God's Name

Asked on Quora:

Why doesn’t the Christian “God” have a name, just “God”?

The purpose of a name is to distinguish one thing from other, similar things. We can call God “God” because no English-speaking, monotheistic person would confuse Him with somebody else. Nevertheless, God does have a chosen name (as well as many descriptive names that I won't go into).

The Christian god is the Hebrew (Jewish) god, with details about His nature known more explicitly to Christians but denied by the Jewish faith. God is first called Elohim in Genesis 1:1. Elohim means gods (plural) or lords, so it is an early hint at the model that describes God as being one God who, using His creative power over even time and space, entered His creation as three Persons. But Elohim is a descriptive noun rather than a name.

The name YHWH first appears in Genesis chapter 2. It gets some explanation in Exodus chapter 3. As God commissioned Moses to return to Egypt to lead Israel out of slavery, Moses asked whom he should say sent him if the Israelites asked?

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Whereas most names describe a person from a third-person perspective, I AM is in first person. God selected the name. This, and the meaning of the name, teaches several important lessons.

• Self-existence. No god came before Him, so no god had the authority to name Him.
• When God calls Himself I AM, He contrasts Himself against all other gods, who are not.
• The names of man-made gods usually have root words that single out a sole action or attribute. For example, Romans’ Saturn traces back to the word, satus, to sow, and Egyptians’ Horus traces back to a word that meant light. In contrast, I AM encompasses a balance of all positive attributes while implying the imaginary nature of man-made gods. 

I AM is, in Hebrew, YHWH. This is called the Tetragrammaton, which means four letters. Since ancient Hebrew had no letters representing vowels, the correct pronunciation was forgotten thousands of years ago. Some pronounce it Yahweh, but that is just a guess.

Now that you know that YHWH means I AM and Elohim means gods or lords, you can see that, back in Genesis chapter 2, where it calls God YHWH ELOHIM, the hint about God’s triune nature expands because the expression would mean I AM-GODS or I AM LORDS. (This is a name and title, not a sentence.) If we combine this information with many explicit statements that God is the only one who is, by nature, a god, then a mystery forms that only the doctrine of the Trinity solves.

The Jews came to believe that God’s name was so holy that they began refusing to even say it. That contributed to why the pronunciation was forgotten. When reading scriptures, they began substituting Adonai, which means Lord.

The translators of the Authorized Version (the actual name of the King James Bible) could have used YHWH, or they could have translated it I AM. But one cannot be pronounced, and the other causes confusion when plugged into sentences. So they continued the Hebrew practice by translating it the LORD (with all capital letters).

Therefore, in the hundreds of places you see the LORD in your Bible, it actually represents YHWH, the name that God chose for Himself. For example, I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to graven images (Isaiah 42:8).

In the dark ages, Christians translated the Old Testament from Hebrew to Latin. Latin lacks a Y, so they changed it to a J; and Latin lacks a W, so they changed it to a V. That turned it into JHVH.

There was an old practice of using the vowels from Hebrew Adonai. So a Roman Catholic monk transformed the word into Jahovah. The first Bibles produced with a printing press published it as Jehovah, and that stuck.

Christianity is not like sorcery, wherein words have magical power in themselves (or so it is claimed). The understanding and the intent of the heart are what’s important.

Certain sects that make a big deal out of calling God Yahweh or Jehovah, or about using the Hebrew or Aramaic pronunciations of Jesus appeal to people with low biblical literacy or people so focused on micro-minutiae that they miss the big picture.  If we were Hebrew-speaking Jews reading a Hebrew Bible, sure, the pronunciation would matter.

But most of us are English-speaking gentiles, and there’s no crime in using the LORD in place of the name, YHWH, and no advantage in using a word that we do not know how to pronounce and the average person would not understand.

Hebrews 6:6 -- Not About OSAS

Does Hebrews 6:4-8 mean that a person cannot come back to God and be saved if they once were with God and then fell away from God?

The simple answer is that the passage is not about salvation. Verses 4–8 describe the first century Jewish nation, not individual Christians.

(For simplicity of language, I’m going to use the Jewish author’s term “Jews” to refer to the first-century establishment Hebrews in Judea. It’s a lot easier to type, I do not intend any insult to “Jews” of today, and I assume the reader is intelligent and flexible enough to accept that.)

