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
IF MY PEOPLE called with my name – comes to mind first Alan Smith
Alan Smith
This is a promise from Him, that IF Christians, His children, not just the entire nation, but He specifically states “MY CHILDREN”
Varnel Watson
need clarification
ARE WE ASKING
IF I sin God will not bless me as per Dt 28
IF Israel sins GOD will not bless them as per 3 Kings
or
if America sins GOD will not bless America? as per Carman’s song
Alan Smith
Troy Day those were all under the Old Covenant. Where obedience was necessary.
Neil Steven Lawrence
Alan Smith Jesus said, “you are my disciples if you obey what I say.“ If you don’t obey you’re not his disciple – end of story! The opposite of this is what is meant by “cheap grace“ -Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Alan Smith
Neil Steven Lawrence ok, gotcha.
“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
So, if we obey these two commands we ARE obeying Christ, according to HIM, these two cover ‘all the law and the prophets’, right? and that makes us His disciple.
Neil Steven Lawrence
Alan Smith yep…. blessings are a byproduct of a relationship with the blesser. Refusing to obey the perfect will of God for your life yet claiming “the blessings” or claiming blessings from Him is an abomination! This is part of the reason why the prosperity gospel is so evil
The parable of the talents and the parable of the shrewd manager pretty much nail down the fact that the blessings are conditional to obedience.
Luke 16:10-12
“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?”
With all the “blessings” preaching goin’ on I’ve never heard someone preach about what are “true riches.”
I’ve been teaching a Stewardship Seminar in Kenya & Uganda in many locations for the last 25 years. Africa is filled with prosperity preaching which they inherited from the United States… Sadly!
Neil Steven Lawrence
Alan Smith yep…. blessings are a byproduct of a relationship with the blesser. Refusing to obey the perfect will of God for your life yet claiming “the blessings” or claiming blessings from Him is an abomination! This is part of the reason why the prosperity gospel is so evil
The parable of the talents and the parable of the shrewd manager pretty much nail down the fact that the blessings are conditional to obedience.
Luke 16:10-12
“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?”
With all the “blessings” preaching goin’ on I’ve never heard someone preach about what are “true riches.”
I’ve been teaching a Stewardship Seminar in Kenya & Uganda in many locations for the last 25 years. Africa is filled with prosperity preaching which they inherited from the United States… Sadly!
Barbara Ann Wolfe
Neil Steven Lawrence this was still old covenant! Christ was born under law. The new covenant did not take effect until Christ Died!
Barbara Ann Wolfe
Neil Steven Lawrence what is the “perfect will”
Neil Steven Lawrence
Barbara Ann Wolfe those who are led by the Spirit will be compelled by the Spirit to find it (the perfect will of God for your life). If a believer does not seek after the kingdom first is it possible to still say they are following the perfect will of God?
Christ did not render the old covenant irrelevant he simply fulfilled it and gave us a new way to fulfill the old covenant by following him not the letter of the law. Jesus ushered in the kingdom and preached the kingdom of God – that is not old covenant. Before he went to the cross at the last supper he instituted the new covenant while he was still alive.
John the Baptist was the last of the old testament prophets Jesus was the first of the new testament prophets. But that is really irrelevant since Revelation tells us that the “testimony of Jesus Christ IS the spirit of prophecy” (in other words throughout the ages all prophecy belongs to Jesus).
It is a false dichotomy to say that Jesus’ teachings are under the old covenant. While Jesus did not give the law during his ministry on earth, he fulfilled it.
Barbara Ann Wolfe
You are right in that he fulfilled it. I definitely do not think the OT is unimportant. It shows our need for Christ. It points to the cross!
As far as his perfect will; I see the Bible as his “permissive will”. What he would like us to do. Of course that is not what we do. We try but we all fall short.
I want my children to follow my rules 100% of the time , but they don’t.
So now we have this other “time line of events” that is actually taking place that is not in his “permissive will”. Was Joseph being sold into slavery in his “permissive will”? No! They were jealous of their brother , sold him and lied to their father! If we had been standing there, we would have said “no this is unfair, this is not in Gods will! But it was!
Little did Jospeh know , not anyone else that had to happen for Jospeh to be placed in a position to save his family from starving! If it happens , it is not outside his will. He does not lose control of a hurricane or tornado that killed 30 people. He allows things to happen for reasons we do not understand. Could he have stopped the tornado? Yes! So ultimately, he is in full control. This has to be God’s “perfect will” for it to come to pass!
Jerome Herrick Weymouth
Isaiah “If ye be willing and obedient you will eat of the good of the land!” End of discussion. Unless you a person who believes that God commissions evil on you to keep you broke and misserable, cause your incapable of any good works because your evil and have no free will to choose to be obedient and willing.
Alan Smith
Isaiah – OT
Jerome Herrick Weymouth my point above was, obedience to Law/Torah was required in OT.
