Holy Ground

[Quid est Veritas?]

Exodus 3:5 - "Do not come closer; take your sandals off your feet, for the place you are standing is holy ground"

This is a clear biblical incidence of 'Holy ground' during the burning bush event. Only here and in Acts when Stephen references this event, is the phrase used. Similarly we see the Holy of Holies in the Temple which only the High Priest could enter, a hallowed space, which is perhaps similar.

Another perhaps related event is Joshua 5 where an angel also tells him to remove the sandals from his feet.

This raises a number of questions in my mind: Are there areas of the world that are specifically holy? How do we know if we enter one and perhaps need to be contrite and respectful, ie metaphorically 'remove the sandals from our feet'? Why are these areas holy as opposed to the rest of creation?

I was in Italy a few years ago and even my Protestant heart was moved by the idea of Peter's tomb below his eponymous basilica and I felt a sense the crypt of Francis of Assisi was hallowed somehow. I am sure I would feel similarly at Temple Mount or the Church of the Sepulcre or Nativity.

The ancient Semites had ideas of a clear differentiation between areas given to gods and wilderness, the lands of Baalim for instance. We see a similar dichotomy within Islam today or Shinto shrines differentiating sacred space with Torii.

Perhaps areas are only holy if God is somehow specifically active like the Burning Bush or Holy of Holies, but do they then forever remain holy ground? Is the land of the hill of Golgotha eternally holy, for instance? Or are areas holy from the start as these are areas God chose to manifest? Or do we create 'holy ground' when we build a church and worship or bury our fellow Christians as we dedicate land specifically to God?

I know I asked a lot of questions here, but I would really like some more perspective on this.

 

[OcifferPls]

So it seems like you're asking "is it the place itself that is holy?"

I don't know of a direct answer to your question, in scripture, but based on the same logic that pertains to us, I'm inclined to say no, it was the Presence that consecrated the place, because it would be absurd to say "the holiness of the person consecrates the person, and the Presence of God is irrelevant."

 

[Ken Rank]

Exodus 3:5 - "Do not come closer; take your sandals off your feet, for the place you are standing is holy ground"

This is a clear biblical incidence of 'Holy ground' during the burning bush event. Only here and in Acts when Stephen references this event, is the phrase used. Similarly we see the Holy of Holies in the Temple which only the High Priest could enter, a hallowed space, which is perhaps similar.

Another perhaps related event is Joshua 5 where an angel also tells him to remove the sandals from his feet.

This raises a number of questions in my mind: Are there areas of the world that are specifically holy? How do we know if we enter one and perhaps need to be contrite and respectful, ie metaphorically 'remove the sandals from our feet'? Why are these areas holy as opposed to the rest of creation?

I was in Italy a few years ago and even my Protestant heart was moved by the idea of Peter's tomb below his eponymous basilica and I felt a sense the crypt of Francis of Assisi was hallowed somehow. I am sure I would feel similarly at Temple Mount or the Church of the Sepulcre or Nativity.

The ancient Semites had ideas of a clear differentiation between areas given to gods and wilderness, the lands of Baalim for instance. We see a similar dichotomy within Islam today or Shinto shrines differentiating sacred space with Torii.

Perhaps areas are only holy if God is somehow specifically active like the Burning Bush or Holy of Holies, but do they then forever remain holy ground? Is the land of the hill of Golgotha eternally holy, for instance? Or are areas holy from the start as these are areas God chose to manifest? Or do we create 'holy ground' when we build a church and worship or bury our fellow Christians as we dedicate land specifically to God?

I know I asked a lot of questions here, but I would really like some more perspective on this.

I think it is important to make sure that a good definition is being used. So, since this is your thread, how do you define holy? I see it as being made "set apart," so if a area of ground was set apart for a particular encounter (the burning bush?) then is that area of ground STILL set apart? And if not... and we treat it as if it is... do we run the risk of turning that ground into an idol?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

So it seems like you're asking "is it the place itself that is holy?"

I don't know of an answer to your question, in scripture, but I'm inclined to say no, it was the Presence that consecrated the place.

If the Manifestation of the Divine made it holy, does it remain eternally consecrated though? Is Calvary itself holy, for instance because of the Crucifixion?
Do we need to 'remove the sandals from our feet' there?

