OLD TESTAMENT BASES OF THE WESLEYAN MESSAGE

David L. Thompson

Marion College

In addition to the standard theological treatises of our movement which have sought to delineate the Old Testament bases of the Wesleyan message, at least one major treatment 1 and numerous shorter articles have appeared in recent years surveying the biblical and, specifically, the Old Testament foundations of Wesleyan thought.2 The dim prospects of going far beyond these treatments in still another cursory presentation of the Old Testament bases of the Wesleyan message invite concentration on some fundamental aspects of this biblical base.

Furthermore, Mildred Wynkoop's creative attempt to present the Wesleyan distinctives and, at the same time, to confront realistically the pitfalls inherent in substantialistic theological categories, demands thoughtful reconsideration of the biblical bases for these distinctives.3 Within this context this paper seeks to reexamine some aspects of the idea of the holy in the Old Testament.

I. The Holy: Separation as Relationship

1. The holy as separation. Separation is obviously a fundamental aspect of the Old Testament concept of the holy. This is a widely recognized fact and appears clearly, for instance, in the discussion of Dr. George A. Turner in The Vision Which Transforms, where reference is made to von Baudissin and to Snaith, who with modification accepted and popularized von Baudissin's extensive study.4 Whether or not the semitic root Q-D-SH was originally a religious or secular term, the Old Testament preserves isolated examples of the verb qadash (all D or H stems) used without religious connotation in the sense of "isolating," "separating," "preparing," or "designating" someone or something. Note, for example, Josh. 20:7: wayyaqdishu 'et-GN . . . // natenu 'et-GN. "And they designated GN . . . // they established GN," in response to God's command (Josh. 20:2),5 "Establish for yourselves [tenu lakem] cities of refuge." Or again, note Jer. 12:3: "Single them [the wicked] out [hattiqem] like sheep for slaughter; separate them [wehaqdishem] for the day of slaying" (httq // hqdsh). 6 Of course such "secular" use of the word is certainly not characteristic of the Old Testament. But the meaning of separation is forcibly underscored in these occurrences.

2. Separation as relationship. Characteristically in the Old Testament holy describes someone or something in a defined relationship. Someone or thing has been separated from the profane or the unclean to specific relationship with God. To be thus holy is to be directly God's own, or to be set specifically to His service, or to be set for entry into His presence, or a combination of these.

The key expression again and again is "holy to Yahweh," i.e., "with respect to Yahweh," or "in relation to Yahweh." The situation is essentially the same whether it is a day, a tent, an altar, a house, a field, a man, or whatever. The ritual of washing, clothing, anointing, installing, and atoning (e.g., Exod. 29: 1-21), or selected ones of these, all made the process of separation from the profane and unclean unto the Lord unmistakably clear.

Even in cultic settings, however, this hallowing was far from a purely mechanical process. Moses was instructed to consecrate Aaron and his sons to be priests specifically of Yahweh (e.g., Exod. 40:13; weqiddashta; cf. Exod. 29:1). At the same time Yahweh himself said He would set them apart (Lev. 22:9, 16; 'ani yahweh meqad d esham) . And finally the priests are said to have consecrated themselves (hitqaddesh; Exod. 19:22; cf. Later, 1 Chron. 15:12; 2 Chron. 5:11). Even in this cultic consecration the wills of three parties interacted freely in the process of setting the priests apart to be God's, to function in His service, and to approach His presence. The result of that personal interaction was that the priest, along with his clothes, and all articles participating in this specific relation to Yahweh, were holy (Exod. 29:21), or more specifically, "a holy thing with respect to Yahweh" (cf. Ezra 8:28). A similar interaction between men and God appears in the consecrating of objects; for example, the Tabernacle and the altar. Compare Exod. 29:44 and Exod. 30:(25-)29.

