HOLINESS (קֹ֫דֶשׁ, H7731, separateness, or brightness, or freshness; ἁγιωσύνη, G43, holiness (quality); ἁγιασμός, G40, holiness (process or result); ἁγιότης, G42, holiness (condition); ὁσιότης, G4009, devoutness, piety of life.

Outline

I. Old Testament

A. Vocabulary. According to T. C. Vriezen the idea of holiness is the one most typical for the OT faith. It is revealed chiefly in a series of Heb. words derived from the root קדשׁ, חֵ֫רֶמ֒, H3051, and its cognates will not be considered since the underlying connotation of the ban is largely negative. While ḥrm is of native Heb. origin, qds is prob. Canaanite. The vocabulary stemming from the root qds with which we are concerned is as follows: qōdes, noun, “holiness,” “sacredness”; qädōs, adjective, “holy,” “sacred”; qädas, verb, “to be set apart,” “consecrated”—Pi’el qidas, “to sanctify,” “consecrate”; miqdär, noun, a “sacred place,” “sanctuary”; qädes, noun, “a male temple prostitute”; qedeshäh, noun, “a female temple prostitute,” “a harlot.” Forms of the root appear some 830 times in the OT, about 350 of them being in the Pentateuch. The Aram. qädis, “holy,” occurs thirteen times in Daniel. Qädes and qedeshäh are used in connection with heathen cults, but otherwise the derivatives of qds invariably are related to God as Himself holy, or to people, times, places and objects made holy because of their association with Him. “No thing or person is holy in itself, but becomes holy as it is placed in relation to God” (H. Ringgren, The Prophetical Conception of Holiness [1948], p. 9).

B. Meaning. The precise significance of qds has been the subject of continued discussion, and is still uncertain. It is akin to כָּבﯴד֒, H3883, “glory,” “honor,” “abundance” (lit. “weight”), and is the opposite of חֹל, H2687, “common” or “profane” (1 Sam 21:5; Ezek 22:26; 42:20; 44:23). The earlier theory, ventilated by G. F. Öhler and others, assuming an affinity with חָדַשׁ, H2542, “to renew,” is rejected by O. Procksch as contrary to the Sem. laws of sound (TDNT, 89), although E. Jacob still recognizes this interpretation as a possibility.

W. W. Graf von Baudissin followed H. L. Fleischer in pointing to the basic קָדַשׁ, H7727, “to divide,” and concluded that the essence of qds is separation from the secular. The root would then signify “to cut off,” “to withdraw,” “to set apart.” The nuances of “to deprive” and “to elevate” also have been attached. Among those who have favored this interpretation are R. Asting, J. Skinner, A. B. Davidson, W. R. Smith, O. C. Whitehouse and J. Muilenberg. N. H. Snaith accepts Baudissin’s main argument while challenging the view that the term was altogether devoid of moral content. It has been claimed that whenever this root appears in the OT, the meaning of separation is permissible, and in many cases demanded. Ringgren on the other hand believes that “the idea of withdrawal, or separation, is not always very prominent” (op. cit., 6).

To meet those who have objected that such a derivation provides an unduly negative presentation of holiness, proponents of this theory emphasize the dual nature of separation, as implying not only being cut off from the secular, but positively devoted to and destined for the service of God. W. Eichrodt considers that this latter reference is primary. O. R. Jones concludes that holiness involves separation, but rarely is to be understood as equivalent to it. Things are separate because they are holy, not holy because they are separate. Only in virtue of its relationship to God did anything become holy and thus be regarded as separate.

Another school of etymological research attempts to trace the Heb. root qds from the Akkad. qädasu, “clear,” “bright,” “brilliant.” Supporters of this view have included W. Gesenius, A. Dillmann, T. K. Cheyne, K. Kohler and H. Zimmern. More recently Vriezen has gone on record as conceding that this is the most plausible meaning. The idea is linked with that of fear. Some point out that the root has the double significance of shining and terrible. This, of course, is implied in those passages in the OT which speak of God as revealed by fire (Exod 3:2-5; 14:24; 19:18; 24:17; Lev 9:24; 10:2; 16:12; Deut 4:22-24, 5:22-26; Josh 24:19, 20; Ps 18:8-11; Isa 4:4, 5; 6:1-5; 10:17; Ezek 1:4, 13, 27). F. Delitzch took the root as indicating freedom from defect.

