Practical application of Pentecostal theology in politics, economy and social issues
Why would any minister, teacher, deacon etc NOT want to go ahead and become licensed? What would be a valid reason for not doing so?
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Spin-Off from Troy Day’s post about licensing. Why would any minister, teacher, deacon etc NOT want to go ahead and become licensed? What would be a valid reason for not doing so?
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.
Varnel Watson
Congrats to Brody Pope who just got licensed with denomination
Brian Crisp
You do need a license but it doesn’t have to be through a denomination which we are seeing now that denominations are becoming a thing of the past and I believe it’s God that is doing it.
Angel Ruiz
True denominations are becoming of the past also sound doctrine is becoming a thing of the past….
Brian Crisp
I think it’s a good thing that denominations are going away but sound doctrine is needed badly in a lot of areas in the USA.
Angel Ruiz
Well sound doctrine Can only be achieved by accountability…
Every church and every pastor of a local church needs accountability. If we believe that sin is a true reality, then we will strive to check it. And that often requires a voice outside of our own local churchb aka Denominations. They provide structure with their policies, appeals process, confessions, and authority.
Brian Crisp
Don’t need denominations for that.
Varnel Watson
“denominations are becoming a thing of the past” IS it really happening now Terry Wiles http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/death-of-denominations/
Stan Wayne
One reason is it limits the ability to give alms or tithes to local church or other causes
Varnel Watson
WHAT then DISTINGUISHES THE PENTECOSTAL THEOLOGY AND DENOMINATIONS? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/what-distinguishes-the-pentecostal-theology-and-denominations/
Hunter McLain
Many things. Aside from a theological standpoint Pentecostalism is unique in that God Leads The Church, not men.
Grover Katzmarek Sr
Well for one thing is not biblical or scriptural
Angel Ruiz
What is not scriptural?
Hunter McLain
God makes ministers, not men. The only one you need a license from is God!
Angel Ruiz
True God provides a license… But it would be out of order to say that the church does not meet organization
Hunter McLain
If a man is called to Preach, He must Preach. No schooling needed. No license needed from a church. Just invitations to Preach at Churches.
Daniel Blaylock
But the church affirms those they are confident God has called. Christ the head does not work independently from His body the Church. We are urged to “lay hands on no man suddenly”–meaning that the church was to be careful about whom they ordained by the laying on of hands to a ministry such as pastor, elder, or deacon. Such ordination by the body does mean something; otherwise these passages in Timothy and Titus are irrelevant.
Hunter McLain
You don’t need permission from anyone but God to Preach. Yes we are to be careful who, but as Jesus said you know a tree by it’s fruits. Don’t just let anyone show up, you but don’t have to be liscened by a denomination.
David Lewayne Porter
I think it is funny that most non credentialed people I know try to figure out why they are not invited to preach in denominational or established churches..
If they don’t need credentials then pitch a tent in a field and get to preaching then.
There’s your church, there’s your folk,,
Get to preaching and catch them then.
Hunter McLain
I most often attend independent Churches. The only one that we answer to is The Lord. A certificate won’t mean a thing in Heaven.
David Lewayne Porter
Non-denominational churches (since there are no independent churches) are charted through their states of residence and do answer to men since they answer to the state and government.
You may want to check your info and your charter.
I guess your church has Jesus in the pulpit as well as on all your boards and in all leadership positions.
The only one you answer to is the Lord, right.
Hunter McLain
There are many independent churches, not sure what you are taking About. And no, and Independent CHURCH does not submit to anyone but God.
Angel Ruiz
Hunter McLain that his not true… Independent churches in today s time are the leaders in false doctrine… Not,saying that every independent church has false doctrine… But because of the lack of accountability independent churches are for the most part more susceptible to false teaching….
David Lewayne Porter
Hunter McLain
Go see how you are chartered. Are you chartered as a 501c3….
You answer to the Government, and you will in the future.
That is what I am talking about.
So yes,
Yes you do, and will, submit to someone other than God.
Are you a christian?
Do you believe your Bible?
Do you follow Jesus’s words?
Seems like you forgot this man that jesus,said had extraordinary Faith,,,
“Matthew 8:7-13
And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour”.
Like you said, you are not sure what I am talking about because you have not checked…
So you don’t answer to man?
Does the pastor set the direction of the church? (He is a man)! Does the church have an oversight committee? (men)! Is there a board of directs or the like? (Men)!
The church is a body with many parts and will always answer to the parts while on this earth, man.
Did God (without man) direct the Church as recorded in The Bible within the New Testament?
You may want to go research the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, 21, 11,,,, let’s not forget the epistles.
You see,
There is the “non-denominational” mindset.
They think they are completely independent but aren’t. The is there just underground out of sight.
The only way you are independent is if you pay taxes and did not charter as a church through the government. Dont forget, your pulpit is not empty and still has a man in human form directing you as a corporate body.
Several of those human bodies on boards actually.
It is what I am talking about.
Check
Your
Charter,
and tax status.
Better be careful, very careful about casting off that authority that God placed you under brother.
David Lewayne Porter
Hebrews 13 will help you with not answering to anyone but God.
Your God had this chapter addressed to you.
Vs 7 is where it starts.
Verse 9 tells you why, in order to make sure your doctrine is correct and you don’t follow divers and “strange” doctrine.
Verses 17 and 24 states it again.
Did you notice that verse 24 did not say IF they have rule over you.
Because we ALL have someone that RULES OVER US.
Salute ALL Them that Have RULE Over YOU.
Terry Wiles
From the earliest times there were methods of determining credibility of a person to be publiclly recognized. The pastorals have a detailed list. As the church quickly grew a more organized system of examination was developed.
Grover Katzmarek Sr
And as they became more organized they lost their power
Terry Wiles
We are very organized and see hundreds saved and filled with the Spirit in our local church each year and the same results in central and south america were we are penetrating the darkness of the jungle with the gospel.
David Lewayne Porter
I doubt everyone in a denomination has lost their power.
In the same way I doubt every minister and ministry that is not in a denomination has The Power.
LaVina Burns
I don’t think it’s imperative to be licensed, but it gives a level of comfort for those attending to know the person has been sanctioned by the church. We have a daughter that attended a church in Detroit and they had a man lead the college and career Bible study. He was not licensed by the church, the church did not know him, but they did not have the guts to say – NO, you are not sanctioned by the church. End result: The guy worked for the enemy and he kidnapped the young virgins in the Bible Study by drugging their ice teas and soft drinks with ruffies and ectasy, then sold them into human trafficking. SO, YES I do agree leadership needs to be licensed or in some way sanctioned by the church. Good Business in God’s Business! And yes, our daughter was one that we had to kidnap back! Took 18 monthhs!!
Joseph Kidwell
If one is called to preach as an Elder in the Church, it should be recognized by the Church that one is called to serve. I personally do not license or ordain deacons as I believe they are in a different category from Elders and consider it to be a lay position. I simply install them.