Practical application of Pentecostal theology in politics, economy and social issues
The Shepherding Movement (sometimes called the “Discipleship Movement”) was an influential and controversial movement within some British, Australian and American charismatic churches. It emerged in t
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
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.
Guest;
Anyone remember what was the final fall out? Link
Guest;
Their downfall was in their authority teachings. They lorded authority over the sheep. God destroyed them because their placing of the pastors over the sheep to rule over them in His stead before His return was a purely idolatrous and blasphemous tragedy.
Guest;
Terry Wiles the original 5 were listed in the article with Derek Prince and all Peter Vandever has spoken of off spring with the Kansas 4 prophetic movement and may be Vineyard involvement
I am more concerned with the fact that the shepherding COVERING terminology like mantle, prophetic / apostolic cover etc. was exactly what NAR took from the shepherding and run with it Angel Ruiz may have more info on that particular connection
Guest;
It began out of concern for believers who were being kicked out of their churches, or were starting home fellowships, or were considering groups like the Full Gospel Businessmen or Women’s Aglow their “churches”. The situation was chaotic. The cure, unfortunately, proved worse than the disease. “Leaders” who were really novices were telling people who to marry, which house or acr to buy, etc., to an occultic level of control. Derek Prince was the first to remove himself from that, and Bob Mumford’s repentance was the most public. Eventually they all renounced it, but the damage had been done. To this day, “heavy shepherding” is still practiced by controlling leaders. If you’re in a “church” like that, FLEE!
Guest;
I was somewhat involved in the shepherding movement loosely for a few years, and was part of a shepherding community for about 1 year. My experience was that it was not as good as some people made it out to be and not a bad as some made it out to be. There were clear definite problems that took me out of it, but those problems were not necessary across the board. My initial involvement was in Pennsylvania, which in my experience did not have serious problems, then later in Colorado which was still not oppressive, and a year in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, after which I left the movement. I did not find the PA and Colorado sheperding movements authoritarian or oppressive, but the DFW group was more so. In fact, the shepherds who were over me there contradicted the counsel of my shepherd (and long time mentor even before and after the shepherding movement) in PA. Originally, it was meant to bring some order and structure and discipline to a wild charismatic movement. It became too structured and legalistic and authoritarian, meaning well, but misapplication of Scripture. All of original Ft. Lauderdale 5 repented, and went on to have good continuing ministries, but must more low profile. The main former shepherding leader who has had a higher profile and is now well accepted is Joseph Garlington in Pittsburgh, under whom my mentor had been shepherded. The main problems I encountered with the Dallas group were disregard of the needs of women, counsel given that contradicted my former mentor/Shepherd’s counsel, and what I considered some ethical compromises.
Guest;
I think the above two shared it quite well. Being on the outside of it, Controlling ones life and family was what some of us were hearing about
Guest;
Paul L. King is it true that the Kansas 4 aka Kansas City Prophets and he Vineyard emerged from heavy shepherding? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/a-fresh-and-eye-witness-look-at-the-kansas-city/ Terry Wiles is this similar to res16 AG document done for them too? http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/topics/sptlissues_prophets_prophecies.cfm
Guest;
I am not familiar with the shepherding movement but see a need for close loving shepherding. At the same time it shouldn’t be carried too far. First, sheep are not people and people must deal with things a hundred times more difficult. Also human ” sheep” must be taught to think for themselves and to learn to listen to the Holy Spirits teaching.
Guest;
Mike Bickle, I think I recall, was in the late 1970s-early 1980s involved with the British discipleship movement led by Bryn Jones, but it dissolved too. I am not sure who all is considered part of the Kansas 4.
Guest;
Yes indeed Bickle has been discussed here with Peter Vandever as related to the big Kansas 4 While I am familiar with Prince and his discipleship / demonology Bob has been always somewhat away from my focus – in a northern / canadian way kind of. But few years ago #IHOP-KC has moved to a post-trib eschatology then then endorsed endorsed #TedCruz pre election and IMO went full kingdom-now NAR Also is Brian Zahnd related to this whole IHOP move? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/ihop-kc-has-moved-to-a-post-trib-eschatology/
Guest;
I mostly know about the movement from people I met later who had been involved in it involved in it.
When I was in college, between church and campus groups I went to different college meetings in addition to my church’s meetings. A Charismatic church in town had a meeting I went to. The pastor was a gifted teacher who had gone to Asbury at the same time as Mark Rutland. He had been in the shepherding movement with Don Basham. I seem to recall his saying elders exercising a great deal of control over your life could be terrifying.
In the Vineyard movement, they use terms like ‘covering’ which always irked me because it does not mean anything like what it means in the passage that mentions it.
