the description of human reaction to the Wholly Other. The numinous, the mysterium tremendum, do not exist objectively. They result from a certain form of human reaction to a certain type of human experience. The holy emerges from Otto’s study as a subjective quality of a state of mind which is characteristic of man when he is confronted with the non-human or super-human. Otto’s distinction between the fascinans and the augustum—see op. cit., pp. 64–65—cannot overcome this criticism. The augustum too is the outcome of a purely subjective evaluation of the Unknown. Tillich, in his Systematic Theology (I, 216), insists that Otto’s analysis is phenomenological and not psychological. If so, it is the phenomenological analysis of a certain state of mind, but not that of the holiness of God. The theological view of the holy as the absolutely transcendent is not very convincing either. The classical passage in Isaiah runs: “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.” Surely, rather than speaking of divine transcendence, the words seem to suggest God’s immanence in the world by means of his “glory.” The phrase, the Holy One of Israel, so often found in Isaiah, as well as in other books of the Bible, does not indicate inaccessibility either. On the contrary, it would seem to suggest an extremely close relationship between the Holy One and Israel. The greatest difficulty that renders the transcendence theory hardly acceptable we find in the fact that the term holy does not apply to God alone. It is useless to maintain in this connection, as some scholars have done, that it applies also to people and objects in a secondary sense, as that which belongs to the holy, which is the Godhead alone (cf. Davidson, op. cit., Introduction; repeated also by Snaith, op. cit., pp. 43–44). We are not thinking here of the merely ritualistic usage of the word. Holiness is an obligation upon all Israel to be a holy people. Surely, the injunction: “Ye shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy,” does not speak of ritualistic belonging to the sphere of the holy, but of holiness as a form of human existence. If holiness is a concept which can be ascribed to the deity alone, if it stands for divine transcendence and inaccessibility, to enjoin man to be holy “for I the Lord your God am holy” does not seem to make good sense. The difficulty is not quite as pronounced, if we follow the traditional Jewish interpretation that “holy” means separate. One can perhaps ask man to separate himself from certain practices, for he should imitate God, who too is separate. Perhaps! We find it difficult to accept. God’s separateness is his transcendence. To say to man, transcend yourself for I the Lord your God am transcendent, carries very little convincing logic within itself. It would be almost more logical to say to a mere human being: don’t even attempt to be holy, for holiness applies to God alone. In our own analysis, interest was concentrated on the meaning of the term as it is applied to God and man, but we have not lost sight of its purely ritualistic significance either. We have found that the word, holy, does not stand for divine nature in whatever way that nature is understood, it is not a mere “otiose epithet” of God; but it is a specific attribute of the deity and it is consistently used all through the Bible in that specific sense. Rather than indicating transcendence, it seems to be inseparable from the idea of immanence. Far from meaning inaccessibility, it reveals closeness and association. It is not the mysterium tremendum; if anything, it is its very opposite.