U. Bunzel carried this further by stressing the element of purity involved in brightness. Procksch considers that טָהﯴר, H3196, “pure,” is most closely related materially to qōdes as ἁγνός, G54, to ἅγιος, G41, in the NT. While qōdes is the basic cultic term, tähōr is the ritual. Yet, he adds, “there is always an energy in the holy which is lacking in the pure or clean” (TDNT, 89).

It was no doubt with these apparently divergent theories in mind that J. Pederson decided that “a consideration of this root...affords no insight into the nature of holiness, since nothing is known about it except the very fact that it is used about what we call holiness” (Israel, Its Life and Culture, III-IV [1940], 264). Since the etymology of the word remains obscure, its actual employment in the OT itself determines its significance. An examination of its occurrences in context suggests that the factor of separateness is basic, but that this does not necessarily exclude the further elements of radiance and purity.

C. Holiness of God. Qōdes is a distinctly religious term, and is used exclusively in relation to God. It refers either to God Himself, or to what has been sanctified by Him. Primarily, however, it is God who is holy (Exod 15:11; Isa 6:3). There is no holiness unassociated with Him. Holiness is not a human quality, nor is it an impersonal concept. Its divine provenance is everywhere insisted on in the OT.

Vriezen sees holiness as the central idea of the OT faith in God. Some scholars treat the entire doctrine of God in the OT under this head (e.g., J. Hänel). Hosea 11:9 supplies the most succinct declaration of God’s holiness found in the OT: “for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst.” This pregnant statement lays stress (a) on the “otherness” of God, His majesty and incomparability with any created being; and (b) on His nearness and involvement in the affairs of His people, His persistent love and graciousness (cf. HDB rev., 386). To equate God’s holiness with His transcendence and to dissociate it from His immanence, is to fall short of the OT revelation. Ringgren, who interprets qds in terms of the wholly other, nevertheless recognizes that it includes the divine beneficence. The Holy One is also the kindly God who has chosen Israel and has mercy on His people.

The holiness of God, however, was proclaimed long before the period of the prophets. It is implicit from the earliest times. “The concept of God’s sanctity is proper to Mosaic religion from its very inception as well as to pre-Mosaic religion. The prophets only stressed this truth to a greater extent in their denunciation of a cult that was wholly external” (P. Heinisch, Theology of the OT [1955], 69).

God is described as “the Holy One of Israel.” The title recurs twenty-four times in Isaiah (cf. also 2 Kings 19:22; Job 6:10; Pss 71:22; 78:41; 89:18; Prov 9:10; 30:3; Jer 50:29; 51:5; Ezek 39:7; Hab 1:12; 3:3). The appellation does not mean that the Holy One belongs to Israel, although strict grammar might allow such a rendering, as E. Jacob notes. He is so not because He is consecrated to Israel, but because He has consecrated Israel to Himself; and Israel itself is holy only because of what God has done.

Holiness is not merely one of God’s attributes. It represents His essential nature. Holiness is His selfhood. When He swears by His holiness, He swears by Himself (Amos 4:2; 6:8; cf. Gen 22:16; Ps 89:35; 108:7). As a predicate of God, holy comes to mean divine, and can be employed as an adjective for God (Isa 5:16; 6:3; Hos 11:9; Hab 3:3). The Niph’al form strongly indicates this (Ezek 20:41; 28:22, 25; 36:23; 38:16; 39:27; cf. Num 20:13). God’s holiness is simply His self-assertion (Vriezen). It is His active self-differentiation (Brunner). As such it expresses His whole divine personality. “The ‘godness’ of God is highlighted by the word ‘holy’ when it is used in connection with him” (O. J. Baab, The Theology of the OT [1949], 34). Holiness is what makes God who He is.

As holy He is thus unique and incomparable (1 Sam 2:2; 6:20; Job 25:5; Isa 40:18-20, 25, 26; Hab 3:3). God’s holiness marks Him off from angels (Job 4:17, 18; 15:14, 15; Ecclus 42:17), from heathen gods (Exod 15:11; Ps 77:13), and from men (Job 4:17; 15:14; Eccl. 5:2). Hence unapproachability is an element which, according to Skinner, “is never absent from the notion” of holiness (HDB II, 397). Holiness is an aspect of God’s sovereignty. He is set apart from and above all other beings for the sake of manifesting Himself as He is and fulfilling His magisterial purposes. “God is free of all considerations and conditions, absolutely free master of His own will, of His feelings, even of His wrath; mighty, not having any responsibility or requiring any justification, exalted over all, Lord absolutely of His resolutions and decisions and therefore to be feared absolutely. Holy is at once exalted, supreme, and fearful” (L. Koehler, OT Theology [1957], 53).