Two camps within Christianity have argued for centuries over the meaning of then have fallen away. One side (called Arminians, after Jacob Arminius) say that it means Christians can fall away and lose their salvation. The other side (Calvinists, after John Calvin) claim that the Arminian interpretation would contradict other less ambiguous statements in the Bible.

The New American Standard Bible translation is the most consistently accurate word-for-word translation, so I use that here. Here is the passage:

• For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

In the Greek, the structure of verses 4–6 is:

• For it is impossible, those who (identifying phrases), to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify, etc.

The meaning is ambiguous because the identifying phases can be interpreted to mean either Christians or the Jews. The following is a literal translation of the Greek identifying phrases without the adjustments needed to make the sentence fit together in English.

• those who, having once been enlightened
• having tasted of the heavenly gift
• having been made partakers of the Holy Spirit
• having tasted the good word of God
• having tasted... the powers of the age to come
• and having fallen away

Arminians interpret having fallen away to mean that a Christian can fall away. This is based on the King James Version’s mistaken translation, if they shall fall away. If and shall fall makes the phrase conditional and future.

But that interpretation is incorrect because it derives from an incorrect translation. If does not exist in the Greek text, and the verb to fall has the same past tense (called aorist) that all the other verbs have. Having fallen is not about a potential action that might happen in the future. It is about an actual action that had already happened at the time the author was writing.

The phrase does not describe hypothetical Christian individuals in the future. It describes an action that the Jewish establishment had already performed.

If you remove the identifying phrases, the sentence reads thus:

• For it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, seeing that they crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame

If you apply these phrases to Christians, it does not make much sense. Why can’t a straying Christian be restored? How would restoring a repentant Christian crucify Christ afresh and put Him to shame? If restoring a “fallen” Christian re-crucifies Christ, then isn’t Christ re-crucified every time a sinner repents?

In contrast, it becomes quite simple if applied to the Jewish establishment. If you outline Hebews, you will notice that it's all about contrasting the Jewish temple system against the superior system of Christ's gospel and church. Before Christ’s sacrifice, the temple system’s daily sacrifices pointed forward to redemption through His sacrifice. Afterwards, continuing the sacrifices implied that Christ’s sacrifice had not happened, or if it had happened, it was insufficient. (Roman Catholicism’s mass has similar problems.) This was analogous to hanging somebody in effigy. It was an insult.

Also note that the sentence does not say, if one renews them again to repentance, they will crucify to themselves the Son of God…. The meaning is, it is impossible because they crucify…. The temple sacrifices rejected Christ’s coming and sacrifice. The leaders had already been called to repentance and had rebuffed that call.

Hebrews 6:4-6 is ambiguous enough for a careless reading to lead to several possible interpretation. However, it is far more likely that the fallen refers to the Jewish system that rejected Christ, and the evidence that it is impossible to renew the Jews to repentance was that they insulted the person and work of Christ. If you continue on to verse 8, you will see a veiled threat to the Jews that their system was about to undergo God’s judgment.

This dovetails with what we know from history, namely, that God allowed waves of Roman armies to destroy Jerusalem and Judea starting in 67 AD. This was prophesied hundreds of years before (for instance, by Joel) and later by Jesus. So Hebrews 6:6–8 fits into a much larger picture.

Let's not stop at verse 8. Verses 9–12 contrast with the preceding verses. Whereas verses 4–8 describe people who were never saved, verses 9–12 describe people who have been saved.

There are “things” that accompany salvation such as love and ministry (verses 9–10). It does not say that love and ministry produce salvation, but rather, they are found in the person who already possesses salvation. Diligence in producing evidence of salvation produces not salvation, but assurance (verse 11).

Also note a contrast between verses 9 and 12. The beginning of the paragraph treats salvation as a present condition of the Christian whereas the ending of the paragraph treats inheritance, that is, reward, as something that comes at the end of a faithful, persevering life.

God saves through faith alone, but faith plus salvation results in fruits of the Spirit such as love, good works such as ministering to the needs of the church, and perseverance through doubts, temptations, and trials. Those results of salvation produce assurance and result in rewards. Be careful when people try to turn the results or evidences of salvation into causes of salvation.