I corresponded with a man who was in one of those churches in the 80s who said their elders would forbid couples to marry, even one cancelling all engagements in the church. If they found out a couple had sexual attraction for each other they would cancel the engagement. It sounded like the opposite of I Corinthians 7. It also sounded like they were intruding into the authority granted to parents and families. If the people planning to get into an adulterous remarriage or were thinking of marrying an unbeliever, or someone living a double life I can understand their getting involved.
I met an English teacher from what was called the Boston Church of Christ, then International Churches of Christ” a cessationist group into heavy control. He still believed in that group but left so he could find a wife without their interference and then go back.
Two of my wife’s cousins were in that movement in some level if responsibility in Indonesia. A nephew in my cousins care died and after the fallout from that they both ended up leaving.
I knew several of them at UGA. It was weird because many if them seemed like cookie cutter copies with the same midwestern accent.
I recognized someone as from that movement on the streets of Seoul Korea after I had just met him and he wanted to invite me to his ‘really great church’ jyst after I met him. My expat friend was amazed that I guessed wjat kind it was. I told him I could tell from the mustered enthusiasm. I had seen it before.
In 1990 or so when I went to UGA,I heard one of the Charismatic churches in town had folded. I hear they were telling one member to marry other members. They had matched up a black with a white which must have been considered newsworthy by whoever told me. The pastor of a college grpup gad gone there, to a church in the shepherding movement. Later I told him about an evangelist who wanted to send Christian students as English teachers. The college group pastor did not want to do anything with that evangelist who had been a part of that sheperding movement and he said he’d never repented or apologized.
Guest;
Vineyard IHOP or shepherding ? Link there’s no way you went to a shepherding church too along with many others 🙂
Guest;
They sell pancakes don’t they?
Guest;
Link Hudson what would you mean by very heavy shepherding I have found this to mean anything to anyone not too happy with church Means one thing for Pentecostals, another for baptists – are you referring to 10%, or who to marry or what house to buy or what?
Guest;
Link Hudson as in many serious inquires in this group I am getting the feeling you dont know much about the Shepherding movement first hand The rest is just hearsay I dont really have much use for Which shepherding church did you visit exactly? – How long did you observe it to form your view on the movement as a whole? – I also hear that northern and Canadian shepherding was much different than the South – Ft. Lauderdale dealt much different in the prophetic and deliverance ministry for example. This model was later followed in Kansas but to little use. Then the British discipleship and yes if you call that shepherding too, was a completely different story
Guest;
There really are many shepherding movements, and probably most of them are not directly influenced by the Ft. Lauderdale movement. I know of many independent charismatic and Pentecostal churches through my 48 years in the movement that have strong pastoral authoritarianism. Many such churches (including at least 2 associations of Word of Faith churches) have a top down approach in which the pastor owns the church, the building, appoints his own board, runs the church, and often says (if not stated outright, nonetheless in effect), “Touch not the anointed one.” They often claim the mantle of Moses or Elijah, and have no accountability to anyone. Another non-charismatic authoritarian approach is what is called “nouthetic counseling” (from the Greek word noutheteo, meaning admonish), founded by Presbyterian theologian/counselor Jay Adams, which is very directive and confrontative in counseling.
Guest;
short answer: control. ALSO: The Bible doesn’t teach that.
Guest;
the BIBLE doesnt teach what?
Guest;
One big, big problem is that many genuinely devout people just aren’t fit to lead anyone. You see it in every walk of life. Some are simply power hungry and exercise authority of the sake of exercising authority.
The NT calls these people “Nicolaitans”, which means “those who conquer the flock”. Jesus said he hated that.
The most recent example of this was an idiotic book by John Bevere called “Undercover”, in which he said pastors had the right to overrule any decision a church member made unless the bible said explicitly otherwise. He even said that single women, no matter what their ages, were under the authority of their fathers.
This series was presented in my SS class and I was openly very critical of it. For one thing, no one could think of a single decision, major or minor, that a pastor should make for a layman.
Would you let a pastor tell you who to marry, what to choose for a career, where to live, or what school to attend? No. Those would be major decisions.
Would you let a pastor tell you what kind of car to buy? No. That would be mid-level decision.
Would you let a pastor decide what you should eat for dinner tonight? No. That would be a minor decision. We all came to the conclusion that the series was beyond useless and potentially very damaging.
Varnel Watson
I’ve often wondered on that and Vineyard Link Hudson Peter Vandever
Casius Leonidas
Troy Day Derek Prince later regretted the idea and turned away from what the movement.
Varnel Watson
Casius Leonidas this is part true part not The man is still alive an clarify BUT was it 4 or 5 of Loderdale who made the decisions? Didnt they fly to talk to him at one down point?