Practical application of Pentecostal theology in politics, economy and social issues
This my Masters Dissertation on the history of the development of the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
http://pneumaandlogos.com/2013/08/22/from-purity-to-power-a-study-in-the-development-of-the-doctrine-of-the-baptism-of-the-holy-sp
This is a long and sometimes rambling account of my investigation into the creation account, specifically with regard to the word “Boker” or morning. It is one of the most fascinating concepts I have ever discovered with regard to the Torah and the Hebrew language. The question is, do the ideas contained within hold up to scrutiny?
I happened upon this thought whilst researching the creation account. I don’t know if it’s original or has been discussed before, but if anyone is familiar with this idea, can you point me towards an analysis (if such a thing exists)?
After researching their etymology, the words Erev and Boker (or Voker) seem to have dual meanings, and thus could be used to gain further insight into the text. The commonly accepted literal translation of the phrase “Vayehi erev vayehi voker yom echad” reads “And it was evening and it was morning, one day”.
I was initially interested in the word “boker” and why it has the same root as “bakar” or cattle. This led to me discovering that “boker” fundamentally means “splitting” or “cleaving”.
I was excited but not surprised to find that upon researching the word “Erev” that it held the opposite connotations, ideas of mixture or gathering.
Leaving aside discussion over the word “Yom“, literally meaning day for the moment (I have other theories about that), it is highly interesting to then read the verses in this new light (if you’ll pardon the pun).
“And it was unified, and it was split, day one” obviously makes perfect sense with regard to day one and holds interesting implications for the subsequent days.
The idea that the creation can be reconciled scientifically by a series of “splitting of states” is highly fascinating for me. This also resonates with the idea (as stated in the Shema) of God being “One” – perhaps this reality is just the result of the splitting of that “one” into smaller discrete parts?
Edit: I have recently found an independent version of a similar theory in the book “The Science of God” by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He describes the same ideas (which he attributes to Nachmanides), but instead relates ‘erev’ to mixture as in disorder or chaos. And to ‘boker’ he ascribes the idea of order (from bikoret-orderly, able to be observed). However he still seems to have missed the fundamental idea of ‘splitting’ which in my opinion is the key to unlocking the whole thing.
So to clarify the question: Has anyone written an analysis of Genesis 1 through the lens of these alternate meanings of ‘erev’ and ‘boker’? Is mine a plausible theory? Why or why not?
Edit 2: I just thought of another key argument which (again very simply but elegantly) supports my claims. In conversation with AbuMunirIbnIbrahim he challenged me on the meaning of בָּקָר, saying there is no evidence of linkage with the idea of splitting or division. I answered him thusly:
“In the case of בָּקַע and בָּקָר, however there is a clear linkage, which is discernible from one key translation of the root word:”בְּקַר: to plough, to break forth, to inspect. The Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon translated by Friedrich Wilhelm states that the word בָּקָר is named for its purpose: of ploughing. This shows an undeniable link. Additionally there is also a second link which is that of the cloven hoof, which is one of the fundamental aspects of Kashrut.”
Coincidentally the other defining feature of a Kosher animal is that it is ruminant, ie. It has a divided or split stomach relative to other mammals. So both aspects of Kashrut involve the idea of splitting or division.
However, his reference to Ezekiel 34:12 really got me thinking…
As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are separated, so will I seek out My sheep; and I will deliver them out of all places whither they have been scattered in the day of clouds and thick darkness.
Look at this verse closely. “his sheep that are separated”. It hit me that this a fundamental characteristic of “בָּקָר” or cattle:- to flock or herd. A single animal from a flock represents the division of a whole into smaller discrete parts. Again this consistent use of language resonates perfectly and works with everything in its context. Sheep separating from the flock. The flock separating from the shepherd. Man separating from God. This verse (intentionally or not) uses the three letter root בקר twice and is directly concerned with the idea of unification (the flock) and divison (the scattering) and the subsequent reunification.
Edit 3: After some more research I am convinced that the two letter root “בק” literally means divide or split. Further, I am starting to think that the two letter root forms a fundamental part of the 3 letter root (which I have now subsequently learned is also a major part of Kabalistic thought). http://www.2letterlookup.com/ is a very useful tool in efficiently searching for patterns in the letter combinations and in the brief time I’ve been using it, I’ve seen some remarkable results.
In addition to the words listed above, I started looking for 3 letter root words with בק at the end (letters 2 and 3). Again I found multiple references to the idea of splitting, but one in particular stood out:
-Abaq (אָבַק or אָבָק) according to Gesenius means “fine dust” or “light particles” His conjecture as to the etymology reads:
“אָבַק a root not used in Kal, which I suppose to have had the force of to pound, to make small, from the onomatopoetic syllable בק, בך, פג, פק, which, as well as דך, דק (see דָּקַק, דָּכַךְ ), had the force of pounding; comp. בָּכָה to drop, to distil;”
The feminine form of the word also means powder. Clearly the idea of dust or powder as small particles removed from a larger whole again demonstrate exactly the same concept.
But this isn’t where it ends- it gets far more interesting. Genesis Chap. 32 recounts the story of Yaakov wrestling with the angel. The story often seems to be making cryptic allusions. First, Yaakov and his family crossed the ford of Yabok (יבק) – a name which appears to be highly symbolic. Then they wrestled (וַיֵּאָבֵק) the etymology again goes back to dust.
However, Rashi has a different interpretation attributing the word to an Aramaic expression found in the Talmud: דָּאִבִיקוּ. This is derivative of the 3 letter root דבק, meaning adhere, glue or impinge. Again the word references the concept of unification and division, since glue binds two discrete objects together.
