7. Usage in the New Testament

(I Thess. iv. 3; I Pet. i. 2) or the the New result of this process (Rome v. 22, vi. 19; Testament. Heb. xii. 14). Hagiosune stands for the holy character which corresponds to the gospel (II Cor. vii. 1; I Thess. iii. 13), also for the inner spirit of Jesus (Rome i. 4). Hagiotes describes either the holy character of man (II Cor. i. 12) or of God (Heb. xii. 10). Hagnos, from the same root as hagios, in the New Testament as in classical Greek refers to chastity (Tit. ii. 5; I Pet. iii. 2), to sincerity (II Cor. xi. 2-3) or freedom from defilement (Phil. iv. 8; I Tim. v. 22; Jas. iii. 17). Hagios like hagiazean has reference either to God or to some aspect of his creation, especially men, as objects of God's electing and redeeming grace. In general holiness is applied (1) to God. It represents his ethical purity and perfection manifested in reaction against sin, but also in cleansing and finally redeeming those whom he elects (Luke i. 49; John xvii. 11; I Pet. i. 15-16). (2) Since holiness is the essential characteristic of God, the same is true of the Spirit of God. He is holy, as the principle of the divine self-communication (I Cor. ii. 10; Mark xi. 13), the permanent principle of the new life (Mark i. 8; Rom. xv. 16; Tit. iii. 5), and of special divine gifts (Luke i. 15, 35, 67). (3) Jesus as holy occupies a unique relation to God (Mark i. 24; Luke iv. 34; John vi. 69; Acts iv. 30), and in virtue of an act of self-dedication (John xvii. 19) he stands in a peculiar relation to men, partly with reference to his name or mystic union with him, and partly as the cause of their sanctification (I Cor. vi. 11, i. 2; Eph. v. 26; Heb. ii. 11). (4) Holiness is also applied to men who are called to share the holiness of God (John xvii. 17; I Cor. i. 2; II Cor. vii. 1; Eph. i. 4); or they are designated simply as holy or saints (Mark vi. 20; Luke i. 70; Eph. i. 1, iii. 5; Rev. xiii. 10), or there is here the characteristic term for Christians in general (Acts ix. 13, xx. 32; I Cor. xvi. 1). It is also the description of those who are set apart for the service of God (cf. John x. 36). (5) The term has further to do with persons and things set apart as already belonging to God (" the name," Luke xi. 2; "blood of the covenant," Heb. x. 29; "Christ as Lord," I Pet. iii. 15), or as associated with God for an ethical end (" every creature," I Tim. iv. 5; "vessels unto honor," II Tim. ii. 21). (6) Finally it concerns objects which derive their character from their relation to God, as a given place (Matt. xxiv.

318

15; Acts xxi. 28), city (Rev. xxi, 2), law (Rom. vii. 21), the Scriptures (Rom. i. 2), calling (II Tim. i. 9), covenant (Luke i. 72), and nation (I Pet. ii. 9). From the foregoing, it is evident that while the idea of holiness in the New Testament follows lines already clearly marked in the Old Testament, it is characterized by a distinctive difference. It is, e.g., finally emancipated from all ceremonial associations. As applied to God, it is no longer as in contemporary Judaism connected with transcendence in the sense of exaltation and aloofness from the world and men. Its sole reference is as in Hos. xi. 9 to the inner essence of the nature of God, whether God is thought of as a personal being or in relation to men. It is true that holiness as the designation of God is far less frequent in the New than in the Old Testament and the term holiness is giving place to that of love, but this does not justify the contention of Ritschl that its meaning in the New Testament is lacking in clearness and that it is not valid fqr Christianity (Juatif catian and Reconcilia tion, iii. 255, Edinburgh, 1900). No tension is affirmed as between holiness and love; holiness is rather the essential quality of love viewed in relation to the inner side of God's character as perfect consistency with the ethical ideal of personality. As applied to men, holiness is also freed from all ceremonial content and refers only to their God or Christlike character and deeds.

In theology, the holiness of God has several references-an immanent predicate of his nature, a transitive attribute of activity, which, moreover, sustains a particular relation to love in the doctrine of the atonement. As an immanent predicate of the divine Being, it designates the inmost and

fundamental essence of God in which

8. In all other properties are embraced and Theology. from which all activities originate.

Something of its etymological significance has always clung to it; God is supramundane, exalted, incorruptible, absolutely unique. In comparison with the defects and impurity of the world, he is the perfectly pure and spotless One. Holiness in God is the "infinite beauty and excellence of his nature" (Jonathan Edwards, Essay on the Trinity, ed. G. P. Fisher, p. 97, New York, 1903), " the perfect agreement of the divine willing with the divine being " (G. Thomasius, Christi Person and Werk, i. 137, Erlangen, 1856), " Conformity to his own perfect nature " (W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, i. 362, New York, 1888). On account of this inner essential excellence, God is the absolutely good Being; from this fact springs his ethical sovereignty; here too is found the principle which determines his redemptive activity. Holiness is also a transitive attribute of God. In this sense it was defined by Baier as the " rectitude of the divine will in virtue of which he wills all that is just and good in accordance with his eternal law." Quenstedt held that it is the " supreme, faultless purity in God which demands from his creatures a corresponding purity." According to Schleiermacher it is the "legislative divine causality in human life." Holiness is that attribute in God by which in all his relations to moral beings he maintains and realizes his ethical perfection.

