Question 89: What were the dimensions and material of Noah’s Ark?

Answer:

According to the directions in Genesis 6:15, the Ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits broad and 30 cubits high. Bible students have been greatly puzzled over the length of the cubit, which seems to have varied greatly in ancient times. It is evident however (from Deuteronomy 3:11), that it was taken as a measure from the human body and may have been either from the wrist to the end of the third figure or the entire length of the lower or forearm, from the elbow to the wrist or even from the elbow to the finger-point. One authority, Celsus, says the cubit was identified with the ulna or under and larger of the two bones of the arm. The Egyptian cubit, which the Hebrews may have taken, measured six hand-breadths and the Jewish rabbis (as the Mishnah states) assigned six hand-breadths to the Mosaic cubit, while Josephus says a cubit was equal to two spans, the span being equal to three hand-breadths. Ezekiel 40:5, 43:13 speaks of the cubit "which was a cubit and a hand-breadth" which was the Babylonian cubit. It would thus seem that the Ark, though its size cannot be confidently stated, was a very spacious vessel, probably exceeding 500 feet in length, fully 85 feet broad and over 52 feet high. In 1609 Peter Jansen of Horn in Holland, built a vessel of these proportions and found that it would stow fully a third more cargo than ships of its size built in the ordinary manner. It had 3,600,000 cubic feet of space and after nine-tenths had been assigned for food storage there was still room for 7,000 pairs of animals, each with 50 cubic feet of space. It was in fact, a huge floating storehouse, rather than a ship. As to the materials of which the Ark was built, we find in Genesis 6:14 that Noah is told to make an ark of "gopher" wood. There are various conjectures as to what kind of wood this was. Bunsen holds that it was a wood found only in Egypt; Dietrich believes it was a heavy reed-like growth; Gesenius affirms that it was pine, fir or cedar and Bochart says cypress. Chaldee translators declare it to have been the sissu, a dark-colour wood of Arabian growth and highly valued. A majority hold to the opinion that cypress was meant, on account of its enduring qualities. As to the time occupied in building it, much has been said but little of real worth. The only Bible passage supposedly referable to this question is Genesis 6:3. This passage is variously interpreted. By some it is held to refer to a shortening of human life; by others it is interpreted as meaning that the period stated would be further granted as a respite - an opportunity for repentance - failing which the divine presence (the Shechinah, which had hitherto continued at the gate of Eden) would be withdrawn from the world on account of its wickedness. The best answer is that nowhere is it stated in the Bible how long Noah was engaged in building the Ark. Elohiym had offered a respite of 120 years, after the warning to the human race (see 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5) and it was during this period that Noah, who was a "preacher of righteousness," not only laboured in the work of awakening the people to the enormity of their sin and of urging them to repentance, but also used a portion of that period in preparing the Ark for the emergency that would arise, if the people did not listen to his cry for repentance.

Question 88: Did Nebuchadnezzar literally eat grass?

Answer:

We do not know any more on the subject than is related in the Bible. The natural inference from the narrative is that the king was temporarily deprived of his reason and insane people often do things as unnatural as eating grass. There is nothing improbable in the Biblical statement. On the other hand, some authorities suggest that the narrative means nothing more than that the king left his palace and the cares of state and lived the life of a peasant for seven years; or as we might say, vegetated in rural seclusion; but the plain statement of the text is that generally accepted. Daniel 4:35-37 indicates that he became at least outwardly, a believer in the one and only true Elohiym.

Question 87: What was the dispute over Moses’ body between Michael and Satan?

Answer:

The passage in Jude 1: 9 referring to the dispute between Michael and Satan over the body of Moses, is regarded by Vitringa, Lardner, McKnight and other distinguished commentators as symbolical, "the body of Moses" being intended to represent the Mosaic law and institutions (see Zechariah 3:1), in the same manner in which modern believers call the Church "the body of Moshiach." According to others, it has reference to a Jewish legend connected with the secret burial of the great lawgiver (Deuteronomy 34:6). The Targum of Jonathan attributes the burial of Moses to the hands of angels, led by Michael as the guardian of Israel. Other views set forth in the Hebrew books are that Satan disputed the burial, claiming the body because of the blood of the Egyptian whom Moses slew and because of the leader's sin at Meribah. Having "the power of death," he opposes the raising of Moses' body again for these reasons, but the hitter's visible presence with Enoch and Elijah at the transfiguration gave evidence of Michael's triumph and was also a pledge of the coming resurrection. Josephus, the Jewish historian (in Antiquities 4:8), states that YHVH hid the body of Moses, lest it should be worshiped by the people.