I realise that this is moving away somewhat from a hermeneutic question, but I think it needs to be discussed. Either way I have realised that the Hebrew language is so much more complex and ingenious than I ever realised.
Donald W. Dayton
In your bibliography you have cited my THEOLOGICAL ROOTS OF PENTECOSTALISM
incorrectly.
Randal W Deese
This seems to be pretty accurate. What is interesting to me, however, is that Historical Orthodoxy always taught that the Gift of the Holy Spirit was received after faith/repentance/water Baptism. If it wasn’t for the Protestant Reformation ignoring those distinctions, Pentecostalism may have developed much earlier.
Varnel Watson
What distinctions would you say were ignored?
Randal W Deese
The Protestant Reformation took away the idea that salvation and receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit were two separate events. They combined them into regeneration.
Varnel Watson
It did ?
Randal W Deese
Troy Day Are you serious? lol
Varnel Watson
You seem to know some “other” reformation How would you combine this in your Pentecostal quest. Orthodoxy teaches that is is all received in the water baptism (even infant) including church membership 🙂
Randal W Deese
Troy Day Actually, Chrismation is considered something that is done after water Baptism. You can look it up in hundreds of Orthodox catechisms. It isn’t hard to find – and church history.
Randal W Deese
Troy Day No. I know Reformation theology. Luther and Calvin hold to the idea of automationism..the idea that the Indwelling occurs at the time of “justification by faith”
Randal W Deese
Orthodoxy teaches that in chrismation a person is given the “power from on high” (Acts 1–2), the gift of the Spirit of God, in order to live the new life received in baptism.
Orthodoxy stresses that Chrismation should take place immediately after one is baptized because of Acts 2:38.
Varnel Watson
Randal W Deese you are playing with terms that do not really mean what you are saying May help to define what you mean when you use a term
Most orthodox do make difference between the baptism as a personal participation in the death and Resurrection of Christ and chrismation as a personal participation in the coming of the Holy Spirit
However, they are both administered to infants and freely if I may add, just to make sure they are issued baptismal license as members of the church
Now then, you dont really think there is a single Pentecostal who would agree that a new born infant who was just baptized and anointed has also received the HSB do you?
Randal W Deese
You are too funny. Don’t change the debate. We are taking about a doctrinal distinction – the distiction that supports the idea of a post baptismal Gift of the Holy Spirit. I stand in what I say. If you want to talk about how this relates to infants, we can.. But it is a different conversation.
Varnel Watson
hahah so you got cornered ah 🙂 I love it
Randal W Deese
Troy Day That is silly. You would be fun to debate cause of your looseness with interpretation rules… Haha
Varnel Watson
explain this chrismation then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P4a1pVpECI
Randal W Deese
Troy Day After Baptism.. what’s so hard
Varnel Watson
title reads: silly orthodox priest just got cornered 😉
Varnel Watson
So this many from the video just got the HSB?
Varnel Watson
Come on Randal W Deese explain chrismation from the video and how it has anything to do with HSB of the BIBLE ?
Randal W Deese
Troy Day One reason I am Orthodox-Pentecostal is to bring back the dead ritual to a living reality. The doctrinal truth is already there. The flame needs fanned.
Btw, churches like Calvary Chapel do not believe that one will necessarily receive the evidence in their doctrine of BHS.
Many Churches are close, but need taught like Apollos – more accurately.
Varnel Watson
🙂
Varnel Watson
Come on Randal W Deese No on really believes absolute automationism – show some proof before such acclaim
Randal W Deese
I’m not going to do all the work for you… Because I’m surprised you don’t know this information… But here is one example. This comes from a Lutheran Theologian from LCMS:
“It is no less a miracle of God’s grace at work that an adult should believe by hearing the words of the Gospel, than that an infant should receive through Baptism the Spirit who creates the very faith by which one receives incorporation into Christ”
The Spirit is given automatically. There is no separation by action not doctrine.
Varnel Watson
Show it from Luther and Calvin like you claimed not some random copy paste from Google
Randal W Deese
Troy Day I am not near my library or I would easily show you. I have all of their writings… But you are probably near the sources… Do your research.
Varnel Watson
easily 🙂 sure
Randal W Deese
Troy Day It isn’t rocket science.
Varnel Watson
Like I said you are throwing around terms without clue what they mean or where they came from So typically Orthodox. You will have more luck making Orthodox priests under Putin Pentecostal than making Pentecostal othdox 🙂 the automation of chrismation assembly line
Randal W Deese
Troy Day Well, sorry to disappoint… I’m talking and bringing in Pentecostal pastors and churches into Orthodoxy regularly. Your to late with your false prophecy
Varnel Watson
the automation of chrismation assembly line 🙂
Randal W Deese
Troy Day
I practice Chrismation that includes speaking in tongues… : )
Varnel Watson
probably on infants too as a good lutheran
Randal W Deese
Troy Day With infants in Orthodox-Pentecostalism, we breath on them prophetically, like Jesus in John 20:22
Randal W Deese
They will receive their Pentecost later
Varnel Watson
#epicFail you aint Jesus infants are not the disciples priesthood of all believers and so on and so on
Randal W Deese
Troy Day and that proves what?
Varnel Watson
your wrong hermeneutics on jn 20
Randal W Deese
Troy Day like infant dedication is? Lol
Varnel Watson
obviously you dont understand dedication either
Randal W Deese
Troy Day Oh, you mean that non Scriptural practice that so many follow and pretend it is Biblical, that one?