Holiness is a synonym for power. As the Holy One, God controls all the forces of the universe. This He does, not in order to reserve tyrannical overlordship for Himself, but to convey life and blessing to mankind through His chosen people Israel (Gen 12:1-3). This integration of the divine holiness with the righteous purpose of God is a distinctive feature of the OT revelation (Exod 3:7; Isa 5:16). It is thus that qds acquires an intensified moral orientation, as it is taken up into the personal being of God (TDNT, 91). God’s holiness is expressed in His justice (Lev 10:3; Num 20:12, 13; Ps 99:3-5; Isa 5:16; Ezek 28:22; 38:23).

It also manifests itself in His attitude to sin. God’s holiness denotes not merely His separation from sin in the perfection of His own being, but His abhorrence of it and hostility to it. As “a God of faithfulness and without iniquity” (Deut 32:4), He is “of purer eyes than to behold evil” and cannot “look on wrong” (Hab 1:13). He is concerned for His holy name which He cannot allow to be profaned (Ezek 36:20-22). He vindicates His own holiness by showing His hatred of sin and cleansing His people from it (Ezek 36:23-25). It is in the presence of God’s holiness that man becomes aware of his sin (Isa 6:3-8).

Hence, the connection between divine holiness and divine judgment. A holy God who abhors sin can do no other than punish it. He is “not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not sojourn with thee” (Ps 5:4). Those who desecrate God’s holiness must expect His displeasure (Ps 11:5). Indeed, the holy God proves Himself to be holy as He executes His judgments (Isa 5:16). It is by His holiness that He swears that the sensual women who oppress the poor will not escape retribution (Amos 4:1, 2). Joshua warned the people that because God was a holy God He would not forgive their transgressions while they forsook Him and served idols (Josh 24:19, 20). When fire came out from the presence of the Lord to devour Nadab and Abihu in their impiety, Moses explained to Aaron: “This is what the Lord has said, I will show myself holy among those who are near me, and before all the people I will be glorified” (Lev 10:3). Similarly, Korah and his band of Levites perished because they had despised the Lord by violating His holiness (Num 16:30).

Such judgment will be visited on nations as well as on individuals, and for the same reason. This takes place both during the course of history and at the end of history. The Holy One of Israel is like a flame which burns and devours the thorns and briers of Assyria in one day (Isa 10:17). As He summons every kind of terror to destroy the forces of Gog in the final age, He will thereby demonstrate His greatness and holiness (Ezek 38:23).

The supreme manifestation of God’s holiness, however, is in His love. In this the OT prepares the way for the fuller disclosure of the divine nature in the NT. It is in the prophecy of Hosea that “the concept of holiness takes up into itself as the fulness of deity the thought of love” (TDNT, 93). The prophet’s own domestic tragedy becomes a parable of God’s predicament in face of man’s waywardness and sin. Hosea’s readiness to love his wanton wife and restore her to himself mirrors the immeasurably more comprehensive love of God for His lost children. As Procksch brings out, the opposition between the holiness of God and all that is human still remains, but is absorbed into the deeper opposition of holy love to unholy nature. What God in virtue of His holiness may do to love unholy nature, no man may do, and therefore the antithesis between God and man consists in the very love which overcomes it (TDNT, 93).

D. Holiness of God’s people. The holiness of God is expressed not only in His own mighty acts both of judgment and of mercy, but is also reflected in the holiness of His people. This is what Brunner calls His transitive holiness. Israel is “holy to the Lord” (Deut 7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:19; 28:9; Jer 2:3), “a holy nation” (Exod 19:6), “a holy people” (Isa 62:12; 63:18; Dan 12:7), “a holy seed” or “race” (Ezra 9:2; Isa 6:13), a community of “saints” or “holy ones” (Ps 16:3; 34:9; 89:5; Dan 7:21, 27), “a kingdom of priests” (Exod 19:6), “a holy congregation” (Num 16:3).

