Divine Holiness Research Articles

On Being Disabled

Disablement pervades life more than is realised, involving matters beyond actual physical or mental handicap. Age-related degenerations are intrinsic to everyone, while any inhumane behaviour causes extreme hurt - within caring institutions, through war - and by psychopaths who reflect lack of empathy and compassion. The able-disabled, alternatively, have fought through various means to establish a dignified presence, thereby forcing themselves to be accorded esteem by society. Disability can be envisaged as divine calling, and, as indicator of divine holiness. Much longer-lasting damage and vulnerability, reflecting evil throughout Creation, requires responses met only by incarnational theology through Christ's humiliating suffering. Great hope, then, is needed by those awaiting full restoration of well-being in resurrection.

Forgotten Dimensions of Holiness

AbstractThis article explores a sometimes forgotten dimension of divine holiness, divine holiness as love. It starts by reflecting on an apparent incongruity between the New Testament summary of the law, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself ” (Lev 19:18) and that verse’s context in Leviticus, where a more probable summary is the call, “Be holy for I, YHWH your God, am holy” (Lev 19:2). It examines the significance of the conjunction of Lev 19:2 and 19:18, and argues that it is appropriate to speak of love as a dimension of divine holiness. In the main part of the article, which looks at the Old Testament more widely, including Exodus, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Hosea and the prayer life of Israel, divine holiness as love is evident on closer examination in three ways: holiness and self-disclosure, holiness and saving activity, and holiness and divine presence.

Dealing with the Trauma of Defeat: The Rhetoric of the Devastation and Rejuvenation of Nature in Ezekiel

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.) The troops stole into the city that day as soldiers steal in who are ashamed when they flee in battle. (2 Sam 19:3)1 In every war . . . the chances of becoming a psychiatric casualty-of being debilitated for some period of time as a consequence of the stresses of military life- were greater than the chances of being killed by enemy fire.2 When two elephants fight, it is the grass that gets hurt. (African proverb)3 In recent scholarship on Ezekiel, three interpretive perspectives have found an increasingly prominent place among the more standard approaches to the book.4 These newer perspectives, like many of the more traditional approaches, attempt to deal in some way with the idiosyncratic and sometimes strange character of the book and its elements.5 One recent interpretive approach emphasizes the cruciality of priestly perspectives and traditions for Ezekiel's identity, language, and actions.6 The prophet's words reflect priestly ideology and terminology similar to the books of Exodus and Leviticus, with emphasis on the holiness of God, the separation of clean and unclean, and the consequences of defilement or pollution. Alongside this priestly perspective, and in light of Ezekiel's apparent setting in the exile, recent scholarship has also suggested the use of trauma studies as a window into Ezekiel's language and theology.7 This way of reading need not make a psychological diagnosis of the ancient Judean prophet himself. Rather, it can foreground the traumatic nature of the experiences of war, destruction, and deportation suffered by Ezekiel and his audience in the early part of the sixth century b.c.e. as a possible explanation for some of the book's strange rhetoric and imagery.8 A third interpretive perspective recently brought to bear on the study of Ezekiel focuses on the depictions of nature in the book, particularly as they relate to ecological hermeneutics.9 This newer trajectory connects in many ways to the long-standing inquiry into the destruction of cities, territory, and agriculture during warfare and the ways such destruction is reflected in biblical and extrabiblical texts.10 Scholarship has not yet taken full account of the combined import of these emerging perspectives and the ways in which they intersect with long-standing elements of Ezekiel study. To that end, this article aims to explore a unique aspect of Ezekiel's rhetoric that may connect not simply to priestly theology, traumatic experience, and ecological hermeneutics, but more specifically to the ways these elements bear on the identity, theology, and even psychology of the defeated and victimized, two experiential categories that characterize the book's presentation of its protagonist and audience. The rhetoric of Ezekiel contains a distinctive use of nature terminology. The devastation and rejuvenation of nature-crops, trees, vines, etc.-is a common motif in the prophetic literature. Ezekiel also contains this motif, but it looks markedly different. The devastation and rejuvenation of nature in Ezekiel have a characteristic emphasis on God's direct, personal, and harsh treatment of the earth and on the land itself as sinful, guilty, and polluted. While a number of studies have noted these features,11 in what follows I attempt to show that Ezekiel's nature terminology takes on a new rhetorical significance when viewed in light of priestly perspectives and the trauma of defeat and destruction. In particular, the following analysis suggests that such language serves as part of Ezekiel's effort to reshape the understanding of those who are victims and thus to deal with, or at least give expression to, the trauma of defeat. Ezekiel adds, it will be argued, two priestly dimensions to the motif of the devastation and rejuvenation of nature in order to interpret the trauma of Babylonian actions against Judah12 as the outworking of divine holiness. First, Ezekiel's descriptions of destructive acts against nature in particular contain an explicit, overarching rationale not seen in other prophetic traditions, namely, that Yahweh undertakes these actions so that Israel and the nations will know or acknowledge his name and identity. …