Frequently asked questions and answers:

Question 86: Why did Moses strike the rock?

Answer:

The account in Numbers 20 very clearly shows that Moses disobeyed the Divine Command in striking the rock as he did. For the moment he apparently lost his faith and his temper as well. He had been explicitly instructed to "speak unto the rock" (verse 8) instead of which he addressed the people in hasty and passionate words and smote the rock twice. (See Psalm 106:32, 33.) His whole attitude betrayed his doubt, not of YHVH's power, but of his will to help a people who had been rebellious. Further, Moses was irreverent (see verse 12) in that his language and bearing detracted from the sanctity of the occasion and was therefore displeasing to YHVH. He had been entrusted with a great enterprise and his perfect obedience to and implicit faith in YHVH were indispensable. As the result showed, his failure involved serious consequences for the whole nation.

Question 85: Who were the Moabites?

Answer:

They were the descendants of Lot and were neighbours of the Amorites on the opposite side of the River Arnon (Numbers 21:13). They were governed by kings and possessed many great cities (Numbers 21:28-30; Isaiah 15:1; Numbers 23:7). They were proud, arrogant, idolatrous, superstitious, rich, confident and prosperous. They were mighty men of war (Isaiah 16:6; 1 Kings 11:7; Jeremiah 27:3; Jeremiah 48:7, 11, 14). The Amorites deprived them of a large part of their territory (Numbers 21:26). The Moabites refused to let Israel pass through their country and were so greatly impressed and alarmed by the multitude of the Israelite host that with Midian, they sent Balaam to curse it (Numbers 22 to 24). Subsequently, Israel was enticed into their idolatry and even intermarried with them. They were always hostile to Israel until Saul subdued them (1 Samuel 14:47) and were later made tributary to David and the Jewish kings (2 Samuel 8:2-12; 2 Kings 3:4), but finally joined Babylon against Judah (2 Kings 24:2).

Question 84: Who and what was Melchizedek?

Answer:

It is in Genesis 14 that Melchizedek is historically presented to us. The incident and its record, although so brief and standing in such singular isolation from the thread of the history which it interrupts, is not only in itself most striking and interesting, but also in its typical teaching profoundly instructive. How suddenly and altogether unexpectedly does Melchizedek here appear before us - a most kingly and majestic form, yet clad in priestly robes and with the mystic emblems of Eucharistic offering - bread and wine - in his hands. We see those priestly hands raised in blessing; we observe the great patriarch, Abraham - the father of the faithful and the friend of YHVH - bowing before the mysterious priest-king and presenting to him the tithes of all his spoil; and then, as abruptly as it appeared, the vision passes away and for nearly a thousand years the voice of inspiration utters not again the name of Melchizedek. Then, however, in an ecstatic Psalm of a most distinctly Messianic character and descriptive of our Lord's exaltation in the day of his power, we meet with it once more in the solemn declaration: "Elohiym hath sworn and will not repent, thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4). Again, something like a thousand years passes away and then once more, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews take up the subject of this mysterious personage, who, "Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days or end of life; but made like unto the Son of YHVH; abideth a priest continually" (Hebrews 7:3); and on the two brief references to him, above given, which are all that the Scriptures contain, founds an argument to show the superiority of Moshiach's priesthood, as being "after the order of Melchizedek," to that of Aaron or Levi, which it had superseded. Who was Melchizedek? Much labour has been wasted in attempts to answer the question. Later Jewish tradition identified him with Shem; and it is certain that that patriarch was not only alive in the days of Abraham, but even continued to live till Jacob was fifty years old. (Compare Genesis with verses 12:26, 21:5, 25:7-26.) According to others he belonged to the family of Ham or of Japheth; and it has been said that this is necessarily implied by the language of the Apostle when drawing a parallel between Melchizedek and Moshiach; he says that our Lord belonged to "a tribe of which no man gave attendance at the altar." Some again have suggested that he was an incarnate angel or other superhuman creature, who lived for a time among men. Others have held that he was an early manifestation of the Son of YHVH; and a sect, called the Melchizedekian, asserted that he was "an incarnation of the Holy Ghost." But, in all these conjectures, the fact has been strangely overlooked that the reticence of Scripture on the point is typical and significant for, could it be determined who Melchizedek really was, it could no longer be said that he was "without father, without mother, without genealogy"; which statement is to be understood, not as implying that he was not a natural descendant of Adam, but that he designedly appears and disappears in the sacred narrative without mention either of his parentage or death. There can however be no question that, whoever Melchizedek may have been, he was an eminent type of Moshiach. This is placed beyond doubt, not only by the language of the 110th Psalm - the Messianic character of which has ever been recognized by Jews and believers alike - but especially by the argument of the Apostle, in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the course of which there occurs the explicit declaration that he was - in the various respects mentioned - "made like unto the Son of YHVH."