 

[dzheremi]

The idea here is that there are areas and things that God has specifically blessed, and/or that have been blessed and set aside for the worship of Him. This is the idea of the consecration of a church, monastery, etc. (this is also the case with people, like priests; the Coptic word for 'priest', owib, and the Coptic word for 'holy', ethowab, come from the same root), as well as the idea behind places of pilgrimage like the tree in Egypt under which tradition says the holy family sought shelter in the process of their flight from King Herod, or the tomb of St. Peter that you mentioned, or any other places like that. So it's both the things you mentioned: we consecrate things by the power of God for the worship of Him and strengthening those who worship Him.

(This is also why in the Oriental Orthodox traditions we remove our shoes before entering a church. The understanding is that the church itself is holy ground, and now we, like Moses, are in the presence of the Lord here.)

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think it is important to make sure that a good definition is being used. So, since this is your thread, how do you define holy? I see it as being made "set apart," so if a area of ground was set apart for a particular encounter (the burning bush?) then is that area of ground STILL set apart? And if not... and we treat it as if it is... do we run the risk of turning that ground into an idol?

The hebrew is qodesh which means 'set apart' or otherness usually in reference to the Divine. The Greek Hagios is similar.

My definition isn't really at play here as I am asking from the Biblical standpoint and its implication, so any Biblically acceptable definition of Holy would suffice.

My personal view would be to say Holy means 'of God', so functionally different from the mundane, not necessarily set-apart only for ritual or such. In a sense, we Christians are meant to be 'holy', but I mean it here in a more definitively blessed sense.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I would like to point out that there were several "miracles" going on. Not only the burning bush, but Moses' hand turning white, and the staff to serpent thing, that the Pharaohs magicians could duplicate. The serpent in this passage by the way, is a nachash. IN pharaoh's palace, it was Aaron's rod and it became a tannim, which is translated "whale" on the fifth day of creation.

None of these miracles seem to have a decent symbol applying to them. Maybe the ground was different somehow in a scientific way.

 

[OcifferPls]

You may want to see my edit for more info on my rationale.

If the Mainfestation made it holy, does it remain eternally consecrated though? Is Calvary itself holy, for instance because of the Crucifixion?
Do we need to 'remove the sandals from our feet' there?

Is the cross that crucified Christ therefore holy? It remains an instrument of torture and execution, but it would be considered a relic which people of the christian faith may be inclined to preserve and protect, in memory of Christ and the events at Golgotha. Is it wrong? Is it right? Is it wrong to treat mementos belonging to a respected, deceased member of your family with no respect? Is it right to honor their memory? Apart from a commandment, there's no clear line here, they're just material things which may not last forever, but thought and intent always count.

 

[Philip_B]

The Celtic notion of Thin Places is in some way analogous to the concept of the Holy Place. These were places where it was believed that the earth was so thin that the other world (the realm of the spiritual showed through). This was strongly connected to the idea of the borderlands, and indeed all those places and moments which mark edge and transition. The gloaming - the magic of those few minute around dusk where the light changes in all sorts of ways was seen as an example. (For those who take photos this is a great moment in the day). Whilst a range of Christians will regard this as murky pagan stuff there is a sense in which we speak here to the rest of the world. In the life of our Churches the edge moments - hatch, match, and dispatch - birth, marriage and death - are moments when people are open to something that lies beyond. Sometimes we have squandered opportunities when people were ready to look beyond we have tried to be relevant and look to this world rather than the next.

There is also the lived experience of the people, where we decide to set a place aside as holy, and as the years go by these places are invested and communicate something of the world beyond. It may be a Canterbury Cathedral, a parish church, a pool of reflection, or something like the ground zero memorial at the twin towers. Perhaps there is nothing scientifically intrinsic to these places, yet the lived experience of the community recognises something here.

And sometimes it is not the place, but the journey, like the pilgrimage to Saint Iago Compostella, which perhaps reminds us that it is the journey we need to worry about the most.

There is no doubt that the lived experience of the people of Israel had a sense of Holy Place, be it the Mountain in Samaria where Jacob's Well was, or the Temple on the Hill of Zion in Jerusalem. John 4 and the encounter with the Samaritan woman does give us some guidance here, however it certainly does not speak against the notion of Holy Place, but it certainly throws the door wide open.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You may want to see my edit for more info on my rationale.



Is the cross that crucified Christ therefore holy? It remains an instrument of torture and execution, but it would be considered a relic which people of the christian faith may be inclined to preserve and protect, in memory of Christ and the events at Golgotha. Is it wrong? Is it right? Is it wrong to treat mementos belonging to a respected, deceased member of your family with no respect? Is it right to honor their memory? Apart from a commandment, there's no clear line here, they're just material things which may not last forever, but thought and intent always count.