3. Cleansing as relationship. What is described relationally on the one hand as holy (separate) or on the other as profane/common (khol) is described ritually as clean or unclean (thr/tm'). Thus, in these contexts clean and unclean do not substantially describe the condition of the person or thing, but characterize it with respect to its relationship to the divine. To be clean in this sense is to be holy-set in relation to God; to be unclean is to be unholy -out of and unfit for relation to the divine. In either case, the point is proper or improper relation to God.

And so, one reads in the description of Hezekiah's reforms that those in the congregation who had not sanctified themselves (lo' hitqaddesh) were unclean (lo' tahor). Sacrifice was offered to consecrate every unclean one to Yahweh (2 Chron. 30:17). Similarly, hallowing the Temple was rendering it clean (2 Chron. 29:5, 15; cf. 29:17, 19). So with the altar; Aaron will sprinkle blood upon it and "cleanse it and hallow it [wetiharo weqiddesho] from the uncleanness of the Israelites" (Lev. 16:19). That the relational and the cultic are two sides of the same situation is seen from the blending of terms in Ezek. 22:26: "They rendered common [khol] my sacred offerings; between the consecrated and the common they did not make a separation, and between the unclean and the clean they did not make a difference."

In this connection a comparison of the Akkadian cognates to Hebrew Q-D-SH is instructive. Recent Akkadian lexicography is more inclined than one would know from Snaith's discussion to recognize both purity (usually ritual purity) and consecration as prominent meanings of the Q-D-SH words in the East Semitic Mesopotamian languages.7 These words are usually found in a cultic setting (incidentally, a pig is lo qashid, "not clean"), and so are quite parallel to the Hebrew association of clean and consecrated. But it is not always so. A cleansed container for drinking water is also quddushu.8 That is, Akkadiah Q-D-SH can carry the meaning of being substantially clean.

At this point the Old Testament makes a careful lexical distinction not found in the Akkadian texts, even though there is a parallel conceptual association of the clean and the consecrated in Akkadian and Hebrew. The cycle of Q-D-SH words in Hebrew is not used in the Old Testament to refer to persons or objects as clean. This "clean/unclean" terminology is used to describe the ritual enactment of the consecration denoted by Q-D-SH. And, in spite of the close association of the two ideas, the vocabulary is kept carefully separate. Notice at this point that the Hebrew Q-D-SH words are not used to describe a person or object as substantially clean, i.e., as not-dirty. This is not qadosh, but tahor, as in pure gold (zahab tahor; Exod. 25:11). Even when the two terms, consecrated and cleansed appear together to describe pagan worship, they are not confused. One may conclude from these observations that when clean is associated with holy it too is a relational term, not concrete.

Further related light on the character of the holy and the clean is shed from a consideration of a set of similar but apparently contrasting biblical statements. Two samples will form the basis of this discussion. Regarding the consecrated altar, Exod. 29:37 states: "Whatever touches the altar shall become holy" (yiqdash, RSV); so also Exod. 30:25-29; Lev. 6:11, 20, etc. And, regarding the dead remains of proscribed creatures, it is said in Lev. 11:24: "Anyone who touches their remains shall be unclean" (yitma'); similarly Lev. 11:26-27, 31, 36, 39, etc.

A typical scholarly judgment upon Exod. 29:37 and similar Old Testament statements is S. R. Driver's: "We have here . . . a survival of primitive ideas of 'holiness.' Holiness . . . is a contagious quality: thus the altar or the incense is holy, and whatever touches it becomes holy."9 Essentially the same view with implications for Wesleyan theology appears when such a text is used as an illustration of the "impartability of God's holiness."10 That is, God's holiness is something communicable.

The general biblical background and the theological motivation for the insistence that holiness is communicable are certainly beyond question. One must not be saddled with the old imputation heresy that we, by God's grace, and seen through Christ, are reckoned righteous and holy, without regard to our actual righteousness or lack of it. And on the other hand, one must not fall in the Pelagian trap. One does wish to insist that a believer in any age has been considered holy by God because he was in some sense actually holy-not of himself, but by the grace of God actually holy. But imputation and impartation are both inadequate concepts when, as is frequently the case, holiness, and with it sin, are conceived in substantial terms. A more careful analysis of the contrasting texts noted above is necessary.