Holy love and divine aseity in the theology of John Zizioulas

AbstractJohn Zizioulas's doctrine of the Trinity emphasises both the holy love and the transcendent sovereignty of God. I believe that he offers a major contribution to contemporary theology. Although it is part of the tradition of Western theology, Zizioulas's ‘Being as Communion’ thesis has too often been underappreciated and sometimes even marginalised. On the other hand, recent theology has made much of the love of God, but often this has come with a corresponding and unfortunate loss of recognition of divine holiness, transcendence and freedom. Zizioulas may help us keep both the love and the holiness of the triune God in perspective. Unfortunately, however, Zizioulas's own way of doing this is fraught with problems. In this essay I try to shed light on two major themes in his trinitarian theology. One – what I call the Sovereignty-Aseity Conviction – appears at base to be an existentialist thesis: the existence of the Father precedes the divine essence. The other – what I refer to as the Being as Communion thesis – is an essentialist thesis: the holy love shared in the perichoretic life of the triune God is ‘constitutive of his substance’. I argue that Zizioulas's ascription of the first to the Father alone is problematic, and I argue further that these two theses do not work well together. I conclude by suggesting that Zizioulas's theology needs revision if it is to be truly helpful.

"Although/Because He Was in the Form of God": The Theological Significance of Paul's Master Story (Phil 2:6–11)

Abstract This article explores aspects of the Christology, ethics, and especially theology (proper) of Phil 2:6–11 by focusing on the interpretation of 2:6. It contends that both the concessive ("although") and the causative ("because") interpretations of the participle hyparchōn ("being") are correct and theologically significant, the former being the surface structure of the text, the latter its deep structure. The surface structure ("although...") is significant because it is part of a linguistic pattern that Paul exploits Christologically and ethically throughout his letters ("although [x] not [y] but [z]"). At the same time, because Paul says that Christ was in the form of God and that "this [anaphoric definite article to] equality with God" was properly expressed through the kenosis of incarnation and crucifixion, we can say that the deep structure of the text is causative: "because...." Thus Paul compels us to rethink God and to speak of a cruciform God or "kenotic divinity" (Crossan and Reed). The article also argues that the incarnation and cross manifest, and the exaltation recognizes, both Christ's true divinity and his true humanity, all of which lead us in a Chalcedonian direction, though with a Pauline (cruciform) twist. The understanding of God in Paul that emerges from this interpretation is then linked to John Webster's notion of divine holiness as "majesty in relation," which, for Paul, means power in weakness. This counterintuitive view of God is contrasted with popular notions of divinity that focus on (especially military) power and is offered as the foundation of a counterimperial lifestyle.