It is a bit different though, because this is a specific divine command to remove his sandals mentioning the reason as Moses was standing on Holy Ground.
This is not a human sense of trying to cling to something like memento or relics, but a divine pronouncement that an area was holy.
Either God had seen fit to always consider the land consecrated or consecrated it during the Burning Bush event. Human feelings weren't at play except perhaps to assure Moses that he was in the presence of Divinity.

I understand what you mean though, but I think there is a difference between something truly Holy and something considered holy by men. A pagan may have considered his idol holy or a baseball fanatic his signed ball, it does not necessarily make it so.

 

[OcifferPls]

Either God had seen fit to always consider the land consecrated or consecrated it during the Burning Bush event. Human feelings weren't at play except perhaps to assure Moses that he was in the presence of Divinity.

Right, well, you have my previous response to that: it appears absurd to me to assert that the place itself is holy, of itself, and the Presence of God is irrelevant.

I understand what you mean though, but I think there is a difference between something truly Holy and something considered holy by men. A pagan may have considered his idol holy or a baseball fanatic his signed ball, it does not necessarily make it so.

But if, even in error, a person truly believes a relic or a place is holy, granted, it doesn't make it Holy in an objective sense, but is it wrong then for the person to disrespect the "holy" thing? Pauline doctrine suggests that, yes, it is a sin to him. I would add that OT doctrine suggests that it's the thoughts and intent of the heart, are which are good or bad (e.g. Ps 139:23,24), regardless of subjective context, and that's what it is that always mattered to God, who searches the hearts.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Right, well, you have my previous response to that: it appears absurd to me to assert that the place itself is holy, of itself, and the Presence of God is irrelevant.

Obviously the Presence of God made it Holy, but would it not remain residually so? Like the Arc of the Covenant for instance.

Similarly God is omnipresent, so technically is everywhere anyway, but pronounced this area as different somehow.

But if, even in error, a person truly believes a relic or a place is holy, granted, it doesn't make it Holy in an objective sense, but is it wrong then for the person to disrespect the "holy" thing? Pauline doctrine suggests that, yes, it is a sin to him.

Please elaborate. What Pauline doctrine are you referencing that suggests human belief partially decides what is sinful?

 

[OcifferPls]

>Please elaborate.

If one person desires to murder, and justifies himself by use of religion or law, is the state of his heart much different in the sight of God, than a person who desires the same but openly considers himself a killer and does not hide his intent with religious justification? Drawing from the OT, whatever subjective context one finds one's self in, a heart that is not right in the sight of God, does not conform to the state that would subsist in the presence of one, objective living God in the life and being of an individual.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

>Please elaborate.

If one person desires to murder, and justifies himself by use of religion or law, is the state of his heart much different in the sight of God, than a person who desires the same but openly considers himself a killer and does not hide his intent with religious justification? Drawing from the OT, whatever subjective context one finds one's self in, a heart that is not right in the sight of God, does not conform to the state that would subsist in the presence of one, objective living God in the life and being of an individual.

If someone considers a place holy and acts accordingly and is not in the right state of heart, is this sin? Perhaps if the place really is holy, but I would surmise not if it was only considered so.
For instance if I consider it a sin to eat apple pie, then proceed to do so, it does not mean it really was a sin. Sin is what separates us from God metaphysically, not what we humans arbitrarily decide is Sin.
While I understand you infer that the heart of the individual before God is what matters and therefore his devotion as such, I don't think we can thus create or discard the holy or profane as we see fit. For if I consider an evil not to be so, let say theft, on account of my upbringing or a Robin Hood deal, even if I feel right with God in my heart and noble, this does not make it so.
This sound surprisingly similar to Buddhist concepts of non-attachment which allowed warrior monks to rape and pillage while staying above such things. I find this somewhat abhorrent.
I think good and evil actions are not arbitrary, nor is the sacred and the profane so. To me this doctrine more speaks of acting in the right state of mind when doing the works of God, or perhaps more sanctifying the mundane in His glory? I don't think it can make the mundane inherently sacred as such, while God himself had declared the land in question holy.

Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood what you meant.

 

[OcifferPls]

This sound surprisingly similar to Buddhist concepts of non-attachment which allowed warrior monks to rape and pillage while staying above such things. I find this somewhat abhorrent.