In view of a number of contexts which illumine Exod. 29:37, the text should probably be translated, "Anyone who touches it [the altar] must be holy" (emphasis in any biblical quotation herein is added). It states the prerequisite for surviving contact with the altar, not the result of that contact. 11 (Compare the simple imperfects in the Decalogue commands.) Such a translation is at least admissible in all the Old Testament occurrences of this statement. As a matter of fact, an unconsecrated person who touched any sacred thing did not become holy-he became dead! So it was at the mount (Exod. 19:12), at the eating of offered flesh (Lev. 7:19-21), in the transporting of the Tabernacle (Num. 4:15), and with the priests who must be consecrated to draw near to God without disaster (Exod. 19:22).

This consistent and clear pattern must provide the context in which some other less clear passages are approached. The bronze censers of Dathan and Abiram (Num. 17:1-3; English, 16:36-38) are not evidence to the contrary. The censers had not become holy by mere contact with the altar, but, as the Word says, they had actually been offered ("brought near" is a technical expression meaning "offered") and so were holy (Num. 17:3; English, 16:38). Jesus' comment that the Temple sanctifies the gold of it and the altar the gift on it was not intended as a pronouncement on the communicability of holiness (Matt. 23:19). Even in the Temple, gifts on the altar had been placed there as an offering dedicated to God, and thus they were holy. So it is no doubt in Isa. 6:6-7. In view of the preceding discussion and biblical revelation in general (including Isaiah 1-2), one may be justified in understanding a far more profound healing of Isaiah's relation with the Holy One than is encompassed in the mechanics of having his lips touched by a coal.

Once in scripture this question is plainly put to the priests (Hag. 2:12-13, RSV):

"'If one carries holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and touches with his skirt bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any kind of food, does it become holy?"' The priests answered, "No." Then said Haggai, "If one who is unclean . . . touches any of these, does it become unclean?" The priests answered, "It does become unclean."

These answers support the contention that even in the Old Testament holiness is by no means a thing, a substance to be communicated, but rather is an actual description of someone or something in proper relation to God.l2 That men and objects are holy in the Old Testament solely by virtue of their relation to God is of course a fact oft repeated in our literature.l3 The point of this entire discussion of "The Holy: Separation as Relationship" has been to undergird the proposition that not only is this so, but that relationship (and with men, personal relationship) is the fundamental category in which all other aspects of the holy must be conceived if one is to be consistently biblical .

II. The Holy: Relationship Defined by God and His Covenant

As is well known, the concept of the holy as separation and, from man's viewpoint, as relation to the divine, was not confined to ancient Israel. Two things make this abundantly clear: the extrabiblical (especially West-) Semitic occurrences of the Q-D-SH words which parallel the biblical usage, and the famous Old Testament references to sacred "prostitutes" in Israel (e.g., Deut. 23: 18; 1 Kings 22:47, English 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7) . So then, it was not basically Israel's concept of the holy which distinguished her from her neighbors, but rather the incomparable Yahweh, who revealed himself to her. He, in His person and in His covenant, defined the holy for her.l4

Outside of the fact that so much of the significant information about the holy in the Old Testament appears in the setting of the Sinaitic covenant, several interlocking biblical statements link holiness in Israel to the covenant. To these we now turn.

1. To be holy is to be uniquely God's. Deut. 7:6, in a covenant setting (see 7:9-13), evokes covenant terminology in explicitly stating: "A holy people you are to Yahweh your God. Yahweh your God chose you in order that you might be to Him a special people from among all the peoples who are on the face of the earth." So also Exod. 19:5-6: "And you shall keep my covenant and shall be to me a special possession from among all peoples.... And you shall be to me . . . a holy nation!" Note the connection: covenant, special possession, and holy (see also Lev. 20:26; 22:31-33; 25:55-26:2, 13; Isa. 62:12).