"Although/Because He Was in the Form of God": The Theological Significance of Paul's Master Story (Phil 2:6–11)

Abstract This article explores aspects of the Christology, ethics, and especially theology (proper) of Phil 2:6–11 by focusing on the interpretation of 2:6. It contends that both the concessive ("although") and the causative ("because") interpretations of the participle hyparchōn ("being") are correct and theologically significant, the former being the surface structure of the text, the latter its deep structure. The surface structure ("although...") is significant because it is part of a linguistic pattern that Paul exploits Christologically and ethically throughout his letters ("although [x] not [y] but [z]"). At the same time, because Paul says that Christ was in the form of God and that "this [anaphoric definite article to] equality with God" was properly expressed through the kenosis of incarnation and crucifixion, we can say that the deep structure of the text is causative: "because...." Thus Paul compels us to rethink God and to speak of a cruciform God or "kenotic divinity" (Crossan and Reed). The article also argues that the incarnation and cross manifest, and the exaltation recognizes, both Christ's true divinity and his true humanity, all of which lead us in a Chalcedonian direction, though with a Pauline (cruciform) twist. The understanding of God in Paul that emerges from this interpretation is then linked to John Webster's notion of divine holiness as "majesty in relation," which, for Paul, means power in weakness. This counterintuitive view of God is contrasted with popular notions of divinity that focus on (especially military) power and is offered as the foundation of a counterimperial lifestyle.

The Original Risk: Overtheologizing Ethics and Undertheologizing Sin

The project of articulating a theological ethics on the basis of liturgical anthropology is bound to fail if the necessary consequence is that one has to quit the forum of critical modern rationality. The risk of Engelhardt's approach is to limit rationality to a narrow vision of reason. Sin is not to be understood as the negation of human holiness, but as the negation of divine holiness. The only way to renew theological ethics is to understand sin as the anthropological and ethical expression of the biblical message of the justification by faith only. Sin is therefore a secondary category, which can only by interpreted in light of the positive manifestation of liberation, justification, and grace. The central issue of Christian ethics is not ritual purity or morality, but experience, confession and recognition of our own injustice in our dealing with God and men.

The Original Risk: Overtheologizing Ethics and Undertheologizing Sin

The project of articulating a theological ethics on the basis of liturgical anthropology is bound to fail if the necessary consequence is that one has to quit the forum of critical modern rationality. The risk of Engelhardt's approach is to limit rationality to a narrow vision of reason. Sin is not to be understood as the negation of human holiness, but as the negation of divine holiness. The only way to renew theological ethics is to understand sin as the anthropological and ethical expression of the biblical message of the justification by faith only. Sin is therefore a secondary category, which can only by interpreted in light of the positive manifestation of liberation, justification, and grace. The central issue of Christian ethics is not ritual purity or morality, but experience, confession and recognition of our own injustice in our dealing with God and men.

“Holy, as the Lord Your God Commanded You”

For the New Testament writers, the commandment to observe the divine holiness required on the Sabbath is expanded to encompass all of life. How to do that is an issue that Jesus and the Jewish authorities discuss in the Gospels. Rather than a matter of appropriate ritual observance, Sabbath emerges as an economic category at the heart of the gospel message.

WHOSE JUSTICE? WHICH RIGHTEOUSNESS? THE INTERPRETATION OF ISAIAH V 16

A majority of scholars, ancient and modern, interpret Isaiah v 16 as depicting the divine judgement on human sin as the embodiment and outworking of divine holiness. It is argued here that the word pair mispat and edaqâ in this verse should probably have the same sense that they have in the preceding song of the vineyard in Isaiah v 7, where they depict those human moral qualities which God looks for in Israel (in replication of God's moral characteristics). The argument is advanced with reference to other usage of mispa and edaqâ in Isaiah i-xii. Contextual factors, in relation to similar language in Isaiah ii, and with regard to the redactional shaping of Isaiah v 1-17, are also taken into account. A subtly diverent interpretation, implied by the Masoretic pointing, is finally noted as a possible qualification to the argument.