Quoth the Raven? (Genesis 8:7)

What was the first bird that Noah sent out after the rain had ceased? Raven (Genesis 8:7)

Noah’s surviving an apocalyptic flood in an ark is one of the Bible’s most well known stories (Genesis 6:13-9:17). God famously saves the patriarch and seven of his relatives from the perilous waters. After the rains subside and the water recedes, Noah releases a raven from the ark (Genesis 8:7).

Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7 NASB)

Though the raven does not return, a dove that is dicharged a week later famously retrieves an olive branch which has survived as an everlasting image of peace (Genesis 8:8-12).

Though not as well remembered the first bird that Noah dispatches is a raven (Genesis 8:7). The Hebrew literally reads “the raven”. Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951) specifies:

The definite article indicates here only what is termed a general definition: he sent forth the raven that he sent; similarly in Genesis 8:8: one of the doves that were with him in the ark, the dove that he put forth. (Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part Two, From Noah to Abraham, 109)

Claus Westermann (1909-2000) agrees:

The definite article with the raven is an indication of the species, like “the” fox or “the” hare in the tale; other examples in the Old Testament are I Samuel 17:35; I Kings 20:36; Amos 5:19. For the construction cf. Johann Baptist Göttsberger [1868-1958]. (Westermann, Genesis 1-11 (A Continental Commentary), 447)

There is little debate as to the bird in question as the Hebrew ôrêb is almost universally translated “raven” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NKJV, NIV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) describes:

The raven is a wild bird that is not discriminating in its diet. It feeds on carrion as well as vegetation and could thus obtain its food from among the floating carcasses. That is why it made repeated forays from the ark. Noah could observe its movements over several days. (Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary), 57)

Gordon J. Wenham (b. 1943) opines:

The raven is not only black but unclean (Leviticus 11:15; Deuteronomy 14:14), so it is little surprise that it brought Noah no consolation...Since they were unclean, there were only two ravens on the ark, so both had to live if the species was to survive. Note that the raven kept on flying till the earth “dried out.” Only then did Noah disembark (Genesis 8:14). (Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary), 186)

J. Vernon McGee (1904-1988) envisions:

Noah is engaged here in “birdwatching.” He sends out the raven, and the raven does not come back. Why didn’t that raven come back? You must recognize what that raven eats—it feeds on carrion. There was a whole lot of flesh of dead animals floating around after the Flood, and that was the kind of thing this old crow ate. He did not return to the Ark because he was really going to a feast, and he was having a very wonderful time. (McGee, Genesis, Chapters 1-15, 138)

The appearance of the raven has striking similarities to the Babylonian flood narrative, the Gilgamesh epic. Tremper Longman III (b.1952) declares:

Perhaps the most striking similarity between the two accounts is the use of birds to determine whether or not the floodwaters have receded. (Longman, How to Read Genesis, 85)

Ronald Hendel (b. 1958) contrasts:

Noah sends a single raven and then a dove three times [Genesis 8:6-12]—which differs from Utnapishtim’s sequence of dove, swallow, and raven—but the motif of sending birds to see if the waters have abated is the same. It derives from a trick of ancient mariners to see if a ship is close to land. But in this case, from the top of a mountain, Utnapishtim and Noah could have simply looked out the window: the birds are not strictly necessary. The sending of the birds is a colorful motif that slows down the action—thereby creating suspense—and vividly depicts the passage of time. The returning dove in Genesis, a “plucked olive leaf” in its beak [Genesis 8:11], offers a miniature vision of life reborn, just as Utnapishtim’s raven, who “saw the waters receding...eating, bobbing up and down,” shows that life will go on. (Hendel, The Book of Genesis: A Biography, 28)

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) critiques:

The scriptural account has Noah send out first a raven and then a dove. The Gilgamesh Epic reverses that order—first the dove and then the raven. The biblical sequence has more of the ring of truth about it. The raven is a carrion eater and did not return because it found food on the mountain peaks. (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 304)

There are also correlations to other flood myths. Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) chronicles:

Noah releases a raven and a dove, and the latter twice more, at seven-day intervals [Genesis 8:6-12]...Utnapishtim waits seven days after grounding before releasing a dove, then a swallow, and then a raven. Berossus [third century BCE], too, tells of three separate dispatches of birds, but there are no details about them. It is not known whether the practice was part of the Atrahasis story. (Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary), 57)

Noah “sent out (or forth)” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NKJV, NIV, NRSV, RSV) or “released” (NLT) the raven (Genesis 8:7). Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) analyzes:

Every time Noah sends forth one of these birds the Hebrew uses the Piel of šālah (e.g, Genesis 8:7, wayyešallah). This use contrasts with the Qal šālah used in Genesis 8:9 to refer to Noah’s “stretching out” his hand to retrieve the dove. Now, at many places in the Old Testament the Qal and Piel of this verb seem to be interchangeable. But sometimes the Qal means to send forth on a mission, with the expectation that those sent will return. Thus Moses (Numbers 13:3) and Joshua (Joshua 2:1) “sent” (šālah, Qal) the spies who will return with the needed information. The Piel of šālah may mean to send away, to banish with no possibility of returning, as in Genesis 3:23: “Yahweh sent him forth [wayyešallehēhû from the garden of Eden.” Applied to Genesis 8:7-12 the meaning would be that Noah does not send these birds forth on a trial run. He does not expect them to return to their nest in the ark. (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 303)

No reason is stated as to why Noah releases the bird. This omission has generated much conjecture. John L. Thompson (b. 1952) introduces:

The...account of how Noah released first a raven and then a dove in order to test whether the earth had sufficiently dried was mined by traditional commentators for all sorts of reasons. Some assumed that Noah must have chosen these two particular birds on the basis of his special wisdom, revelation or insight. The Bible thus functioned for some interpreters much like a medieval bestiary here, definitively disclosing the special characteristics of these animals for all time. For others, the story was a rich source for allegorical readings. In both cases, speculative impulses were sometimes fueled by inside information or other lore gleaned from the writings of the rabbis. (Thompson, Genesis 1-11 (Reformation Commentary on Scripture), 272)

Many interpreters have viewed the raven as performing a reconnaissance mission due to the insufficiency of the ark’s window. This is the reason supplied by the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament.