We are now primarily interested in holiness as it relates to the people, but the same association of holiness and divine possession is found elsewhere. Yahweh's feast days are holy because they are His (Lev. 23:2-4); the firstborn must be consecrated, because they belong to Yahweh (Exod. 13:2). He set them apart for himself (hiqdashti li, Num. 3:13; 8:17). This correlation is strikingly demonstrated in the fact that one cannot consecrate what is already God's (Lev. 27:26), nor can one sell what is holy, i.e., what no longer belongs to him (Ezek. 48:14). As Moses said to Korah, "God will make known who is His, even who is the holy one [between us]" (Num. 16:5). To be holy is to be God's, effected by consecration and defined by covenant.

Furthermore, as part of that covenant, God pledged himself to be Israel's God. Not only were they His, but He was theirs. "You shall be holy with respect to your God. I am Yahweh your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt in order to become your God" (Num. 15:40-41). The people are called to consecrate themselves for this very reason (Lev. 11:43-45). So it is also that God dwells among those who belong to Him and to whom He belongs (Exod. 25:8). "I will make a covenant of peace with them," God says through Ezekiel, ". . . and I will set my sanctuary [miqdash] in their midst forever, and my dwelling shall be with them. I will be their God, and they will be my people" (Ezek. 37:26-27). Compare Ezek. 11:16! The nations would thus know that Yahweh was again setting His people apart (Ezek. 37:28).

Perhaps God's giving of himself uniquely to His people casts light on the Old Testament's view of God's own holiness as in some sense separation. The statements about God's holiness which include more than the flat assertion that He is holy are declarations by and large of God's incomparability, His essential separation from creaturely finitude (1 Sam. 2:2; Isa. 40:25; 54:5). He is incomparable in might (1 Sam. 6:20), in character (Ps. 99:2-5; Isa. 5:15-16; 55:6-9), in complete distinction from humanity (Hos. 11:9). That is, God is "wholly other" with respect to us.15

It is also possible that God's separation unto His people was considered part of His holiness. It did form the rationale for their own consecration to Him and was solidly linked to the covenant events. "For I am Yahweh who brought you up out of the land of Egypt in order to become your God; so you shall be holy, for I am holy" (Lev. 11:45). Thus, both God's transcendence and His immanence are expressed in His holiness.

2. Not only does the covenant define the holy as uniquely God's, but it also specifies that separation to God excludes all rival relationships and associations. This is emphatically reiterated in the constant repetition of Yahweh's own name in strong contrast to all other divine names: "I Yahweh sanctify you." "You shall consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy, for I Yahweh am your God" (Lev. 20:7). And in this case, "consecrate yourselves" means precisely to repudiate offerings to Moloch and seeking "familiar" spirits, because not they but Yahweh is their God (Lev. 20:3, 6).

That is why the possessive pronouns are so prominent on Yahweh's feasts (moaday) and sabbaths (shabbotay) and statutes (khuqqotay) and commands (mitswotay)-they are His in contrast to those of other gods. Israel was to keep Yahweh's command in expressed contrast to walking in the ways of her neighbors (Lev. 20:22-23; cf. 20:26). The prospect of a rival covenant with another god was even anticipated and forbidden (Exod. 23:32). The keeping of Yahweh's sabbaths was continually to be a sign of their devotion to Him as opposed to another (Exod. 31:13, 16). No wonder, then, that relationships which rivaled the people's consecration to God were both a breach of the covenant (Lev. 25:55-26:2, 14-15; cf. Ezek. 23:39) and a profanation of the holy-of God's holy name (Lev. 22:32; Ezek. 20:30; 43:7-8; cf. Isa. 17:7-8) and God's holy place (Lev. 20:3-4; Ezek. 5:11; Mal. 2:11).

This undivided covenant loyalty to Yahweh is addressed in precise juridical language in several significant texts. Note, for example, Hos. 13:4: "I am Yahweh your God, since the land of Egypt [i.e., ever since the Exodus and covenant encounter], and you know no god but me; and there is no deliverer beside me." The point was not that Israel was unaware of other gods.