Moses was commanded to announce to the assembled people of Israel: “You shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev 19:2). As M. Noth points out, the expression leaves it undecided whether this is a statement or a demand. Perhaps it might be concluded that with reference to Israel’s position it is a statement, but with reference to Israel’s character it is a demand. This dual aspect has an important bearing on the developed revelation of holiness in the NT as it applies to God’s people. Israel’s holiness in the first place lies in the fact that she has been set apart by God and for God, in order that she might become the instrument of His purpose in the world. She is positionally holy since she belongs to God and has been called out from among the nations to be a chosen people for His glory (Exod 19:4; Ezek 37:27; Hos 2:23). In virtue of this relationship, ratified in the covenant, Israel is to exhibit an actual holiness in forsaking sin and following the commandments of the law. To this end the whole body of ceremonial, legal and moral requirements was designed.

It is summarized in the Holiness Code of Leviticus 17-26, in which the cultic and moral elements are intermingled. The repeated theme of Leviticus 19:2 serves as a text for the whole (cf. Lev 20:7, 8, 26; 21:6, 8, 15, 23). “The remarkable distinction of this collection,” explains J. L. Mays, “is the passionate urgency with which it holds holiness before Israel as the essential mark of existence as the people of the Lord” (Leviticus, Numbers [1964], 55). The moral code includes such practical matters as honesty (Lev 19:11, 36), truthfulness (19:11), respect for parents (19:3; 20:9), and elders (19:32), fair treatment of servants (19:13), love for neighbors (19:13, 16-18), kindness to strangers (19:33, 34), generosity to the poor (19:10, 15), help to the handicapped (19:14, 32), sexual purity (18:1-30; 20:1-21), and the avoidance of superstition (19:26, 31; 20:6, 27).

The remainder of the Holiness Code has to do with cultic regulations. These, however, must not be dismissed as of minimal importance. The ceremonial sanctity of God’s people was an expression of devotion to Him. When linked, as in Leviticus, with the call to personal righteousness it had its place in the development of the religious ideal. What the prophets later repudiated was a ceremonial divorced from justice. The holiness of God’s people was derived from their relationship to Him, and was originally both cultic and ethical. The two meanings are often scarcely distinguishable (cf. 2 Kings 4:9). The first requires the second. Cultic sanctity is imperfect without ethical sanctity. Cultic purity itself demands personal purity (TDNT, 92). As over against Mowinckel, who denies that the word “holy” has any predominant ethical reference in the OT, a growing consensus of scholarly opinion today is inclined to re-emphasize this element, while at the same time recognizing the spiritual value of the cultic.

E. Holiness of times, places and things. These are regarded as holy because of their association with God. They possess no inherent sacredness. They are consecrated through contact with Him.

Times set apart for worship are said to be holy. Most promiment is the sabbath (Gen 2:3; Exod 16:23; 20:8; 35:2; Lev 23:3, 8; Neh 9:14; Isa 58:13, 14), the holy day (Neh 8:11; 10:31), and the feast (Exod 12:16; Lev 23:4; Neh 8:9, 10). The gathering itself is described as a holy assembly (Exod 12:1-6; Lev 23:3, 4, 7, 8, 21, 24, 35; Num 28:18, 25, 26; 29:7, 12).

Places so designated are those where God has revealed Himself or is worshiped. Heaven itself as the abode of God is described as holy (Deut 26:15; 2 Chron 30:27; Ps 11:4; 68:5; 102:19; Isa 63:15; Jer 25:30; Jonah 2:4, 7; Mic 1:2; Hab 2:20; Zech 2:13). The same adjective is applied to such earthly locations as the burning bush (Exod 3:5), Sinai (19:11), Gilgal (Josh 5:13-15), and the resting place of the Ark in Jerusalem (2 Chron 8:11). Similarly both Bethel and Horeb were regarded as sacred (Gen 28:17; 1 Kings 19:8). The land of promise is holy (Exod 15:13; Ezek 4:12, 13; Hos 9:3, 4; Amos 7:17; Zech 2:12). The camp of the Israelites is holy (Lev 10:4, 5; 13:6; 16:20-22; Deut 23:14). The city of Jerusalem is holy (Neh 11:1, 18; Ps 46:2, 4; Isa 48:2; 52:1, 2); Zion is holy (Isa 11:9; 27:13; 56:7).