David Levandusky
Deut. 28
Varnel Watson
is what came to mind but they said NO OT
Alan Smith
Troy Day I’m surprised that Tom Steele hasn’t chimed in on this one, yet???
Tom Steele
Alan Smith, I’m surprised you tagged me in a comment on this one before Troy Day did.
Varnel Watson
thank you for the honorable mention
Tom Steele
I would have said Deut. 28, but that was already stated and apparently deemed invalid because it’s “Old Testament”. Which means I won’t even waste my time with this. Scholars estimate that one third of the “New Testament” is repeating the “Old Testament”, ranging from direct quotes to vague similarities.
If one is not free to pull Scripture from any part of The Bible, then the OP is heavily biased and clearly trying to justify some kind of sin. And I don’t particularly want to be a partaker in that.
Varnel Watson
it was first thing to come to my mind BUT then the my ppl thing also applied SEEMS like though Alan Smith is asking strictly NT
Varnel Watson
Alan Smith seems like Tom Steele is JUST TOO busy trying to keep up the law while working for the ” federal government “
Barbara Ann Wolfe
HEBREWS 8:13 NKJ 13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
The part of the Bible we call the Old Testament is not exactly the same as the Old Covenant, nor is the part of the Bible we call the New Testament exactly the same as the New Covenant.
The Old Covenant was an agreement between God and the children of Israel. We have the record of it in the Old Testament.
The New Covenant is an agreement between God and Jesus Christ. (Therefore it includes all who are united with Jesus Christ, or as the Bible says, all those who are “in Christ.”)
The New Testament is the name we give to the 27 books of the Bible from Matthew through Revelation. The New Testament book is not the New Covenant, but reveals it and explains it.
The New Covenant did not start until after the death of Jesus Christ. For it was sealed by the precious blood of Jesus paying the price for the complete remission of sins for all who believe in Him.
Jesus himself plainly said the New Covenant involved His blood being shed.
MATTHEW 26:28 NKJ 28 “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
The following passage in Hebrews also makes clear that the New Covenant could not begin until after the death of Jesus Christ.
HEBREWS 9:14-17 NASB 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.
Why does it matter when the New Covenant started?
Because it is the key to rightly dividing the Word of God, which 2 Timothy 2:15 reveals is necessary.
Without a clear understanding of when the New Covenant starts, and what the New Covenant is, we will be confused. (Not understanding this clearly is why so many teach different things about what is required to be in good standing with God.)
The entire earthly ministry of Jesus happened under the Old Covenant and was directed only to Israel (Matthew 15:24, Romans 15:8). When Jesus first sent out His disciples He told them to only go to the people of Israel (Matthew 10:5-6). But after His resurrection they were sent into all the world to tell the Good News to everyone (Mark 16:15, Matthew 28:19).
So every word spoken by Jesus before His resurrection was spoken before the New Covenant existed.
Does this mean we should ignore what Jesus said before His resurrection, or that what He said was not true? Certainly not! Jesus is Truth! It just means we have to remember He was talking to people under the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant.
For example, in Matthew 19:16 the rich young ruler asked Jesus what to do so he could have eternal life. Jesus’ answer in Matthew 19:17 to “keep the commandments” is much different than the answer in Acts 16:31 which says simply to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved,” or 1 John 5:13 which says those who believe in the Son of God may know they have eternal life.
Under the Old Covenant, keeping the commandments was required as the way to have good standing with God. Under the New Covenant, good standing with God is a gift which comes with believing on Jesus Christ (Romans 5:17-18, 2 Corinthians 5:21).
1 JOHN 5:11 NKJ 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
Eternal life is not gained under the New Covenant by “keeping commandments” but as a gift. This is why Jesus came, to bring in a New Covenant established on better promises (Hebrews 8:6).
ROMANS 6:23 NKJ 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans tells us that “eternal life” is a gift. If we have to earn it in any way, or pay any amount for it, then it cannot be a gift.
We must realize things changed dramatically because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without that realization, we can err greatly in understanding the message of Jesus.
2 CORINTHIANS 5:19 NKJ 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
All the New Testament is Jesus’ message to us. But the things He said to His body, the church, after He redeemed us with His blood, take precedence over the words He spoke under His Old Covenant ministry on earth, because they recognize the reality of the New Covenant.
Jesus told His disciples (right before His death) that He had much more to reveal to them.
JOHN 16:12-13a NKJ 12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth;
So don’t be confused and think what Jesus said during His earthly ministry was His last word. If Jesus had already given them complete truth, there would be no need of the Holy Spirit to come and guide them into all truth.
So Jesus continued speaking through His apostles after His ascension to Heaven. This is what we have recorded as the letters to the church (Romans through Revelation) in the New Testament.
Through these letters, Jesus by the Holy Spirit, has revealed that the New Covenant includes right standing with God as a free gift through our union with Jesus Christ. Praise the Lord!