Psalm 23:2 -- Translating "Green Pastures"

In Psalm 23:2, why is "pastures of grass" translated to "green pastures" (or similar)? (Question on Quora)

As you know, a word can have multiple definitions ("denotations"), but it can also imply multiple meanings, including emotive and figurative meanings ("connotations"), depending on how it is used in its context.

The Hebrew noun deshe, translated grass, comes from the verb dasha, to sprout, shoot, grow green. Thus, deshe implies grass or vegetation that is in its growing phase, and the word is sometimes translated more generically as herbs, vegetation, or as my doctor called it, greens.

Deshe contrasts with a different word for mature grass, châtsı̂yr. Châtsı̂yr implies grass that has turned brown and is ripe for the harvesting of its seed. Where I live, the seeds of brown natural grasses have husks called foxtails that embed into a sheep’s fur (and human’s clothes) and cause irritation. (Shall we add that that this evokes tick season and the hottest time of the year?)

In this case, the noun is used as an adjective that modifies the noun pasture. Grassy pasture wouldn’t quite draw out the meaning. Tender/young/green grass-pasture comes closer but is awkward in English. Grass and pasture are also slightly redundant. Since what matters is not the composition of the vegetation, but the fact that it is nourishing and comfortable, we can simplify the wording to green pastures.

Remember: The Psalms, as poetry, are saturated with metaphor. Barnes' Notes on the Bible points out that the verse describes a place where one’s hunger is satisfied by a bounty of food and where one is made to comfortably rest from one’s journey. I would add that it also signifies springtime, a season of renewal.

The word picture evokes New Testament themes. For example, Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and ‘you will find rest for your souls’ (Matthew 11:28–29).

Most churches and sects keep their flocks in a state of insecurity and perpetual work to achieve redemption. Work — ceremonies and do’s and don’ts — is good when done out of love and gratitude, and it is needed as evidence that we have become God’s sheep. 

However, work is an unending, impossible mission when done to establish or cling to justification. The gospel teaches us to renounce striving for self-righteousness and enter into the rest that God offers. When pride and fear cease, then love and gratitude transform former work into pleasure.

Why is the Catholic faith so strict?

Why is the Catholic faith so strict?

The gentleman who asks the question clarifies that the strictness that concerns him regards types of sins. I will answer from a biblical perspective, which agrees with Catholicism about most points of morality. Where the biblical perspective differs is in the motive behind that strictness.

As a courtesy, I will quote from the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims translation; and where needed, I will include explanatory words or words from current translations in parentheses.

Defining Morality

God’s primary attribute is holiness. Because He is holy, He must be just and loving.

• God could be loving without being just or holy.
• God could be just without being loving or holy.
• If God were not just and loving, He could not be holy.

You can tell a lot about how biblical a church is by how well it balances holiness, justice, and love.

Holiness takes two forms. First, it means that all of God’s attributes and actions are right. This may sound circular because God’s holiness is the standard against which we judge “right.” However, we can refine that. God’s perfection before He created the universe is the standard, and he has neither changed away from that standard nor violated it.

Second, God’s holiness involves the concept of sacredness. To illustrate, the leftover Jesus-flesh and Jesus-blood is not to be used for ordinary purposes or disposed of like trash. The priests must protect the leftovers, but God’s holiness is self-protecting. God alone hath immortality, and inhabiteth (dwells in) light inaccessible (unapproachable), whom no man hath seen, nor can see… (1 Timothy 6:16). One day, in the resurrection, the unjustified will see Him. According to Revelation (“Apocalypse”) 20:11, I saw a great white throne, and one sitting upon it (God), from whose face the earth and heaven fled away, and there was no place found for them.

The commandments, or morality in general, is a standard applicable to life on Earth, that reflects God’s character. God revealed the standard gradually. First, there were a few simple commands in the Garden of Eden. Our ancestors disobeyed. Then there were the Ten Commandments. The Ten were summarized in two: Love God first, and love your neighbor. That was in about 1250 BC. Over 600 more commands followed in the Old Testament to help apply the Two and the Ten in daily and religious life.