Both the Tabernacle and later the Temple are called holy, with all their appurtenances. The Tabernacle itself is called a sanctuary (Exod 38:24; Lev 10:4). The court of the Tabernacle also is called a sanctuary (Lev 10:17, 18). The Tabernacle and its courts together with their contents are holy (Exod 40:9). The first section, the outer room, is known as “the holy place” (Exod 26:33; 28:29). The second section, the inner room, is known as “the most holy” or “holy of holies” (Exod 26:33, 34). The entrance to the Tabernacle is holy (Exod 29:31). The Temple is a holy house (1 Chron 29:3; Ps 5:7; 79:1; 138:2; Isa 64:11). Its precincts share this sacrednesss (1 Chron 24:5; 2 Chron 29:7). The holy place (Ezek 41:21, 23; 42:14; 44:27) and the most holy place (1 Kings 6:16; 7:50; 8:6; 2 Chron 3:8, 10; 4:22; 5:7; Ezek 41:4) retain their distinctions.

Every item connected with the Tabernacle and the Temple is represented as holy: the altars of incense and burnt-offering (Exod 29:37; 30:27; 40:10), the flesh of the sacrifices (Num 18:17; 2 Chron 29:33; Ezek 36:38; Hag 2:12), the food of the sacrifices (Lev 21:22; Num 5:9; 18:9), the vessels for drinkofferings (1 Kings 8:4), the Ark of God (Exod 30:26; 2 Chron 35:3), the anointing oil (Exod 30:25; Ps 89:20), the incense (Exod 30:35, 37), the table (30:27), the shewbread (Lev 24:5-9; 1 Sam 21:4), the candlestick (Exod 30:2), the laver (30:28), the clothing of the priests (28:2; 29:29; 31:10; Ezek 42:14), the shekel of the sanctuary (Exod 30:13), the valuables deposited in the treasury (Josh 6:19; 1 Kings 7:51). In keeping with the holiness associated with the Tabernacle and the Temple, the priests ministering there also are regarded as sacred and for this reason were consecrated to their office (Exod 29:1; Lev 21:6, 23; 22:9).

No doubt this repeated emphasis in the OT on the holiness of times, places and things belongs to the realm of the cultic rather than the moral. It is never altogether easy to disentangle these elements. While such a materialization of the holy might lend itself to abuse, in that such times, places and things could be considered to possess some sanctity in themselves apart from the presence of the living God, this danger seems largely to have been avoided when His people remained faithful to Him. The spreading contagion of uncleanness is not paralleled by any such uncontrolled dissemination of holiness (cf. Lev 6:27; 22:1-9; Num 19:11-13). When Haggai asked the priests of the return: “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?” they were able to answer quite correctly, “No” (Hag 2:12).

While the ethical content in the OT conception of holiness must not be underrated any more than the cultic, it is to be remembered that the overriding and determinative factor is that holiness comes from the Lord. “The uniqueness of the OT definition of holiness,” declares Eichrodt, “lies not in its elevated moral standard, but in the personal quality of the God to which it refers” (Theology of the OT I [1961], 276).

II. New Testament

A. Vocabulary. Four Gr. substantives are rendered as “holiness” in RSV. Their occurrences are comparatively infrequent. They are as follows: ἁγιωσύνη, G43, holiness as a quality (Rom 1:4; 2 Cor 7:1; 1 Thess 3:13); ἁγιασμός, G40, holiness as a process or result, sanctification, consecration (Rom 6:19, 22; 1 Cor 1:30; 1 Thess 4:3, 4, 7; 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Tim 2:15; Heb 12:14; 1 Pet 1:2); ἁγιότης, G42, holiness as a condition (2 Cor 1:12; Heb 12:10); ὁσιότης, G4009, devoutness, piety of life (Luke 1:75; Eph 4:24).

Holiness in the NT is expressed chiefly through the adjective ἅγιος, G41, which recurs some 230 times. Το ἅγιον, “the holy,” “what is holy,” occurs as a pure substantive. It is used of sacrificial meat (Matt 7:6) and the earthly sanctuary (Heb 9:1).

Τα ἅγια, lit. “the holies,” is used for the sanctuary (Heb 8:2; 9:24, 25; 13:11), for the holy place or outer court of the Temple (Heb 9:2), and for the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:12; 10:19).

̔Ο ἅγιος, “the Holy One,” is used of God the Father in the OT, but only of Christ the Son in the NT, unless 1 John 2:20 is an exception (Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; John 6:69; Acts 3:14; Rev 3:7). ̔Οι ἅγιοι, “the holy ones,” is used of angels (1 Thess 3:13; 2 Thess 1:10), and of saints, i.e. Christians consecrated to God (Acts 9:13, 32; Rom 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:12; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 2:19; 3:8; Phil 4:22; Col 1:4, 26; 1 Tim 5:10; Heb 6:10). It occurs sixty times in all.