Gordon J. Wenham (b. 1943) deduces:

Apparently the window must have been in the roof of the ark; at least it did not allow Noah to see the waters receding, which is why he resorts to sending out the birds. Willem Hendrik Gispen [1900-1986] notes that before the electronic era sailors used to use birds in this way to discover if land was close. (Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary), 186)

J.G. Vos (1903-1983) expounds:

After the peaks of the mountains became visible, Noah waited forty days and then released the raven. Evidently, the window Noah opened did not afford a sufficiently wide view. H.C. Leupold [1892-1972] suggests that the window may have been rather high up under projecting eaves, which would limit the view. The raven, once released, did not return to the ark. Of course, the meaning is not that the raven flew hither and yon without any rest until the earth was dry. We must remember that the mountain peaks were already exposed, and these would afford rest for the raven when not in flight. (Vos, Genesis, 153)

Bill T. Arnold (b. 1955) determines:

The episode of the birds (Genesis 8:6-12) – the raven and the dove – is one of the best known elements of the flood story. The assumption is that the birds can reveal something to humans locked up in the ark that the humans cannot discern for themselves. The use of birds by ancient sailors to find land was a common practice. Here, of course, Noah is not locating land, since his ark has been grounded by the mountains of Ararat. Rather the text emphasizes Noah’s care for his family and the animals in his charge by determining the readiness of the land for habitation. (Arnold, Genesis (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 105)

Enlisting birds was a standard procedure for sailors of the era. John H. Walton (b. 1952) explains:

Ancient navigators used birds to find land, but Noah is not navigating, and he is on land. His use of the birds is not in order to find direction, but to determine the readiness of the land for habitation. In the ancient Near East the flight patterns of birds sometimes served as omens, but neither Noah nor Utnapishtim make observations from the flight of the birds sent out. A raven, by habit, lives on carrion and would therefore have sufficient food available. The dove and the pigeon have a limited ability for sustained flight, live at lower elevations, and require plants for food. The olive leaf retrieved by the dove suggests the amount of time it takes for an olive tree to leaf out after being submerged—a clue to the current depth of the floodwaters [Genesis 8:11]. It is also symbolic of new life and fertility to come after the Flood. It is a difficult tree to kill, even if cut down. This freshly plucked shoot shows Noah that recovery from the Flood had begun. (Walton, Genesis (NIV Application Commentary), 314-15)

The view that the raven is sent for this purpose is problematic. Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951) rejects:

The purpose for which Noah sent the raven is not expressly stated as in the case of the dove in Genesis 8:8, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground. One may suppose, as most commentators do, that the object was the same; but this is difficult, for if the two birds had been put forth for the identical reason, it should have been indicated in connection with the first bird rather than the second. More probably Noah sent forth the raven without any specific intention; he let it go to see how it would act so that he might learn something from its behaviour—whatever there was to actually learn from it. Actually, however, it taught him nothing. The Septuagint adds also here the words, to see if the waters had subsided (with slight variations in the manuscripts) in order to harmonize, in accordance with its usual practice, this verse with Genesis 8:8. The Biblical text should not, therefore, be emended on the basis of the Septuagint as many contemporary expositors have suggested. (Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part Two, From Noah to Abraham, 109-10)

If the raven is sent to unearth information, it remains to be seen what it uncovers. Bill T. Arnold (b. 1955) denounces:

The view from this skylight apparently did not allow an accurate assessment of the condition of earth (implied also by Genesis 8:13), and thus Noah relies on birds to help. But in the first case, he receives no help at all! The raven is a scavenger, feeding on carrion, and was therefore independent of both the food in the ark or fresh meat on the ground. In the flood’s aftermath, the raven has plenty of floating corpses to feed upon, and needs no “place to set its foot” upon, as the dove will need (Genesis 8:9). NRSV’s “went to and fro” until the waters were dried up may instead indicate “took off, flying thither and back,” indicating in fact that the raven kept combing back to the ark and leaving it until the earth was dry. Thus the raven was of no value in determining whether the earth was now hospitable to human life! On the other hand, the three trips of the dove illustrate the degrees of readiness of earth. (Arnold, Genesis (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 105)

Gordon J. Wenham (b. 1943) concurs:

The whole scene is dominated by Noah’s concern to discover whether the waters have retreated. The raven episode is then essentially an unsuccessful experiment: it brings back no evidence of any change in the situation. The dove brings back some evidence, the fresh olive leaves, so that Noah concludes that the waters had lessened. But only when he removes the cover of the ark does he himself see that the surface of the soil is dry (Genesis 8:13). (Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary), 185)

Others have seen the raven and dove as working in tandem. The dove’s data collection is enhanced by the raven’s. Stuart Briscoe (b. 1930) reasons:

Noah dispatched the raven “which kept going to and fro until the waters had dried up from the earth” (Genesis 8:8). With all the death around the raven found plenty to occupy itself so “He also sent out from himself a dove...but the dove found no resting place...and she returned...So he put out his hand and took her, and drew her into the ark to himself” (Genesis 8:8-9). He now knew that a raven could survive outside the ark and a dove could not so he drew his conclusions from that data. (Briscoe, Genesis (Mastering the Old Testament)

Claus Westermann (1909-2000) concludes:

Franz Delitzsch [1813-1890] comments on the result of sending out of the raven: “It was a good sign that it did not come back.” This holds also for Gilgamesh XI 153-54 where the raven is the third bird that is sent out, and the disembarkation from the ship follows at once. It can only be meant as an attempt which did not succeed in the present state of the text of Genesis 8:6-12. “It told him (Noah) nothing,” Umberto Cassuto [1883-1951]. (Westermann, Genesis 1-11 (A Continental Commentary), 447)

Outside of the ark the raven flies “to and fro” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), “back and forth” (HCSB, MSG, NIV, NLT), “here and there” (NASB) or is simply “flying around” (CEV). As such, Genesis leaves the raven perpetually suspended flying to and fro evermore.

Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951) comments:

True to its nature, the raven is concerned only with itself and pays no heed to the man’s needs. It goes forth and comes back, goes and returns, and Noah can draw no inference from its going and coming. Instead of to and fro [literally, ‘going and returning’] the Septuagint reads: and did not return. Actually this clause does not fit in well with the rest of the verse. But it is interesting to note that it corresponds to what is related in the Epic of Gilgameš. (Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part Two, From Noah to Abraham, 110)

As Cassuto alludes, the neglect of the raven’s fate is amended in the Septuagint. Susan Brayford (b. 1950) informs:

Unlike its Masoretic Text counterpart that went back and forth, the Septuagint raven does not return until it can positively report that the earth had dried out. Presumably tired of waiting for the raven’s return and report, Noah sends a dove out after it, whose mission is to see if the water had abated. Unlike the raven, the dove returns to Noah because it, like its Mesopotamian counterpart, could not find a dry resting place. (Brayford, Genesis (Septuagint Commentary), 269)

Laurence A. Turner questions:

Baffling is the fate of the raven (Genesis 8:7). It would appear that it never returned but simply ‘went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth.’ If it survived (by eating carrion), then why did it need to be taken into the ark? If it died, then being ‘saved’ on the ark has a bitter irony...Perhaps Noah’s actions are simply confused, serving no useful purpose other than to satisfy his curiosity, for even when he knows that the earth is dry (Genesis 8:11), he stays put. (Turner, Genesis (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), 43)

Because the raven seemingly provides little information, many interpreters have seen it as a later addition to the text. Gerhard Von Rad (1909-1971) posits:

After the mountain peak became visible, Noah sent out a raven. The passage, received from tradition by the Priestly document, is without charm and is inserted into the narrative without proper vividness. Is the meaning of the statement really that the raven did not return to the ark? How different is the Yahwist at this point! (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 129)

W. Sibley Towner (b. 1933) dissects:

When they combined their version of the deluge with that of the older epic source...the Priestly writers allowed discrepancies to remain. In P, for example, the bird sent out by Noah was a raven. This raven apparently went in and out of the ark over many days, perhaps feeding, as ravens do, on vegetation and carrion alike (Genesis 8:6-7). In contrast, the older tradition had a dove go forth, return once with an empty beak, return a second time with an olive branch, and then not return at all from its third outing (Genesis 8:8-12). These differences in detail are insignificant, really; they probably simply reflect different streams of tradition...In a case like this, one can always be literal and say that Noah sent out both a raven and a dove, and that the raven was the less faithful of the two birds. (Towner, Genesis (Westminster Bible Companion), 89)

If the text represents a compilation, the contrast enriches both stories as the two strands work well together. Even so, the belief that the raven has been inserted into a preexisting tradition is not universal.

Gordon J. Wenham (b. 1943) notes:

Commentators from August Dillmann [1823-1894] to Claus Westermann [1909-2000] have suggested that since the raven episode spoils the neat arrangement of three journeys by the dove alone, it is a later insertion from a variant tradition. It is impossible to be sure, but in that the Gilgamesh Epic also mentions a raven among the reconnoitering birds, the episode is unlikely to have been added to the story later. (Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary), 186)

John Van Seters (b. 1935) resolves:

The episode with the birds in Genesis 8:6b-12 is entirely the work of the Yahwist, with no additions by P. It presents few problems except that one should probably assume an additional wait of seven days between the sending of the raven and the dove. This is indicated by the statement in Genesis 8:10: “Again he waited seven more days.” (Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist As Historian in Genesis, 164)

Assuming that enlisting the raven is an attempt at discernment, this marks a new means of revelation for Noah. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) compares:

It is interesting to note that Noah sends forth birds in order to determine the conditions on the earth [Genesis 8:6-12]. Up until this point Noah has received all his information from God. God informed him about the corruption in the earth [Genesis 6:13]. God told him to build an ark and what to take into that ark [Genesis 6:14-16]. God briefed him about the impending storm [Genesis 6:17]...But God does not tell Noah when the ground is habitable again. Indeed, all revelation from God to Noah is halted once Noah is locked inside the ark—until the atonement in Genesis 8:15. He who had received direct revelation from God must now resort to ornithology (or augury) for further data. The Creator speaks to Noah, but so does the creature. Moses receives direct revelations from God, but it is his father-in-law who gives him the information about the best and most efficient way to administer juridical matters (Exodus 18:18-23). Joshua receives a direct promise from God that he will be given all the land (Joshua 1:2-4), yet he still sends spies to reconnoiter Jericho and then to report back to him (Joshua 2:1-24). (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 303)

Noah’s use of birds indicates that both creator and creature are avenues through which the divine can communicate.

Of all of the animals at his disposal, why does Noah select a raven to release first (Genesis 8:7)? Is this a poor choice? Are there any conditions whereby the raven does not survive the mission? If not, why is it in the ark? Should the raven return to the ark? When have you interpreted a natural phenomena as an omen? What can one learn from watching birds? What is meant by the raven flying to and fro; does it indicate uncertainty? What, if anything, does the raven tell Noah?

The tendency to juxtapose the raven and the dove is almost as enduring as the olive branch is as a sign of peace (Genesis 8:6-12). It is a natural comparison and one in which the raven does not fare well.

R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) typifies:

Noah...learned as he went. He released the raven first because as an unclean bird it was expendable since it was good for neither food nor sacrifice (cf. Leviticus 11:15; Deuteronomy 14:14). But the dove was an altogether different bird. It was white and clean and often used for sacrifice (cf. Leviticus 1:14, 12:6). Because it was from among the clean animals, a dove would be sacrificed in Noah’s post-flood burnt offerings (cf. Genesis 8:20). (Hughes, Genesis: Beginning & Blessing (Preaching the Word), 143)

Martin Kessler (b. 1927) and Karel Deurloo (b. 1936) measure:

Raven and dove, colored dark and light, unclean and clean, reported according to their nature. The raven, a predator of the field, kept flying back and forth until the Earth fell dry (Genesis 8:14). At that point it was safe. After all, God had named the Earth in creation (Genesis 1:10). The dove, which lives in the vicinity of man, was sent out to ascertain whether the field was visible. Noah was most interested in that since he would function as a man of the field, a tiller of the soil (Genesis 9:2), for that was the basis of human existence. (Kessler and Deurloo, A Commentary on Genesis: The Book of Beginnings, 83)

The raven has been historically maligned. Pat Munday (b. 1955) indicates:

In modern Western civilization, ravens acquired a decidedly bad rap as an untrustworthy and evil bird. This can be traced to early Christian and Jewish interpretations of the raven’s role in helping Noah find land after the flood. Despite the way that later scholars demonized ravens, Genesis 8:7 is ambiguous on this point, stating only that Noah “sent out the raven; it went to and fro until the waters had dried up from the earth”...Nonetheless, theologians from the fourth century on generally wrote that the raven had failed Noah in its mission and characterized it as “an unclean bird”; “a symbol of evil”; and “the enemy,” representing those destroyed by the flood (David Marcus [b. 1941] 71-80; Sylvia Huntley Horowitz 504-05). (Emily Plec [b. 1974], “Thinking through Ravens: Human Hunters, Wolf-Birds and Embodied Communication” Perspectives on Human-Animal Communication: Internatural Communication, 208)

In many rabbinic sources, the raven’s failure is depicted prior to its release. Gershon Winkler (b. 1949) apprises:

The ancient rabbis explain that the raven had declined the mission, circled the ark, and returned (Genesis 8:7) because he didn’t trust Noah alone with his mate (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108b). Consequently, Noah had to send a less paranoid and more faithful kind of bird, a dove, who ultimately returned with a twig in her beak (Genesis 8:11). (Winkler, Travels with the Evil Inclination: A Rabble-rousing Renegade Rebel Rabbi’s Story, 98)

The raven is also presented as an unruly passenger. Emmanouela Grypeou and Helen Spurling relay:

Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 108b describes Noah’s rebuke to the raven, who stated that Noah desired to dispense with the species of ravens by sending away one of only two aboard the ark. Noah points out that he also is forbidden relations with his wife, and on a qal wa-homer argument this should apply even more to the raven. (Grypeou and Spurling, The Book of Genesis in Late Antiquity: Encounters between Jewish and Christian Exegesis, 164)

Norman Cohn (1915-2007) remarks:

Inside the ark life was difficult. There was general agreement amongst the rabbis that sexual intercourse was forbidden; the raven, dog and Noah’s son Ham were all punished for failing to observe this prohibition...The raven caused Noah much embarrassment. When the ark came to rest on Ararat, and Noah got ready to send the raven out, the cantankerous bird argued back. Noah, he said, must hate him; for if he suffered a mishap, there would be no more ravens. Also, he suspected that Noah had designs on his mate, the female raven. Noah tried to reassure hm by pointing out that he had been able to stay chaste throughout the time in the ark – but according to one famous rabbi the raven was unconvinced: it remained so anxious on its mate’s behalf that it refused to fly off and continued to circle the ark. (Cohn, Noah’s Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought, 35-36)

Jack P. Lewis (b. 1919) annotates:

When Noah was ready to send the raven forth, according to R. Judan (PA. 4) in the name of R. Judah b. R. Simon (PA. 4), the raven argued back (deduced from a supposed relation of ושוב with הש׳ב), that God hated him since only a few unclean animals were taken into the ark. Noah also hated him, for if he sent him out and an accident should occur, there would be one less species. He also suggested that perhaps Noah was lewdly interested in the female raven. Noah replied with kal we-homer that he had been continent in the ark...Elsewhere he had insisted that the raven was good for nothing, but God has commanded him to take the raven back because it was needed to feed Elijah [I Kings 17:2-6]...In Pirke de R. Eliezer the raven never returns to the ark, but feeds on dead bodies. (Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature, 146)

The generally negative characterization of the raven is captured by the playwright André Obey (1892-1975):

Ham: Why the raven?
Noah: Because’s he’s a great traveller and because when he goes we’ll be rid of his black wings and his nasty voice. (Obey, Noah: A Play, Act III, 53)

The dove and raven have often been compared typologically and allegorically. Norman Cohn (1915-2007) submits:

No feature of the biblical story escaped typological interpretation. For Jerome [347-420], the raven which Noah sent forth from the ark, and which did not return, was ‘the foul bird of wickedness’ which is expelled by baptism. Augustine [354-430] detected in the unfortunate bird a ‘type’ of impure men who crave for things outside the Church. (Cohn, Noah’s Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought, 31)

Andrew Louth (b. 1944) reviews:

The raven, which is sent forth by Noah, is held captive by gluttony and does not return to the ark (Prudentius [d. 413], John Chrysostom [347-407]). The raven symbolizes those Christians who have gone astray (Augustine [354-430], Bede [673-735]). The dove, which Noah sends after the raven, brings an olive branch back to the ark. This branch not only reveals that the deluge has abated but also is a symbol of the promised everlasting peace (Augustine). The dove is a symbol of the Holy Spirit (Augustine, Bede), of the anointing by oil in chrismation (Bede) and of Christ (Maximus of Turin [380–465]). The end of the deluge can be can be compared with the end of the persecutions that those who live in Christ have to suffer in the world (Augustine). (Louth, Genesis 1-11 (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, 144)

Jack P. Lewis (b. 1919) divides:

The typology of the sending forth of the raven presents two currents in the church, one of which expanded soteriological secrets, and the other ecclesiastical. The former of these followed the symbolism of Philo [20 BCE-50 CE] in which Noah was expelling whatever residue of folly there might be in his mind...The action illustrates the expelling of sin from life “which goes forth and does not return”...Jerome [347-420] explained that “the unclean bird, the devil,” or “the foul bird of wickedness” was expelled by baptism. Those who sought ecclesiastical typology saw the raven as a type of impure men and of apostates who are sent forth from the church and cannot return. A presbyter of the third century, in order to make this point, linked the raven with the command: “Everything leprous and impure, cast abroad outside the camp.”...The tradition is further developed by Gregory of Elvira [d. 392]...and by Augustine [354-430] who found in the raven a type of men who are defiled with impure desire and are eager for things outside the church...The raven may also be a type of the procrastinator. (Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature, 173-74)

If the dove is a symbol of resurrection, the raven is a reminder of death. The raven represents the old nature, the dove the new and improved product.

Perhaps worst of all, the raven is seen as disrupting the new paradiscal life inside the ark. David J. Atkinson (b. 1943) presents:

Here is a picture that is pointing beyond this age. Here shut up in this ark is a foretaste of what could be. A haven of security when this broken world order ceases. Here there are doves and ravens, expressive of a harmony between man and the animal world. Here the wolf dwells with the lamb, the leopard lies down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together. Here all animal life is preserved to sing the praises of the Creator. For surely, a new creation is pictured here. (Atkinson, The Message of Genesis 1–11 (Bible Speaks Today), 148)

The raven’s regression to its original nature is seen as an end to this brief era. Leon R. Kass (b. 1939) discusses:

As far as we know, while on the ark the lion and the lamb broke straw together, and no species practiced war anymore. Rehabilitation of the entire living world seemed possible—or almost possible. Only one small clue gives the reader pause: Noah’s first scout for dry land was the raven. Remembering the raven’s carnivorousness, Noah must have hoped the bird would return with rotting flesh, but the ravenous scout “went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth” (Genesis 8:7). The herbivorous dove, sent second, returned, because she “found no rest for the sole of her foot”; sent seven days later, she brought back an olive leaf freshly plucked (Genesis 8:8-11). Yet while redemption was celebrated aboard the ship, the spirit of the hungry raven, no doubt fed up with seeds and looking for meat, still hovered over the face of the deep. As the sequel shows, Noah himself, for all his virtue, turns out to harbor some of the wildness of antediluvian man [Genesis 9:20-27].” (Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis 170)