Thus " he is the one unconditioned Law of the good, the Power which both must and does react against the evil" (F. A. B. Nitzsch, Dogmatik, p. 415, Freiburg, 1902). It is therefore directed not merely to the conquest and eradication of sin, but to the creation and perfection of the highest good and the kingdom of God. So far as holiness involves the consistency of God's holy action with reference to men, it is designated as Righteousness (q.v.). Since the Reformation, holiness has been conceived with special regard to love: holiness the fundamental attribute of God, love conditioned and limited by it. Thus, it has been affirmed that God may be merciful but he must be just. Mercy may exist under conditions which preclude its expression; holiness, never, since the very existence of holiness is dependent on its being exercised. Mercy is therefore optional, but justice is necessitated. The significance of this conception of the relation of holiness to love appears in the doctrine of the atonement, where the application of mercy-once justice is satisfied-is limited to those whom God has chosen (Calvin, Institutes, III., xxiii. 11; J. Owen, Works, "Dissertation on the Divine Justice," x. 48324; W. G. T. Shedd, op. cit., i. 218-219, 319-390; A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, i. 296, Philadelphia, 1907). Holiness and love have also been related to each other as distinct attributes of God, but yet not as implying conflict or requiring reconciliation. God's action in redemption thus equally expresses both qualities, and each of these is as fundamental as the other. The distinction between holiness and love, however, except so far as love is regarded as primarily emotional in content, is hard to maintain and in the discusion tends to fade out (W. N. Clarks, Christian Theology, pp. 83-93, New York, 1898). The reason for this is not far to seek. If love is regarded se the supreme designation of God in the New Testament (I John iv. 16), we shall find in the history of the idea of God the explanation of what would otherwise not be clear. Holiness, God's elevation above the world, his ethical absoluteness, his persistent reaction against sin, and as such the moral ideal of his people's life, was the earlier form of the idea of God (Lev. xx. 2). Later, both experience and reason yielded up that wider interpretation of the character of God in relation to men which is registered in the term "righteousness." In Jesus' consciousness, however, appears the full disclosure of the divine nature and will; the Fatherhood of God lays bare the hidden depths of God's being. The association of the terms "holy" and "righteous" in Jesus' prayer in the upper room as descriptive of "Father" is in the highest degree significant (John xvii. 11, 2b). Instead, therefore, of being left behind in Christianity (cf.

A. Ritschl, Justification and Reconciliation, iii. 255),

or regarding it as antagonistic to love, "holiness" and "righteousness" are the earlier ,yet integral forms through which God was leading his people to the perfect knowledge of himself as love. It is an anachronism in the doctrine of the atonement to set holiness over against love, as having to be satisfied ere love can come to expression. On the other hand, to express the divine purpose of love to set

319

men free from sin, the term "holy love" states the essential truth (cf. T. Haering, Der Christliche Glaube, pp. 217-219, Calw, 1906).

C. A. Beckwith.

Bibliography: Achelie, in TBK, xzi (1847), 187 sqq.; J. M. Rupprecht, in TBK, xxiii (1849), 684 sqq.; J. C. K. von Hofmann, Bchriftbewess, i. 81 sqq., Nbrdfngen, 1857; K. C. W. F. Bghr, 3ymbolik des mosdisclun Kuttua, i. 48 sqq., 430 sqq., ii. 20 sqq., 173 sqq., Heidelberg, 1874, 1839; H. Ewald, Die Lehre der Bibel von Goff, iL 237 sqq., Leipsic, 1874; B. Duhm, Theologie der Prophslen, pp. 189 sqq., Bonn, 1875; W. von Baudissin, Studien cur semitisden Religionsgeschichte, ii. 1 sqq., Leipsic, .1878; A. Ritschl, Die duidliche Lahre von der Rechwertipung and Verabhnung, 189 sqq, Bonn, 1889; Smith, Prophets, pp 224 sqq., 422; idem, Rel. of Son., pp. 91, 140 sqq.; the works on O. T. Theology by P. Scholz, Regensburg, 1881; H. Schultz, Göttingen, 1895, Eng. transl., London, 1892; A. Dillmann, Leipsic, 1895; R. Emend, Freiburg, 1899; and A. Kayser. ed. K. Marti, Strasburg, 1903; and the commentaries on the books containing the passages cited in the text. ROLL, KARL: German Protestant; b. at Tübingen May 15, 1866. He studied at the university of his native city (Ph.D., 18$9), and, after being an assistant in the preparation of the edition of the Church Fathers by the Berlin Academy of Sciences for two years, became privat-docent at the Univer sity of Berlin in 1896. In 1898 he was made titular professor at. the same university, but resigned in 1900 to accept the position of associate professor of church history at Tübingen, returning to Berlin in 1907 as full professor in the same subject. He bas written Die Sacra Parallels des Johannes Damae zenus (Leipsic, 1896); Enthusiaamus and Bumgewadt beim griechischen Mfchtum (1898); Fragmente vornicdnischer Kirchenvater aus den Sacra Parallela (1899); Amphilochus von Ikonium in deinem Ver hdltnis zu den gromen Kappadoztern (Tübingen, 1904); and Modernismus (1908).