The verb ἁγιάζω, G39, “to make holy,” “consecrate,” “sanctify,” appears twenty-seven times. Other adjectives are ὅσιος, G4008, “devout,” “pious,” “pleasing to God,” which in LXX is equivalent to häsid (“loyal to covenant relations”; cf. Rev 15:4, of God Himself), Hebrews 7:26 (of Christ), and 1 Timothy 2:8; Titus 1:8 (of Christians); and ἱερός, G2641, “holy,” “sacred” (1 Cor 9:13; 2 Tim 3:15).

̔Ο ὁσιός, “the Holy One,” is used of Christ in Acts 2:27 and 13:35 in identical quotations from Psalm 16:10. (Cf. Rev 16:5.) The pl. noun τα ὅσια, “divine decrees” (lit. “the holy acts”) occurs in Acts 13:34 in a quotation from Isaiah 55:3. The adverb ὁσίως, G4010, “devoutly,” “in a manner pleasing to God,” is found only in 1 Thessalonians 2:10.

In LXX ἅγιος, G41, is invariably utilized to render the Heb. קֹ֫דֶשׁ, H7731. The fact that the Gr. term was appropriated wholly in the interests of the OT view of holiness is determinative for NT usage.

B. Meaning. The hagios family of words is of major significance in understanding the NT representation of holiness, and we shall therefore concentrate on these, beginning with the adjective itself.

1. ̔́Αγιος. This is the least used of five synonyms in classical Gr. The term “holy” had to be filled with fresh content; hence, as H. Cremer saw, hagios “is one of the words wherein the radical influence, the transforming and newly fashioning power of revealed religion is most clearly shown” (Crem, 35). It has a history similar to the Heb. qōdes. Originally it was a cultic concept, indicating that which is consecrated or devoted to or qualified to approach a deity (Arndt, 9). Its earliest established attestation is in Herodotus where it is used in close association with the sanctuary (5.119). It is also applied to the gods. But hagios does not appear to have been related to man in connection with the cultus, hagnos being preferred (TDNT, 89).

There are indeed some few instances in the NT where this cultic sense persists. This is particularly the case in OT quotations and allusions to the former dispensation. Jerusalem is described as the holy city as in the OT (Matt 4:5; 27:53; Rev 11:2). The same expression is applied to the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 21:2, 10; 22:19). The Temple is spoken of as the holy place (Matt 24:15; Acts 6:13; 21:28). The mount of transfiguration is holy (2 Pet 1:18). It is noticeable that all these instances are related to places rather than persons. Even in this connection, hagios soon shades over into the fuller meaning of holy, i.e. pure, perfect, worthy of God (Arndt, 9). The term is employed in this sense with reference to the law of God (Rom 7:12), the temple of the body (1 Cor 3:17), the temple of the Church (Eph 2:21), and the spiritual sacrifice of the Christian (Rom 12:1).

In the great preponderance of occurrences, hagios is used of persons and signifies a relationship to God, who is Himself holy (John 17:11; 1 Pet 1:15; Rev 4:8). The prophets of the OT are described as holy (Luke 1:70; Acts 3:21; 2 Pet 3:2). John the Baptizer is “a righteous and holy man” (Mark 6:20). The apostles are holy (Eph 3:5). The most common reference of all is to Christians who, because of their position before God in Christ and the sanctifying work of the indwelling Spirit, are properly designated holy. This is connected closely with their calling and election (Col 3:12; 2 Tim 1:9). The commandment they have received, to which obedience must be given, is holy (2 Pet 2:21). This association between calling, commandment and holiness is crystallized in 1 Peter 1:15, 16: “As he who called you is holy, be holy yourseves in all your conduct; since it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy.’”

The fact that hagios is the NT equivalent of qōdes suggests that the idea of separation and purity is carried over into a new context. It is given a reinforced ethical and spiritual cast. Hagios as applied to Christians means set apart for God, reserved for His praise and service. Believers have been made holy by the saving work of Christ on the cross, which has separated them from this present evil world and translated them into the kingdom of God’s dear Son (Col 1:13). They are continually being made holy by the work of the Spirit within, which enables them to respond to the NT summons to live in righteousness and purity. According to G. B. Stevens, hagios is “above all things a qualitative and ethical term” (HDB II, 399). This is indicated by the adjectives with which it is paired: δίκαιος, G1465, “righteous” (Mark 6:20; Acts 3:14), and ἄμωμος, G320, “blameless” (Eph 1:4; 5:27; Col 1:22).