In texts of this sort, Hebrew yada, "to know," is a technical legal term, the Hebrew reflex of well-known Hittite and Semitic covenant terms. "To know" and "not to know," as legal, covenant terms, mean "(not) to acknowledge, recognize (authority, claims)," especially as set forth in a treaty (covenant).16 So also in Amos, after a reference to the Exodus prelude to covenant, God himself says, "Only you I knew from all the families of the earth. Therefore I am visiting upon you all your iniquities" (Amos 3:2). That is, on the basis of acknowledged covenant stipulations, I am holding you responsible.

Such a wholehearted focus on Yahweh to the exclusion of rival relationships is envisioned as a lasting part of the true Israel's covenant relationship with God. As Jeremiah wrote:

Lo, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make with the house of Israel and the house of Judah a new covenant.... I will put my law within them, and upon their heart I will write it. And I will become their God, and they will become my people. And no one will again instruct his neighbor or his brother saying, "Know Yahweh," for they will all know me (Jer. 31:31-34; cf. 24:7).

They will, of their own will, freely acknowledge and keep the claims of My covenant, excluding all rivals.

3. The covenant further defines the holy as a relationship in which the will of God is done. Here holiness and righteousness are wed. Even in the Old Testament, understanding holiness as proper relation to God in no way renders the holy void of moral and ethical content. The two may be logically distinguished. But in practice they are inseparable. For in the Old Testament, as in the New, God's works and relationships with men are a unit, a whole relationship which cannot be compartmentalized.17

It is significant that in a context stressing obedience to the covenant it is said that God's people will become a "kingdom of priests," i.e., a people subject to the divine rule of Yahweh, and a "holy nation" (Exod. 19:5-6; cf. Deut. 28:9). So the people as God's sanctuary (holy place, miqdash) are also His royal realm (mamshelet; Ps. 114:2; cf. Isa. 63:18).

In view of this, the attempt to distinguish between ritual holiness and so-called ethical or moral holiness is anachronistic. It is a false distinction made from the viewpoint of a later era and misses an extremely important point of the covenant's definition of the holy in the Old Testament. That point is that a holy man is in a relationship with God where God's will, defined in the covenant, is done consistently. Even though the Decalogue was singled out for special consideration (as in Deuteronomy 5; cf. Mark 10:19-20), that was by no means the extent of the "moral" law. The constant mingling of the ceremonial and, from our perspective, the more ethical/moral law should teach us this (e.g., Leviticus 19-20). And all of it was kept if an Israelite wished to remain in proper relation to God. All of the law, not just the so-called "ethical" law, was God's will, and hence a matter of personal and corporate conscience.18

There is not sufficient space here to review the numerous texts and contexts which link holiness with righteousness and justice and truth. Two things must be said, however. First, this conjunction of the holy and the righteous did not await the rise of the prophetic conscience in Israel. 19 Rather the prophetic concept of the holy was defined by the prior covenant. Even among Israel's neighbors as close as Byblos, one may find righteousness, justice, and holiness clearly linked as early as the mid-tenth century B.C., 200 years before Amos and Hosea.20

Second, it is obvious that not only was Israel's concept of the holy as separation a well-known part of her religious environment, but so was her concept of the holy as a correlate of righteousness. The inevitable conclusion of this, a point whose significance can scarcely be overemphasized, is that one is totally dependent upon the covenant and, ultimately, upon the person of Yahweh himself to give content to the holy. Apart from Him one has no sure notion of holy or righteous, for all the world used these terms with profoundly differing meanings. No wonder, then, that in the New Testament the canons of the holy are the person of Christ, the image of God, and the Word of God (the new covenant with its new law), not as a mystical force, but as a defining revelation of the holy.

4. The covenant defines the holy as in a relationship resulting from mutual choice. This emphasizes and extends the notion that, with men, both the cultic and the so-called ethical aspects of the holy are moral. They involve personal choices, free responses to the Word of God, and issue in positive or negative effects upon men's relationship with God.