But it doesn’t end there. You can probably finish this: “Man looks at the outward appearance but God….” It’s in 1 Samuel 16:7.

God judges motives, intents, and emotions, not just actions. For example, Jesus said, whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28), and whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment…. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5:22).

We can state the prohibitions against sins positively.

• Sins insult God and hurt others, so abstaining from sins can be a way to love God and others.

If a church is strict in warning against the many sins that we can commit, then it is consistent with God’s own revelation of Himself. The “blame” if there be any, falls upon us for the many ways that we insult God and hurt others.

This can be a loving act on the part of the church. Warning: This is not a loving act when a church crosses into being “strict,” as in being judgmental, intolerant, or impatient. The approach must be balanced because the goal is to help people grow; it is not to turn them into slaves.

Motives for Morality

Because God is holy, souls bearing guilt cannot enter God’s presence. Even if God or the angels did not bar the way, guilty souls would flee — some in regret and fear, others in hatred. God presents two solutions so souls can live in His presence:

• Live so that no guilt ever accumulates
• Find forgiveness of guilt

World religions add:

• Earn your way out of guilt-debt

Catholicism adopts a hybrid:

• God lets us earn forgiveness from some guilt and enables us to work our way out of the remaining guilt

Going back to the Ten Commandments and the other 600+ commands: This is called The Law. Since God gave the Ten and the bulk of the 600 through Moses, it is also called the Mosaic Law. It is one united Law with many points. Break one point, and you’ve broken the whole.

Israel failed to keep the Mosaic Law. Their relationship with God was a roller-coaster ride. Eventually, God split Israel into two kingdoms. They continued their ups and downs — mostly downs — until God allowed other nations to destroyed one kingdom and then the other. After a time, God restored one of the two kingdoms, Judea, keeping it under the rule of other nations. The priests learned their lesson too well.

By the time of Jesus, Judaism had added thousands more commands, called “traditions,” to ensure that they kept the first 600+. Sadly, their efforts to earn righteousness led them, as Jesus said, to make void the word of God by your own tradition (Mark 7:13). They focused on microscopic details and left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith not done (Matthew 23:23).

The Jews had missed an important lesson of the Law. We are all become as one unclean, and all our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman: and we have all fallen as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away (Isaiah 64:6)

The main purpose of the law was to show us our inability to justify ourselves by showing us an impossible standard, God’s perfection. Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20).

Jesus stressed the lesson through irony. The religious leaders had their thousands of commands, yet Jesus said, unless your justice (righteousness) abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:20).

So the lesson was not to rely on self-righteousness. Rather, as Paul wrote, the law was our pedagogue (teacher) in Christ, that we might be justified by faith (Galatians 3:24).

The Jews of Jesus’s day tried to earn their way to heaven. Abstaining from sins and doing good deeds are good, but not as a way to heaven. The Apostles explicitly taught that works and faith, and wages and grace, were mutually exclusive pairs. For example:

• Knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified (Galatians 2:16).
• If by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace (Romans 11:6).

Just as Judaism went off track with teaching self justification, the Church gradually went off track, mixing grace and self justification. Grace means “gift,” but the church redefined it as being like money, to be earned through ceremonies and deeds, here a little, there a little. And if you collected enough of this substance, you could buy your way out of Purgatory or Limbo sooner. This is a blasphemous insult to the Giver of grace.

The Church also came to teach that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was not enough. When He cried Tetelestai on the cross, it was a victory cry, “It is finished!” But the Church claims to continue that sacrifice in thousands of locations every day.

• We are sanctified by the oblation (offering) of the body of Jesus Christ once. And every (Jewish) priest indeed standeth daily ministering and often offering the same sacrifices which can never take away sins. But this man, offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, From henceforth expecting until his enemies be made his footstool. (Hebrews 10:10–13)

Notice the contrasts. The Jewish sacrifice was continuous. Christ sacrificed Himself once. It had a definite ending. He does not now rise up and descend to Earth to continue His suffering thousands of times each day, but rather, sits, resting, waiting with the Father on God’s throne, making intercession for His followers. To teach that the one-time sacrifice of infinite God the Son was inadequate is blasphemous.

