1. Etymology of the Hebrew Term
The word used in the Hebrew of the Old Testament for "holiness" is
kadhesh,
while "holy" is
expressed by
kadhosh,
both connected
with the denominative verb
kadhash.
ogy
of the The efforts to trace the origin of the
Hebrew idea from the etymology have not been
Term. satisfactory. It has been
connected
(by Fleischer, Delitzsch, and Baudis
sin) with a root
,kadhadh, "to
cut off, to separate,"
and so appears to have a purely negative connotation.
But the word itself does not tell from what or
for what the separation takes place, leaving more
exact definition to be made by the limiting ex
pressions. Another derivation proposed (especially
by Dilhnann, on
Isa. vi. 3
and in his
Alttestament
liche Theologie) is
from a root found in Arabic and
Ethiopic,
kada, "to
be pure, clear" (Assyrian
,kuddushu,
" brilliant "; of. Hebr.
hadhash, " new,
shining "). This derivation has the advantage over
the other that etymologically it gives a positive as
against a negative sense which applies easily to
deity
and to divine things. Yet it is to be remembered
that holiness in the Old Testament is not necessarily
conjoined with the idea of brilliance. In the his
torical usage of the Old Testament
kadhosh
has
always a religious sense, and a better knowledge
will be gained from examination of the historical
usage than from investigation of etymological possi
bilities. Such an examination involves the double
question, what holiness means as applied to things
and persons and as applied to God.
2. Holiness in Objects
common," and so are excluded from
Objects.
ordinary
use. Examples of such things
are the temple, the tabernacle, and their
belongings, the Sabbath and festivals, and
heaven
as God's dwelling-place
(
Lev. vi. 9
sqq., xix.; Ise.
lviii. 13, Ivij. 15). In such cases the idea of separation
is consequent upon the holiness of the things;
holiness is primary, separation is secondary.
The
relation of the notion to persons is well exemplified
in
Num. xvi. 5, 7.
Priests and priestly persons are
holy doubtless because they belong to God; but
in this passage a weightier circumstance enters than
mere external
relationship-there is involved per
sonal quality. Whoever belongs to God must have
the essential character which accompanies such rela
tionship. This is brought out in relation to the
Nazirite in
Num. vi. 5
sqq., and with especial
clearness in
I Sam. xxi. 6
in connection with the
gift of the shewbread to David. So, according to
Lev. xxi. 5
sqq., it is expected of the Levite that his
relation to deity and the consequent holiness will
affect and govern his external relations-he will not
make himself impure by contact with a
corpse, by
shaving his head, or by taking other than a virgin as
his wife. Another kind of holiness is stated in
Isa. iv. 3,
where those remaining in Jerusalem are holy,
but because the "filth" of the women is washed
away and Zion's blood-guiltiness is done away. The
underlying fact here,
too, is not mere relationship to
deity, but ethical quality is implied (cf. Isa. j. 26).
The same idea comes out in relation to the people
as a whole in
Num. xvi. 3