2. ̔Αγιάζω. The verb is rare in extra-Biblical usage. In the LXX it is the usual rendering of the root קדשׁ, in its verbal forms. In the NT hagiazō is used of things in the sense of setting aside or rendering them suitable for ritual purposes (cf. Matt 23:19; the altar makes the gift sacred [1 Tim 4:5], what is received with thanksgiving is consecrated by the Word of God and prayer). It is used also of profane things made holy by contact with the sacred (cf. Matt 23:17; the temple makes the gold sacred). With reference to persons, the verb may signify to “consecrate,” “dedicate,” “make holy,” i.e. “include in the inner circle of what is holy, in both religious and moral uses of the word” (Arndt, 8). It is so used of the Church which Christ sanctified and cleansed “by the washing of water with the word” (Eph 5:26), and of Christians consecrated by baptism (1 Cor 6:11).

Hagiazō also may mean to sanctify by the blood of sacrifice, i.e. to atone for sins (Heb 2:11; 9:13; 10:10, 14, 29; 13:12). Sometimes its significance is to treat as holy or to reverence (Matt 6:9; Luke 11:2; 1 Pet 3:15). Its basic connotation is to consecrate or sanctify by contact with the One who alone is holy, God Himself. So Christians are ἡγιασμένοι, in a state of having been sanctified (John 17:19; Acts 20:32; 26:18; Rom 15:16; 1 Cor 1:2). It is God who sanctifies (John 17:17; 1 Thess 5:23). The reflexive to sanctify oneself, which is frequent in the OT, does not occur in the NT except in Revelation 22:11 (where the sense is somewhat different and NEB has “let the dedicated man be true to his dedication”).

3. ̔Αγιωσύνη. Rendered as holiness in KJV, ASV, RSV. This rare word is constructed from the adjective ἅγιος, G41, by extension as an abstract term of quality, on the analogy of δικαιοσύνη, G1466, “righteousness,” from δίκαιος, G1465, “righteous.” It is not found in pre-Biblical Gr. It is distinguished from ἁγιασμός, G40, indicating sanctification rather than sanctifying. It is distinguished from ἁγιὁτης, as indicating rather a quality than a state (TDNT, 114). Where it is used in the LXX, the element of glory is involved as well as holiness.

The three NT occurrences are all in the Pauline epp. In Romans 1:4, “according to the Spirit of holiness” is contrasted with “according to the flesh” (v. 3). Some take this to be an exact rendering of the Heb. רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ, “Holy Spirit” (Ps 51:11; Isa 63:10), but the antithesis with flesh would rather imply that it is Christ’s own spirit. In 2 Corinthians 7:1 Paul urges his converts to cleanse themselves from everything which can defile, either flesh or spirit, and thus to “make holiness perfect in the fear of God” (NEB “complete our consecration”). The ethical character of hagiōsunē is obviously prominent here. This is equally the case in 1 Thessalonians 3:13, where Paul’s prayer for his readers is that the Lord may make their hearts firm so that at the Parousia they may stand before God the Father “unblamable in holiness.”

4. ̔Αγιασμός. The KJV renders this five times as “holiness” and five times as “sanctification.” The ASV trs. it uniformly as “sanctification” and RSV uniformly as “holiness.” As we have seen, the verb hagiazō is derived from the same stem as the adjective hagios. In a further development, hagiasmos is produced from hagiazō as an active verbal noun. It is distinguished both from hagiōsunē and hagiotēs, since its construction implies sanctifying rather than sanctification either as a condition (hagiotēs) or as a quality (hagiōsunē). Hagiasmos when used in a moral sense (as it is invariably) denotes a process or on occasion the result of a process. It is infrequent in the LXX and has no specific Heb. equivalent (TDNT, 113).

In the NT it is confined to the epistles and occurs mainly in the context of Gentile Christianity. Hagiasmos is the will of God for the believer (1 Thess 4:3). It is manifested in the sphere of sexual morality as he learns how to hallow and honor his body (NEB) or his wife (ASV, RSV). The opposite of hagiasmos is “uncleanness” (4:7). The body, which was once employed in the service of impurity and lawlessness, now must be yielded to God in the service of righteousness, with hagiasmos (“a holy life” NEB) as the goal in view (Rom 6:19). In this emancipation from sin in the service of God, the return (lit. “fruit”) he gets is holiness (Rom 6:22). Hagiasmos is linked with modesty (1 Tim 2:15).