Still, there is hope. Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) considers:

During the original creation (Genesis 1:1-31) the emphasis was on goodness. Only on two days—days 2 and 5—was there a suggestion that perhaps something was less than good (day 2 omitted the usual “it was good,” and day 5 did not maintain the usual increase in narrative quantity). During the remaking (Genesis 8:6-9:7), however, there is a greater awareness of evil. In the first part (Genesis 8:6-14), for instance, when Noah, seeking the dry land, sends out the birds, the first bird out is the raven (Genesis 8:7)—an ominous creature...Yet the remaking account does not lack hope and goodness. On the contrary, the sense of goodness, if anything, is greater. The raven comes from within the ark—as though evil, somehow, is encompassed in God’s providence. And the image of the raven is more than balanced by the drama, gentle and extensive, surrounding the dove (Genesis 8:8-12). (Brodie, Genesis As Dialogue : A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary, 180)

In spite of all of the negativity towards the raven, there are many practical advantages to its selection. Its natural ability to thrive in adverse circumstances make its mission a low risk proposition. The raven, perhaps more so than the ark’s other residents, no longer needs the nest the ark provides. Its discharge frees up space and food.

R. Mark Gaffney (b. 1969) approves:

In selecting the raven first, Noah made a wise choice, for he knew the instinctual behavior of the raven. The raven’s wingspan is only four feet across, but ravens are designed with great strength and endurance, being able to fly long distances without rest. Fierce storms and winds do not frighten them; they are able to fly into opposing gales with great ease. Ravens are highly developed and are thought to be one of the most intelligent birds known to man. They not only survive, but thrive in areas where smaller and weaker birds perish. As Noah’s raven circled high above the ocean floor, her keen eyesight enabled her to see for miles. (Gaffney, Where The Birds Make Their Nests)

Perhaps the raven represents the first fruits of new life on earth. The planet is habitable for the raven and will soon be for humanity. Its reversion to its nature is a sign that all creation can return to its true nature as well. In spite of the ark’s success, creation was not intended to be cooped up in a floating box. The raven’s leaving the nest could be interpreted as a sign of great hope.

Why doesn’t the raven return to the ark? Why would the raven return to the ark? Given the raven’s nature, is its behavior a self-fulfilling prophecy; does the raven meet Noah’s expectations? Is the raven’s return to its natural state a bad thing? Is the criticism directed at the raven justified? Is the raven expendable? Is any creature expendable? When have you reverted back to a default setting? Is the dove better appreciated in contrast to the raven? Is the dove’s “success” an example of Plan B trumping Plan A? Does the raven need be bad for the dove to be good? Who do you know of who is unjustly maligned? Is the raven’s flight pattern an omen of hope or doom?

“The raven spread out its glossy wings and departed like hope.” - Cecilia Dart-Thornton, The Battle of Evernight

Beneath the Gold (Exodus 25:10)

Of what wood were the tabernacle pieces made? Shittim wood [acacia wood] (Exodus 25:10)

As the Israelites wander in the wilderness en route from Egypt to Canaan, the tabernacle serves as a portable “sanctuary”, the dwelling place of the divine presence (Exodus 25:8). God meticulously outlines the plans for its furnishings (Exodus 25:10-40). The inventory begins with its most famous piece, the ark of the covenant (or testimony) (Exodus 25:10-22).

“They shall construct an ark of acacia wood two and a half cubits long, and one and a half cubits wide, and one and a half cubits high. (Exodus 25:10 NASB)

The ark of the covenant is a box containing the tablets or tables of the Law a.k.a. The Ten Commandments (Exodus 25:16). It is a holy treasure chest.

Waldemar Janzen (b. 1932) defines:

The word ark (’aron) is used once in the sense of coffin (of Joseph; Genesis 50:26) and a few times with the meaning money box (as in II Kings 12:10; II Chronicles 24:8). However, of its 193 occurrences in the Old Testament, 184 refer to the ark of the covenant, as in our present context. (Janzen, Exodus (Believers Church Bible Commentary), 338)

Philip Graham Ryken (b. 1966) clarifies:

Sometimes the ark of the covenant is compared to Noah’s ark (Genesis 6:14), or even to the little ark or basket that saved baby Moses from drowning (Exodus 2:3). However, the Hebrew word used in these passages is not the one used here; there is no linguistic connection. (Ryken, Exodus: Saved for God’s Glory (Preaching the Word), 815-16)

The ark’s dimensions are defined precisely (Exodus 25:10-16). James K. Bruckner (b. 1957) describes:

The ark measured two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. A “cubit” (“forearm”) was the distance from the elbow to the end of the middle finger. The ancient world used various measures, but the generally accepted length of a cubit was between seventeen and a half and eighteen inches. The ark was approximately forty-five inches by twenty-seven inches by twenty seven inches. The ratio between its length and width is five to three—close to what...has recently been termed the “golden ratio.” (Bruckner, Exodus (New International Biblical Commentary), 239-40)

Though its ultimate fate is unknown, the holy object plays a prominent role in Israel’s history. Godfrey Ashby (b. 1930) chronicles:

The ark (Hebrew ’ărôn)...was carried about apart from the tabernacle at times and even taken into battle as a sort of mascot or palladium (I Samuel 4:1-11). Eventually, it was placed in the Jerusalem Temple by Solomon (I Kings 8:1-9). After this, there is no record of what happened to it. (Ashby, Exodus: Go Out and Meet God (International Theological Commentary, 121)

God even specifies the lumber with which the ark will be constructed: acacia wood. The Hebrew term for this structural timber is shittîym. Most translations render the building material as “acacia wood” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NJKV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) though the King James Version opts for the transliterated “shittim wood” (KJV).

Loren D. Crow (b. 1963) delineates:

It is almost certain that the word shittim (KJV) refers to common acacia, an evergreen tree that attains twenty to thirty feet in height. Its branches are long and spindly, ending in yellow flowers. A member of the mimosa family, its wood is excellent for building (Exodus 26:15). (Watson E. Mills [b. 1939], “Plants of the Bible”, The Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, 694)

Hans Arne Jensen (b. 1936) bolsters:

Translation of the Hebrew word shittah as ‘acacia wood’ is supported by the fact that the Arabic plant name sunt, a linguistic equivalent of the Hebrew shittah, designates certain species of acacia in Egypt, Arabia and southern Israel (Michael Zohary [1898-1983] 1982). (Jensen, Plant World of the Bible)

Acacia wood is a close-grained hardwood that is darker and harder than oak. With the exception of the variety native to Australia the acacia features thorns. Egyptian mythology associated the acacia with the characteristics of the tree of life, as seen in the Myth of Osiris and Isis.