The Book of Deuteronomy includes a blend of cultic, civil, and so-called ethical law reminiscent of Leviticus. Yet one of its major concerns is to record God's attempt through Moses to elicit a positive response from the people to the covenant, to lead them to become in reality His holy people. This process of mutual response leading to a relation in which the people would be holy and would belong to Yahweh, where Yahweh would be their God, and His will would be done consistently, is summarized beautifully in Deut. 26:18-19. The RSV here is disappointing when it translates, "And the Lord has declared this day concerning you that you are a people for his own possession," etc. The causative form, he'emirka, can be more adequately rendered than "has declared concerning you." One might better translate, "And Yahweh has caused you/led you to promise today to become His special people, [causing you] to keep His commands . . . in order that you might become a holy people with respect to Yahweh your God." In Deuteronomy 14, the relationship is given warmth and dynamic by the statement, "You are sons" (Deut. 14:1-2), again in a covenant setting with loyalty overtones. Compare Josh. 24:14-19.

Yahweh's side of the relationship is just as plainly put in Deuteronomy 7. Yahweh has related himself to Israel by His own gracious choice, because of His love and faithfulness (Deut. 7:1-8).

III. Summary

Holy in the Old Testament is a term of defined relationship, with very few exceptions signifying separation from the profane and unclean unto the divine. Where this involves men, both the holy and the clean are best understood in categories of personal relationship rather than substantialistic or concrete categories. Further, this relationship is defined by the person of God and His covenant. As a result, to be holy is to be uniquely God's, to repudiate relationships rivaling God. To be holy is to be in a relationship where by God's grace His will is done, a dynamic relationship resulting from and continuing by mutual consent and deliberate choice.

REFERENCE NOTES

1. Notably George Allen Turner, The More Excellent Way: The Scriptural Basis of the Wesleyan Message (Winona Lake, Ind.: Light and Life Press, 1952), pp. 21-119, revised in 1964 under the title The Vision Which Transforms (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press).

2. In 1963, in Further Insights into Holiness (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press), comp. Kenneth Geiger, the following such articles appeared: Arthur M. Climenhaga, "The Involvement of the Trinity in the Doctrine and Experience of Holiness," pp. 15-29; James F. Gregory, "The Holiness of God," pp. 31-39; Dennis F. Kinlaw, "Old Testament Roots of the Wesleyan Message," pp. 41-53; and W. Ralph Thompson, "What the Bible Teaches About the Meaning of Holiness," pp. 107-21.

Relevant entries in this volume's predecessor, Insights into Holiness (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press, 1962), also compiled by Kenneth Geiger, were more deliberately systematic than biblical in approach.

In 1966, in Volume 1 of the Wesleyan Theological Journal, two additional contributions appeared: Kenneth E. Geiger, "The Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of Holiness," pp. 43-54; and Kenneth Kinghorn, "Biblical Concepts of Sin," pp. 21-26.

3. Mildred Bangs Wynkoop, A Theology of Love: The Dynamic of Wesleyanism (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1972). See especially pages 81, 87, and 177 on nonsubstantialistic concepts of the holy; of sin, pp. 81, 123, 153, 164, 177; of the image of God, pp. 105-6, 146-47; of self, pp. 141, 165-66; and of the moral, pp. 342 f.

4. George A. Turner, The Vision Which Transforms, pp. 18 f.; Wolf Wilh. Fr. Graffen von Baudissin, Studien zur Semitischen Religionsgeschichte, Vol. 2 (Leipzig: Fr. Wilh. Grunow, 1878), a study of 142 pages on "Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im Alten Testament"; Norman H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (London: The Epworth Press, 1944), especially pp. 24-32.

5. See also Zech. 1:7; Jer. 6:4; Joel 4:9; Mic. 3:5; cf. Jer. 22:7; 51:27-28.

6. Old Testament references are to the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. Translations are the author's unless otherwise marked.