The source of hagiasmos is God. Only God is holy and only He can sanctify. This He does in Christ whom He has made to be our hagiasmos as well as our wisdom, righteousness and redemption (1 Cor 1:30). Hagiasmos is said to be by or in (en) the Spirit (2 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2). Without it no one will even see the Lord when He returns (Heb 12:14). Hence, it is to be aimed at and striven for as the goal of Christian life (Heb 12:14).

5. ̔Αγιότης. Rendered as holiness in KJV, ASV, RSV. This is another rare word (found only in Heb 12:10, and perhaps 2 Cor 1:12). It occurs in 2 Maccabees 15:2, and in Psalm 28:2 in one tr. of the Hexapla. Its meaning is sanctification rather as a condition or state as distinct from sanctifying as a process (hagiasmos). Hagiotēs is an essential attribute of God which He shares in measure with His children, so that it can be said that they “share his holiness” (Heb 12:10). This is virtually equivalent to “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). Although this state is only consummated and perfected in glorification, the implication of Hebrews 12:10 seems to be that already in this life believers partake of God’s holiness.

The other NT occurrence of hagiotēs is less certain, since a textual problem is involved. In 2 Corinthians KJV reads ἁπλότητι, “in simplicity,” but ASV, RSV, and NEB prefer ἁγιότητι, “in holiness.” It may well be that this more difficult reading (in view of the fact that Paul does not elsewhere use hagiotēs), is in fact, correct. If so, holiness is matched with godly sincerity (εἰλικρινία). The gen. is not necessarily possessive as Procksch assumes (TDNT, 114); it may be one of origin, indicating that holiness and sincerity in the believer spring from the working of God’s grace. In this case a qualitative element is also implied (cf. G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the NT, 3rd ed. [1937], 5).

C. Holiness of God. In the OT the holiness of God is trebled in the praises of the seraphim: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts” (Isa 6:3). The trisagion is repeated in the NT as John in his vision is permitted to hear the living creatures which surround the heavenly throne singing in ceaseless antiphon: “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty” (Rev 4:8). This threefold reiteration, however, is not merely impressive in its effect. It is related to the trinity of persons in the Godhead, and this factor, implicit in the OT, is made explicit in the NT. The Son addresses the Holy Father (John 17:11); He is Himself the Holy Servant or Child (Acts 4:30); and the third Person of the Godhead is the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). Holiness is not reserved for one but belongs to each.

1. God the Father. The number of passages in the NT in which holiness is directly attributed to God the Father is not large. It is not to be supposed that the NT regards the holiness of God the Father as of less importance than the OT, or that there is any discrepancy between what is revealed in the OT, and what is revealed in the NT. On the contrary, it is in the harmony of the Testaments that one sees the reason for the comparative paucity of references. The OT itself had sufficiently established the personality and holiness of the Father. It remained for the NT to focus on the Son and the Spirit.

If, however, the holiness of God the Father is seldom stated in the NT, it is everywhere presumed (TDNT, 101). Mary in her Magnificat rejoices in God her Savior: “He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name” (Luke 1:49). Whenever the Father is named, His holiness is asserted. The teaching of Jesus is definitive. The prominence given to the hallowing of the Father’s name in the initial clause of the prayer He taught His disciples is indicative of the place it held in His mind (Matt 6:9; Luke 11:2—the verb is hagiazō). In His own high priestly prayer recorded in John 17, He addressed “the only true God” (v. 3) not simply as “Father” (vv. 1, 5, 21, 24) but as “Holy Father” (v. 11) as well as “righteous Father” (v. 25).

The context in which this expression is used is most instructive. Jesus pleaded with His holy Father to keep His men who were to be left in the world. The basic element in God’s holiness is His separation from this present evil world. “Where the burden of prayer is deliverance from the evil power of the world (v. 15), the thought of God as wholly separate from that evil is specially appropriate. The Father is asked to grant to the disciples his own immunity from evil.” (W. Temple, Readings in St. John’s Gospel [1945], 318). In the conjunction of holiness and Fatherhood, the transcendence and immanence of God, already implied in the OT revelation of holiness, is further emphasized.

2. God the Son. In twelve passages Christ is described as holy in the NT. In nine of them the adjective hagios is used (Mark 1:24; Luke 1:35; 4:34; John 6:69; Acts 3:14;