• For by one oblation (offering) he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (believers) (Hebrews 10:14).

Not only was the sacrifice a complete act, but the redemption of those who place their faith in it is perfect (complete). Redemption is not bit by bit, but perfect. Implying that a complete redemption cannot be claimed blasphemously insults the Giver’s resources and generosity.

Now we can apply this to the original question. The biblical Christian has many reasons to recognize strict rules of morality.

• The rules are ways to love God.
• The rules are ways to love others.
• Love seeks the benefit of others
• In the eyes of others, our holiness qualifies us convey the gospel
• By obeying the rules, we love ourselves
• We emulate our Father
• We live at peace with God
• We enjoy peace with others
• We avoid our Father’s loving chastisement
• We earn rewards in heaven

The Roman Catholic recognizes some or many of the above benefits, but the primary reason to obey strict rules of morality is to earn “grace” and redeem oneself. Reliance on morality for justification before God has a name: self righteousness.

As Hebrews 6:1 says,

• Wherefore, leaving (moving on from) the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect: not laying again the foundation of penance (repentance) from dead works and of faith towards God….

The writer framed the gospel for Jewish converts (and all of us) this way:

• Repent from the dead works of attempting to achieve self righteousness through ceremonies and deeds.
• Simply consent to the Giver who bestows the gift upon you.
• Trust the Giver to keep His promise.

Rightly Interpreting James 2:24

Someone invoked James 2:24 to rationalize that Catholicism is strict because good deeds are necessary for salvation. Here it is, out of context:

• Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?

Now, here’s the context. There are three types of justification.

• Justification by God who paid for and forgave your sins — assuming you have received the gift as a gift, without insulting the Giver
• Justification before others
• Justification before yourself (1 John has a lot to say about self examination in order to gain assurance of the sincerity of your faith).

James chapter 2 is about justification before others. Look at how the passage begins in verse 18:

• But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works. Shew me (a man) thy faith without works; and I (a man) will shew thee, by works, my faith. (Emphasis added.)

James refers to Abraham’s offering of Isaac as an argument, but acknowledges, by citing Genesis 15:6, that God had already justified Abraham roughly 25 years before, on the basis of faith alone. Abraham believed God, and it was reputed (accounted) to him to justice (righteousness).

Offering Isaac justified Abraham before men. And he was called (by men) the friend of God. Being justified before men is not salvation.

We agree, good deeds are necessary. You’re useless to anybody if you don’t do good. Jesus said,

• Jesus said, So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven (Matthew 5:16).
• John the Baptist said, Bring forth therefore fruit (deeds) worthy of penance (repentance at the time of conversion) (Matthew 3:8).

Genuine faith produces good works.

• For it is God who worketh in you, both to will (desire) and to accomplish (act), according to his good will (Philippians 2:13).

But good deeds are worthless for redeeming yourself before God. This was addressed above but bears repeating.

• Knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified (Galatians 2:16).
• We are all become as one unclean, and all our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman: and we have all fallen as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away (Isaiah 64:6)

People who cite James 2 to rationalize a requirement works for salvation violate an important rule for interpreting the Bible:

• Never use a vague, tangential, or ambiguous passage to contradict a clear, explicit, relevant passage.

Read Romans chapters 3–6. Chapter 4, in particular, puts James’s argument into context.

Set Apart in the Bible

What does it mean to be set apart in the Bible?

The answers to this question on Quora were either so simplistic or off-the-wall, I had to add my own answer, which turned into its own word study.

To set apart simply means to separate or isolate something. In the Bible, it means to designate or separate something for a particular use.

The literal meanings of set apart and set aside are the same. However, the connotations (implied meanings) can be either the same or opposites.

• A thing is set apart for a particular use.
• A thing is set aside to keep it from the current action.
• A thing can be set aside to keep it from the current action and reserve it for a later purpose. In this usage, the meaning is the same as for set apart, although set aside implies more about the timeline.

The terms translated set apart can also be translated consecrate, make holy, prepare, sanctify, purify, dedicate, reserve for destruction, and numerous variations (for example: make holy, keep holy, declare holy, prove to be holy, regard as holy, dedicate, and foreordain). Which meaning depends on the context and the translator’s interpretation of the contextual meaning.