That's basically how I would describe murder using religious justification, except that justification would not need to appear to be a product of moral relativism. So apparently you have misunderstood. What I'm saying is that an intent to murder is never good by an objective standard, regardless of context. Similarly, an intent to dishonor or disrespect God would also not be good, regardless of context, and that context does not exclude one's temporal opinions and beliefs about what it is that may or may not be holy.

 

[Greg J.]

Consider the distinction between something being holy and a person's attitude toward that thing. A patch of ground may not be holy anymore in God's eyes, but if you look at it as holy and treat it without respect, you bring judgment on yourself. God will judge us according to our hearts.

... do we run the risk of turning that ground into an idol?

I like this idea. I think this is a good test. One could argue that things cannot be holy like God himself is holy. No thing should be set above God himself. Even when things are holy, recognize them as holy only because of God himself. The regenerate Christian is holy, but it is because of God. The Christian is a temple of the Holy Spirit. How much more holy can a thing be than that? It makes a case to treat everything God created with honor and respect because it belongs to God. As Ken asks, what do you mean by holy? How is it different than recognizing that everything belongs to the Lord?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I think it is important to make sure that a good definition is being used. So, since this is your thread, how do you define holy? I see it as being made "set apart," so if a area of ground was set apart for a particular encounter (the burning bush?) then is that area of ground STILL set apart? And if not... and we treat it as if it is... do we run the risk of turning that ground into an idol?

First, all of Creation is Holy; as it was made by God for His purpose.

The idea of being "set aside" for God's purpose is a good description. Historically, Churches have Consecrated or Dedicated their places of worship and their final resting places; as well as objects for use in worship or the spreading of the Gospel. Sanctuary lamps burn 24-7 in many Churches as not only a sign of God's omni-presence, but also to light a "holy space" when no one is there. Likewise, in Churches that hold the Eucharistic sacrament as Christ's very body and blood, it remains the custom to genuflect or bow before the altar on which the sacrament is celebrated; Also, dipping one's fingers in holy water or the baptismal font and making the sign of the cross; these things would be akin to taking ones sandals off.

Altars and Churches may not be holy in and of themselves (even thought they are dedicated and consecrated) but their holiness comes from their purpose and what they represent; Churches are God's house, and the altar is Christs throne when He comes and dwells among us physically in the blessed sacrament.

 

[Greg J.]

In those instances, it is man that has set things aside for their use (worship), not God setting them aside for his use. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's different. God can set things aside for his use through human faith, but that's also a little different.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

In those instances, it is man that has set things aside for their use (worship), not God setting them aside for his use. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's different. God can set things aside for his use through human faith, but that's also a little different.

Yes, but it is God's Church doing so, on His behalf. Scripture tells us that what is bound on earth is bound in heaven; so for me, it seems that God has given such authority to do so to His Church.

Again, all of creation was created Holy.

 

[Ken Rank]

I like this idea. I think this is a good test. One could argue that things cannot be holy like God himself is holy. No thing should be set above God himself. Even when things are holy, recognize them as holy only because of God himself. The regenerate Christian is holy, but it is because of God. The Christian is a temple of the Holy Spirit. How much more holy can a thing be than that? It makes a case to treat everything God created with honor and respect because it belongs to God. As Ken asks, what do you mean by holy? How is it different than recognizing that everything belongs to the Lord?

Altars and Churches may not be holy in and of themselves (even thought they are dedicated and consecrated) but their holiness comes from their purpose and what they represent; Churches are God's house, and the altar is Christs throne when He comes and dwells among us physically in the blessed sacrament.

I agree with Mark that everything is holy is the sense that God made it, but I (respectfully of course) would disagree with the blanket statement that "everything is holy" i.e. "everything is set apart." Let me share a few thoughts...

When Moses came before the burning bush, he was told by God to remove his shoes because the ground upon which he stood was holy. If everything that was created is holy in the blanket statement sense, then we should never take our shoes off because all created land is holy. But we leave them on, and Moses had them on before he reached the area of the burning bush... and that wasn't an issue to God. So I am with you Mark in relation to everything being "holy" from the perspective of God having made it... but perhaps we might word this in such a manner that places degree or weight to something. In other words, if God made all the ground and it was ok for Moses to wear shoes until he reached a certain place, then clearly God might place more weight on one thing over another.

I have a teaching I have done on how we can turn God's name into an idol. I can share that with you all, in a very abridged version obviously, if anyone would like to consider it.