Wilma James (1905-1996) depicts:

The acacia tree reaches a height of 20 to 25 feet even in waste places, but is frequently shrubby in appearance. It has soft, feathery foliage and in early spring is covered with sprays of fragrant yellow blossoms which produce fruit capsules resembling a pea pod. The rough orange-brown bark encases a hard fine-grained, and insect-resistant wood. Along with these qualities and its presence on the desert, the acacia was ideal for a building material. (James, Gardening with Biblical Plants: Handbook for the Home Gardener, 6)

Acacia wood is featured prominently in the construction of the tabernacle, also supplying its structure and furnishings (Exodus 25:10, 13, 23, 29, 26:15, 26, 32, 37, 27:1, 6, 30:1, 5, 35:7, 24, 36:20, 31, 36; 37:1, 4, 10, 15, 25, 28, 38:1, 6).

Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) analyzes:

Other than in Isaiah 41:19, Hebrew shittim always refers to the timbers used in the construction of the Tabernacle and the appurtenances. A few biblical place-names testify to the presence of acacia groves in the region of the Land of Israel. There are about eight hundred different species of acacias, but only a few have an upright trunk suitable for cutting timbers for construction. These yield very hard, durable, but lightweight planks. The Hebrew shittah may well be an Egyptian loan word. (Sarna, Exodus (The JPS Torah Commentary), 158)

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) annotates:

The Septuagint translates “acacia wood” (‘āsê šittim) as “decay-resistant wood” (xula asēpta). Perhaps acacia wood is the equivalent of California redwood. In ancient Egypt it was considered a holy tree. A number of sites in the Bible have this tree as part of their name: Shittim (Numbers 25:1; Joshua 2:1, 3:1); Abel Shittim (Numbers 33:49); Beth Shittah (Judges 7:22); Nahal Hashshittim (NIV, “the valley of acacias”) in Joel 3:18. (Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 455)

Allan A. Swenson (b. 1933) locates:

Acacia trees are common in some areas of the Sinai, especially Acacia seyal. This species and another, A. tortilis, are, botanists agree, the acacia trees that are most likely meant in these many passages in the Bible. From the Dead Sea area southward, acacias can be found in abundance. They favor ravines and wadis, with good reason. Although they can tolerate conditions few other trees can stand, acacias must have water at some time of the year. They obtain it from the rains that rush in brief, sporadic floods through these ravines before the water is swallowed by the desert sands. (Swenson, Plants of the Bible: And How to Grow Them, 157)

Alan Ray Buescher (b. 1955) adds:

Most grow in the Judean desert, the Negeb, and Sinai, while one type (Acacia raddiana) is found in the central and northern parts of Israel. The acacia (Hebrew šhittîm) is a hardy tree, able to withstand the extreme climactic conditions of the desert. Acacia is used for fuel, construction, and shade. The trunk, branches, and leaves also provide food for a variety of animals. Although some types of acacia are shrublike, 4-5 meters (13-16 feet) in height, others have central trunks and can reach heights of 12-15 meters (40-50 feet). (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 12)

Jewish Midrash asserts that the choice of acacia is predetermined. Rashi (1040-1105) cites that one of the first things the patriarch Jacob did upon entering Egypt was to plant the Shittim trees that would be used in the tabernacle hundreds of years later.

Attempts have been made to attach symbolic meaning to the acacia. Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) summarily rejects:

The continuing attempt to find a symbolic meaning in the choice of wood, e.g. it was a cedar like the trees of Paradise (Benno Jacob [1862-1945]), has no basis in the text. (Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Old Testament Library), 523)

While symbolic meaning has been largely dismissed, there are practical reasons for the lumber’s selection. The acacia carries the advantages of availability, workability and durability as the wood is abundant in the Sinai, is easily worked and is an enduring wood.

Charlie March (b. 1956) surmises:

As a woodworker I find it interesting that God prefers acacia wood for its sturdy and lightweight nature. Most likely it was also locally available. (March, A Carpenter’s View of the Bible, 91)

The acacia was plentiful in the region making it easily accessible. As some species maintain a shrublike appearance, many have speculated that the burning bush was an acacia (Exodus 3:2). Given its preponderance, the Israelites might have selected the timber without provocation.

Tudor Parfitt (b. 1944) notes:

In many arid zones in Africa, the acacia is the archetypical tree. In the Sinai desert—the land bridge between Africa and Asia—the acacia species rules supreme. It would have been just about the only building material available in the wilderness...The wood of the acacia is exceptionally hard, very heavy, very dense, and will last for a long time. In desert conditions, it would not perish. In Egypt there are acacia panels that have survived for well over 3,000 years. (Parfitt, The Lost Ark of the Covenant: Solving the 2,500-Year-Old Mystery of the Fabled Biblical Ark, 63)

The Israelites likely had experience working with the wood. Gayle A. McCoy (1917-2013) speculates:

The acacia wood from which the ark was constructed grows in both the Sinai and Egypt. It was used extensively in Egypt, so the Hebrew craftsmen knew how to work with it. A species of this acacia tree grows in Arizona and Mexico. The Hebrew workmen had made mummy cases of acacia wood which were expertly carved. Mummy cases found in recent years are still in as good a condition as when built about four thousand years ago. Acacia wood is very durable. Prior to the time of building the ark, while in Egypt, the Hebrew wood craftsmen, made beds, stools, throne chairs and arks or as we would call them, boxes or chests. Solid wood furniture was the only form of furniture in ancient Egypt. The ark and the furniture of the tabernacle was the height of their artistic achievement and would remain so for centuries. (McCoy, God’s Golden Box: The Ark of the Covenant, 79)

Acacia wood is known for its durability. Randall Price (b. 1951) observes:

Acacia trees are native to the Sinai Desert, and the wood was considered so durable that the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) translated the Hebrew for “acacia wood” as “incorruptible wood.” (Price, Searching for the Ark of the Covenant: Latest Discoveries and Research, 15)

Acacia wood is not prone to scraping. It can be cleaned using water as its density prevents liquid from permeating it and causing damage. It can also go untreated and unprotected. It is resistant to fungus; in fact, acacia extract is used to improve the durability and fungal resistance of cheaper types of wood. The acacia also possesses natural barriers to predators as its thorns contain poison which deters insects and the sap excreted by its thorns attracts ants which discourage competing plants. The use of acacia wood insures that the ark is built to last.