For a general example, the implements in the tabernacle were set apart for holy use, not to be defiled by ordinary, outside use. This was a symbol of God’s holiness and of the holiness He desires of His people. An extreme example of violating that happened during Babylon’s reign over Israel, when Babylon’s king and his guests used cups looted from Israel’s temple for drinking at a banquet (Daniel 5:3).

Set apart is a verbal phrase, a paired verb and preposition that act as a single word. In the Bible, it usually represents a single Hebrew or Greek word. There are several words translated as set apart.

Here are some examples of how the meaning varies with the context.

• Genesis 21:29, Abimelech said to Abraham, "What do these seven ewe lambs mean, which you have set by themselves?" — Although Abimelech suspects that there’s a purpose, the focus is on the physical separation of seven lambs from the flock. Compare Genesis 30:40.
  
• Deuteronomy 10:8, At that time the LORD set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to serve Him and to bless in His name until this day. — Here, the LORD (“YHWH,” or “I AM”) assigned specific priestly duties to one of the twelve tribes of Israel.
  
• Joshua 20:7, So they set apart Kedesh in Galilee in the hill country of Naphtali and Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the hill country of Judah. — Read this in context. The cities were designated as cities of refuge. In those days, there was no police force and court system; if somebody killed your brother, you had to execute justice yourself or convince somebody to do it for you. In questionable cases (such as accidental manslaughter), the cities of refuge protected the accused until questions of guilt could be resolved.
  
• Deuteronomy 15:19, You shall consecrate (set apart) to the LORD your God all the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock; you shall not work with the firstborn of your herd, nor shear the firstborn of your flock. (compare Numbers 3:13.) — As Creator, and source of all blessings, God commanded Israel to devote to Him the first part of any production, whether children, flocks, or produce. First-born children were to be reared to lead their families spiritually, and the first tenth (“tithe”) of profit from work was to be given to God to support religious work. Compare also 1 Corinthians 16:2.
  
• Psalm 88:5, Adrift (“set apart”) among the dead, Like the slain who lie in the grave…. — “Adrift,” used by the KJV, is more literal than “set apart” in the NIV or “forsaken” in NASB. ESV’s “set loose” conveys the connotation most accurately. Psalm 88 is a lamentation of one undergoing severe trial and despair, and he feels purposeless, set apart for treatment as though already dead.
  
• Acts 13:2–5, While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, when they (the leaders of the church at Antioch) had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away…. When they reached Salamis, they began **proclaiming the word of God…. — The leaders of the church designated and commissioned Barnabas and Saul (Paul) to do missionary work. This did not make them holy; rather it recognized their holiness and their dedication to serving God.
  
• Galatians 1:15–16, But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles… — Paul claims that God fore-ordained him to put faith in Christ and carry the gospel to the the world outside of Israel. This comes close to claiming predestination but is not that specific. In John 10:36, Jesus similarly claims that the Father commissioned Him for the role He fulfilled during His incarnation.
  
• 1 Corinthians 6:11, Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. — The Weymouth translation renders sanctified as “set apart as holy.”  

If you want to trace every usage of the term, you need to set aside a few days, list all its various translations, and search for each one using a concordance or an electronic Bible. I would expect you to find hundreds of verses.

From the few dozen occurrences I read while compiling this, I noticed a trend. When set apart implies a change in a person, it is a change that applies to every believer, not just to a select few holier-than-thou ministers. In contrast, set apart can apply to specific people when it implies being assigned a task, duty, or mission.

Catholics seem to connect set apart with the (claimed 😉) celibacy of priests and nuns. Although Paul recommended singleness in certain circumstances (Paul traveled constantly and was under constant threat of assassination or execution -- and he was eventually executed), nowhere does scripture require anyone to set themselves apart for singleness for any office in the church. In fact, Peter and most of the apostles were married, and Paul recommends marriage for all, including ministers, who feel weak regarding sexual temptation.

Words translated set apart have a wide variety of possible translations and meanings. The term is sometimes literal, sometimes figurative. It can imply a mere physical act, a declaration, or a foreordination. It is wise to look to the context for meaning and even more wise not to lock yourself into any given meaning.