7. See Wolfram von Soden, Akkadishes Handworterbuch, fasc. 10 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1971), qadashu, "to be, to become pure"; qadishtu, "a pure one, consecrated one" (class of women), p. 891; qadshutu, "a place as divine," pp. 891-92;qashshu, consecrated, holy, p. 906; quddushu, "purified, hallowed," p. 926; and, with the root metathesized, qashadu, "to be, to become pure," qashdatu = qadishtu: qashdu, "pure, holy," p. 906. Compare Norman H. Snaith, Distinctive Ideas, pp. 26-29.

8. W. von Soden, Akkadishes Handworterbuch, p. 926.

9. S. R. Driver, The Book of Exodus, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, ed. A. F. Kirkpatrick (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1918), p. 325. Compare C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. James Martin (reprint ed., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1971), p. 319, for a related view on Lev. 6:18.

10. For example, James F. Gregory, "The Holiness of God," Further Insights, p. 34.

11. So Leo G. Cox, "The Book of Exodus," Vol. 1, The Beacon Bible Commentary, ed. A. F. Harper, et al. (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1969), p. 286, without pursuing the matter. Dr. Cox remarks, "Anything that touched the altar must be holy or the altar would be desecrated." Dennis F. Kinlaw, "The Book of Leviticus," in the same volume, on Lev. 6:18, considers the issue, concluding that both the impartation by contact and the statement of a requirement are ultimately true and related to these lines.

12. See H. Ray Dunning, "The Book of Haggai," Vol. 5, BBC, p. 331; and Mildred Wynkoop, A Theology of Love, pp. 81, 87, and 177.

13. For example, Dennis F. Kinlaw and W. Ralph Thompson, Further Insights, p. 44 and 108 respectively.

14. See a similar view in Walther Eichrodt, The Theology of the Old Testament, 2 vols., trans. J. A. Baker, The Old Testament Library, ed. G. Ernest Wright, et al. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 1:276f. Although the conclusions of this paper were arrived at independently, some points of intersection occur with Eichrodt's extensive treatment, which is essentially a covenant theology.

Is berit-qodesh in Dan. 11:28, 30 ("a covenant of holiness") a "covenant defining a holy relationship with God"?

15. It may well be that God's holiness as related to His glory and majesty should be understood thus as an aspect of His separation, His incomparability, rather than as a part of the actual meaning of the word holy. Cf. Exod. 15:11. See George A. Turner, The Vision Which Transforms, pp. 15-17. Compare God's claims through Ezekiel that He would hallow His name and make it again distinctive and praiseworthy among the nations, by the strong deliverance and restoration of His people (Ezek. 20:41; 22:23; 28:25; 36:23; 38:23; 39:7, 27).

16. See most recently David Lorton, The Juridical Terminology of International Relations in Egyptian Texts Through Dyn. XVIII (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), p. 124, with references there (and on p. 4) to the earlier relevant literature by Herbert Huffman, "The Treaty Background of Hebrew Yada," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 181 (1966):31-37, and Herbert Huffman and Simon Parker, "A Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew Yada, " BASOR 184 (1966):36-38.

17. Mildred Wynkoop's excellent paragraph, A Theology of Love, p. 199, is apropos.

18. See John Bright's comments, The Authority of the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1967), pp. 53-55. In this writer's opinion, this "ethical" nature of the entire law is not taken sufficiently into account in treatments which emphasize the development of qadosh from separation to a personal moral quality; e.g., Walther Eichrodt, Theology, 1:137.

19. Norman H. Snaith, Distinctive Ideas, pp. 51-78.

20. In the building inscription of Yekhimilk, king of Byblos, in which Baal Shamayim, the queen of Byblos, and the council of the holy gods are asked to lengthen his reign over Byblos, because he had been "a righteous (ts.d.q) and just (y.sh.r) king before the holy gods of Byblos!" Inscription number 4, H. Donner and W. Rollig, eds., Kanaanaische und Aramaische Inschriften, 3 vols., 2d ed., rev. and enl. (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 1966. 1968. 1969). 1:1: 2:6-7