As acacia trees generally grow in desert regions, the wood is perfectly suited for a wilderness sanctuary. The ark’s tumultuous history would justify this need for durability.

Stuart Munro-Hay (1947-2004) tracks:

The Ark of the Covenant...led a vigorous active life. Created in the desert from acacia wood...it travelled [sic] extensively in makeshift wagons, suffering the extremes of hot and cold. It swelled and shrank. It went on campaign, resting in tents. Its journeys were not smooth, and it was at times badly shaken in transit (killing those who tried to lend a hand to support it [II Samuel 6:2-11, I Chronicles 16:5-13].) It was conveyed on ox-carts or on the shoulders of priests. It was captured by the Philistines [I Samuel 4:11, 5:1-2]...It saved itself, to Dagon’s detriment, and was sent away in a cart [I Samuel 6:1-12]. It was enshrined at Shiloh and finally in Jerusalem [II Samuel 6:12-17]. (Munro-Hay, The Quest for the Ark of the Covenant: The True History of the Tablets of Moses, 207)

Through all of its journeys, there is no record of damage to the ark.

In addition to its practicality, acacia wood is attractive and as such is still prized in making furniture. It can be polished and produces a unique color do in large part to its grain. The wood can actually change its color when viewed in different lighting. This chatoyancy is not common in wood.

Despite its aesthetic advantages, the acacia would not be visible in the ark of the covenant as the chest was overlaid with gold. Randall Price (b. 1951) inspects:

Magnifying this imperishable quality was the pure gold that overlaid the wood (Exodus 25:11). It may have been applied as gilding (like gold leaf); an idea perhaps denoted by the language of Hebrews 9:4 “covered on all sides with gold.” This was the method used on wooden furniture of the period as evidenced in finds from Egyptian tombs. Thin leaves of gold were glued to a fine layer of plaster spread over the wood or applied as hammered sheets to the wood with small nails. However, the rabbinical interpretation of the Hebrew term for “overlay” here is more substantial. According to the Talmud, this indicates thin boxes of gold placed on both the inside and outside of the acacia wood, making it a three-layered box. (Price, Searching for the Ark of the Covenant: Latest Discoveries and Research, 15)

Thomas B. Dozeman (b. 1952) asserts:

The ark of the testimony is anything but a simple wooden box, devoid of iconography. The structure of the ark remains acacia wood, with the dimensions 2½ cubits long × 1½ cubits wide × 1½ cubits high (about 3¾ feet long × 2¼ feet wide × 2¼ feet high). But it is lavished in pure gold both inside and outside of the box with an additional molding of gold. The outside includes gold rings, two on each side, and wooden poles, also covered in gold, which are used to carry the ark. (Dozeman, Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 614)

The ark is built with quality materials. Given its concealment, the acacia wood is selected for its function, not form. Its history demonstrates that acacia wood was the right timber for the job.

Why did God regulate such a seemingly insignificant detail as the wood used in constructing the tabernacle? Do you think that there was a primary reason acacia wood was used or was it a combination of its benefits? Is there symbolic significance connected to this particular lumber? Why is the ark not fashioned in solid gold like its lampstand (Exodus 25:31)? Is God as intimately involved in all aspects of life as during the construction of the tabernacle or is this an anomaly? Do the reasons for selecting humans for given tasks follow the same rationale as the choice of wood in building the tabernacle? What are the closest modern equivalents of the tabernacle and ark of the covenant? How important are building materials to a structure’s success? In what container do you keep your most cherished possessions?

Being gold plated as opposed to solid gold reduces the ark’s weight and allows for smoother transportation. The acacia serves as a solid foundation on which to lay the gold. In doing so, its own beauty is concealed. Like many who work behind the scenes and beneath the surface, acacia wood does not always receive the credit it deserves.

Rabbis Michael Katz (b. 1952) and Gershon Schwartz (1952-2004) advise:

How ironic that the Talmud records this anonymous axiom—“The only benefit from the acacia is when it is cut down”—without acknowledging that the acacia actually has an important and sacred use in traditional Jewish life before it is cut down. Two of the primary ingredients in the ink for Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot come from the acacia tree. One is...gumi, “gum acacia,” also known as gum arabic, a thickening agent made from the dry sap of this tree. The other is...afatzim, “nutgalls” or “gallnuts,” made from a growth on the acacia...Why, then, did Rabbis claim that “The only benefit from the acacia is when it is cut down” when it did have clear uses even before it was cut down? Perhaps this is a case of Rabbinic exaggeration: The acacia does not produce an edible fruit. Or this may be a case where many people were not aware of the usefulness provided by the sap and gall of the acacia...Thus, it is not really true that “The only benefit from the acacia is when it is cut down.” For Jews, there is nothing more sacred than a Torah scroll, and the Torah scroll requires an acacia before it is cut down. We should not judge a tree merely by its fruit. We also need to look at its inner essence, where we discover that there is great worth and benefit. So, too, we have to look inside people and discover that their real worth is often not what appears on the surface. (Katz and Schwartz, Searching for Meaning in Midrash: Lessons for Everyday Living, 94)

God’s selection of acacia wood serves as a reminder that the foundation, commonly concealed, is as critical as the more apparent surface.

When have you completed a thankless task? Who do you know who does not receive due credit? Who can you commend whose work often goes unnoticed or unappreciated?

“Underneath my outside face
There’s a face that none can see.
A little less smiley,
A little less sure,
But a whole lot more like me.”
- Shel Silverstein (1930-1999), ”Underface”, Every Thing on It, p. 132

Pitching the Ark (Genesis 6:14)

How was Noah’s ark made watertight? With pitch, inside and out (Genesis 6:14)

One of the best known Bible stories is that of Noah’s ark (Genesis 6:1-8:19). After informing Noah of the coming apocalypse (Genesis 6:13), God provided him with specific instructions regarding how to construct the ark (Genesis 6:14-16). God actually told Noah about the ark before revealing details that seem more pertinent - that a flood was coming (Genesis 6:17) and that he and his family would be spared, the remnant responsible for repopulating the earth (Genesis 6:18). (No pressure in that assignment...). One of the first instructions Noah received was to coat the massive box he was to build with pitch, inside and out (Genesis 6:14).

“Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch.” (Genesis 6:14 NASB)

Most modern translations render the Hebrew word kaphar as “pitch” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), though some paraphrases interpret “tar” (CEV, NLT). Pitch is a black glutinous substance that belongs to the same family as asphalt and bitumen. In fact, the Latin Vulgate translates the word bitumine and the Greek Septuagint uses asphaltos, both obvious cognates.