Question 83: What secular evidence have we of the fate of Lot’s wife?

Answer:

The pillar which is mentioned in the story concerning the fate of Lot's wife, in Genesis 19, is referred to by a number of writers. Josephus (in Antiquities I, II) wrote that it still remained in his day and he had seen it - i. e., the peculiar formation of crumbling, crystalline rock associated by tradition with the event. Clemens Romanus, Irenaeus and Benjamin of Tudela also wrote of the strange formation as visible in their day, but later writers stated that it had ceased to exist. It is related that, by a singular coincidence, Lieutenant Lynch, who led an American exploring party around the Dead Sea, found on the south-western shore, at a place called by the Arabs Usdum, a pillar some forty feet high, composed of salt crystals, capped with carbonate of lime, which he assumed to have been detached by the action of the winter rains upon the rock-salt hills. Professor Palmer claims in one of his books to have seen this same formation, which the Arabs, in their usual manner, had connected with the Bible story, although it is not at all certain that the locality is identical with that indicated in Genesis. Several commentators hold that the geological character of the rocks and the prevalence of salt crystals justify the conclusion that the Bible passage might be interpreted to mean "like a pillar of salt," and that the body of Lot's wife "had become fixed for a time to the soil by saline or bituminous incrustations."

Question 82: Who were the lost tribes?

Answer:

The "lost tribes," so-called, were the Jews carried into captivity by Shalmaneser (2 Kings 17:6) and chiefly belonging to Israel or the ten tribes. Many theories as to their location and their descendants have been ventilated and they have been successively located (by ingenious investigators) in Hindustan, Tartary, China, Africa, Great Britain and among the aborigines of North America. More reasonable conjectures hold that while some returned after the exile and others were left in Samaria, many remained in Assyria and afterward joined with the Jews in forming colonies throughout the East, so that in a certain sense, they shared the ultimate history of their brethren of Judah.

Frequently asked questions and answers:

Question 81: Why did the wicked kings of Judah let their sons pass through fire?

Answer:

It was a heathen form of worship to Molech, Milcom or Chemosh, which the Israelites had borrowed or adapted from the Moabites and Ammonites. Human sacrifices were made in high places to Molech. The chief interpreters Jarchi, Kimchi and Maimonides wrote that in the worship of Molech, the children were not burned, but were made to pass before two burning pyres as a purification rite. It is quite clear however, that in many cases lives were actually sacrificed (see Psalm 106:37, 38; Jeremiah 7:31). It was assumed that by this rite the victims were purged from dross of the body and attained union with the deity.

Thought for Today: Tuesday January 14

The Bible tells us that our lives are heaven’s primary concern… Think of it: Even the angel are constantly watching how we live as believers! They know the hour is urgent, and that what we do is important. And remember, it does matter how we live. It matters to YHVH; it matters to the angels and it is the testimony to other people. Yeshua said: “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16)