The source of this pitch has sparked debate. Today, pitch is most commonly the residue produced when coal tar is heated or distilled. Proponents of a young earth assert that the pitch was not derived from oil or coal but rather from gum based resins extracted from pine trees. For centuries pitch was manufactured by distilling or heating wood and Noah had access to a lot of lumber in constructing the massive floating box. (It is from this method of making pitch that North Carolina gets its nickname, the “Tar Heel State”.) Opponents counter that bitumen and other petroleum-based byproducts were plentiful in Noah’s region and that bitumen would have been far easier to procure as it has been found in pools and could have been quickly consolidated into a bucket, not to mention easier to apply. Regardless of its source, the pitch was presumably employed for waterproofing purposes. John H. Walton (b. 1952) explains, “Coating something with pitch was a standard procedure in the ancient world for assuring that the structure would be waterproof (Walton, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis, 312).” As such, pitch was a safety measure as God desired to spare the new generation.

The same method was used to protect another prominent Old Testament figure. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) reminds, “The Hebrew word for ‘ark’ was used in Genesis to refer to Noah’s ship. The only other place that Hebrew word appears in the Old Testament is in Exodus 2:3, 5 when it is translated ‘basket’ — the basket into which Moses’ mother placed him to drift down the Nile. Just as the great pitch-covered ark/basket preserved Noah and his family from a watery death, so the tiny pitch-covered ark/basket preserved Moses (cf. Genesis 6:14 and Exodus 2:3) (Hughes, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing (Preaching the Word), 133).”

The pitch coating was just one of eight details the text provides in recounting the remarkably precise design of the ark (Genesis 6:14-16). Claus Westermann (1909-2000) notes, “The eight pieces of information, one of which...is incomprehensible, are not sufficient to permit a detailed reconstruction, which is often attempted; not even the number of rooms is given. However, we have a general idea of the ark: a huge, rectangular box with a roof divided into rooms. Genesis 6:14-16...[is] not based on any systematic plan of construction as has been proposed...any such would be unusable...The details of the commission to build the ark develop out of the unique function it is meant to fulfil; they are to be understood only in this context. Each particular detail serves to emphasize the uniqueness of the construction (Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary, 418).”

Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) explains, “Behind the strange precision in the directions for building the ark, and later in the actual Flood account, behind the precise dates and measurements, there is both certainty of the absolute concreteness and reality of God’s activity and an effort to depict God’s activity, his commands, and movements with as much theological objectivity as possible (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 127).”

Why do you think God told Noah of the ark before mentioning the flood? Why was the double coating of pitch, both inside and out, advised? Have you ever covered anything in pitch? What safety measures have you taken to waterproof your home?

Many have seen the pitch used in the ark as symbolic of a greater protection. Genesis 6:14 marks the first time the word kaphar is used in Scripture. Its simplest meaning is “to cover”. It is used 102 times in the Old Testament yet this passage represents the only time the King James Version (KJV) translates it “pitch”. In 73 of its 102 uses, the KJV renders the word“atonement”.

John MacArthur (b. 1939) expounds:

“That word (kapher) in Hebrew is exactly the same word translated ‘atonement.’ It can be either...In the ark of safety, the pitch kept the waters of judgment out. And the pitch in the life of believers is the blood of Christ, which secures us from any judgment. The pitch in the ark was what kept the water out, and the blood of Christ seals the believer from the flood of God’s judgment.” (MacArthur, The Keys to Spiritual Growth: Unlocking the Riches of God, 58)

Our eternal atonement was provided by the blood of Jesus which provided a covering for sin. “Love covers a multitude of sins” (I Peter 4:8 NASB).

Have you accepted God’s loving atonement?

“The beginning of atonement is the sense of its necessity.” - Lord Byron (1788-1824)

Noah’s Ark’s Mystery Wood (Genesis 6:14)

Of what kind of wood was the ark made? Gopher wood

In one of the Bible’s most well known stories, God saves Noah and his family from a cataclysmic flood by having Noah construct an ark (Genesis 6-8). As the vessel was the first of its kind, God lays out very specific instructions for the ark detailing the building materials, its dimensions and its cargo. Among the ark’s unique features was being constructed from gopher wood (Genesis 6:14).

Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch. (Genesis 6:14 NASB)

This is the only time that gopher wood appears in the Bible and no one is quite sure what it is. Its name does not in any way relate to the burrowing North American rodents of the same name but rather is a transliteration of the Hebrew gopher. Some have speculated that gopher is a borrowed word from another language or the work of a careless scribe who meant to write kopher (covering or pitch). The word is literally meaningless today. As it cannot be identified with any certainty many translations simply leave it untranslated (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, RSV).

Some translations make a guess. “Cypress wood” is the most common (NIV, NLT, NRSV) though the Message supplies “teakwood”. Cypress was often used by ship builders of the time. Cypress trees are large and strong and as such could potentially withstand the beating the ark would inevitably take. This interpretation was espoused by Adam Clarke (1760-1832) who found similarity in the Greek word for cypress, kuparisson, and the Hebrew word gopher. Unfortunately there is a unique Hebrew word for cypress (b@rowsh) that could have just as easily been used.

Though Cypress is the most common guess amongst translators, it is far from the only hypothesis. Other trees and plants suggested include pine (Cassuto), cedar, fir, ebony (Bockart), wicker (Geddes), juniper (Castellus), acacia (Religious Tract Society), boxwood, and slimed bulrushes (Dawson). Others have speculated that gopher wood is it an extinct tree that ironically did not survive the flood.

What is not in doubt is that, unlike modern ships, the ark was constructed of wood. Something (trees) died so that humanity might live.

If you had to construct an edifice to protect you from a flood, what building materials would you use? Why do you think God selected gopher wood? What do you think it was? Does it matter what kind of wood the ark was built with?

It was critical that the ark’s inhabitants survive the flood as the fate of humanity (and much animal life) literally rested in the ark. Consequently, John H. Walton (b. 1952) and Victor H. Matthews (b. 1951) assume “This is an unknown type of material, although it undoubtedly refers to some sort of coniferous tree thought to possess great strength and durability (Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy, 27).”

Others have seen gopher as a quality of timber or design as opposed to a type of wood. Ideally, a wooden ship is not constructed entirely from a single species. This is seen as modern wooden vessels are more likely to employ a variety of materials. The CEV takes this safe route and translates gopher wood simply as “good lumber”.

The ark was nothing less than the barrier between life death and God selected the wood to ensure that the people would live.

What is your barrier between life and death? Can your insulation withstand life’s pressures?