Thinking to Believe

Most Christians are under the assumption that it took Noah 120 years to build the ark, because God said “My spirit will not remain in humankind indefinitely, since they are mortal. They will remain for 120 more years” (Genesis 6:3).  Since this verse appears prior to God’s command to Noah to build the ark, it is reasoned that it must have taken Noah 120 years to finish the project.  A careful reading of the text, however, will demonstrate that the ark was built in 80 years or less.

Genesis 5:32 says Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth after he was 500 years old.  If it took Noah 120 years to build the ark, the flood would have come when Noah was 620 years old.  And yet Genesis 8:13 says Noah was 601 when the flood waters dried up.  Given that the flood lasted about a year, Noah would have been 600 when he “set sail.” (see also Genesis 9:28)  At best, that leaves 100 years to build the ark.

We can be more specific, however.  According to Genesis 11:10, Shem was 100 years old when he fathered Arphaxad two years after the flood.  That means Shem was 98 when the flood ended, and thus 97 when the flood began.  If Noah was 600 when the flood began, then Noah must have fathered Shem when he was 503.  We know from Genesis 6:18 that God did not instruct Noah to build the ark until after his sons were born, and after they had wives of their own.  If we assume Noah fathered his three sons in three consecutive years, his last son would be born when Noah was 505 years old.  And if we assume that his youngest son married at the age of 15, Noah would be no younger than 520 years old when God instructed him to build the ark.  If he was 600 when the flood came, then the building of the ark could not have taken more than 80 years.

What, then, is the meaning of Genesis 6:3?  I think we are right to understand it to refer to the amount of time before which God would destroy the Earth.  What we are wrong to assume, however, is that God instructed Noah to build the ark immediately after making this decision.  There is nothing in the text to warrant this conclusion, as there are no temporal indicators suggesting that God revealed Himself to Noah immediately afterward.  We are told of God’s decision to destroy the Earth in 120 years in a separate narrative describing men’s wickedness.  That narrative ends at 6:8, and a new narrative about Noah begins at 6:9.  It is here that we read of God’s interaction with Noah, and His instructions to him to build the ark.  Given what we know from other passages about the length of time it took Noah to build the ark, there must be at least a 40 year gap between Genesis 6:3 and 6:13-21.

Whenever an all-church fast is called, pastors commonly give people a range of fasting options to engender wider participation.  On the one extreme, total abstention from food and drink (except water) is called for.  On the other extreme is what is often called “the Daniel fast.”  This is usually defined as eating only vegetables and drinking liquids.

The basis for the Daniel fast is found in Daniel 1:8-16.  We read that Daniel ate only vegetables, and drank only water (vs. 10, 16).  A reading of the text, however, does not warrant categorizing this as a fast.

Daniel was among the captives taken from Jerusalem to Babylon.  The king of Babylon, Belteshazzar, had Daniel put into a three year training program so that he might serve in the king’s court.  As part of the program, the king provided the initiates with his edible delicacies, including his wine.  Daniel objected to eating and drinking these things because these foods were ritually unclean according to Jewish dietary laws (v. 8).  Instead of eating and drinking the king’s ritually unclean delicacies, Daniel chose to limit his diet to vegetables and water.

Daniel’s overseer was hesitant to comply with Daniel’s request, for fear that Daniel’s vegetable diet would make him appear malnutritioned in comparison to the other initiates, and displease the king.  Daniel, however, was able to persuade the overseer to provide him his special diet for ten days to determine whether it would, in fact, affect Daniel’s appearance.  After the ten days had expired, Daniel’s appearance was healthier than the initiates who ate the king’s delicacies!  As a result, the overseer allowed Daniel to continue with his diet of vegetables and water.

Three things stand out about this text.  First, it does not describe Daniel’s actions as a fast.

Secondly, Daniel’s abstention from the king’s meat and drink was morally motivated, not spiritually motivated.  He was not abstaining for reasons of spiritual growth, but because participation would have been immoral according to the Law of Moses.

Thirdly, Daniel had no intention of abstaining for a mere ten days, but indefinitely.  In fact, the text suggests that had the overseer not granted Daniel’s request, Daniel was willing to suffer the consequences for continuing to deny the king’s delicacies (v. 13).  The ten days served only as a trial period to prove to the overseer that Daniel could maintain a healthy appearance on a diet of vegetables and water.  It would be improper, then, to construe this as a fast.  Fasts are not indefinite.  This is more properly termed a “diet,” differing little from those in modern times who choose a life of vegetarianism for various reasons.

It seems difficult to escape the conclusion that there is no such thing as the Daniel fast.  And outside this passage, fasting is never described as the abstention from certain foods.  It is always described as the abstention from all food.  Does that mean God will not honor the sacrifice of someone who gives up certain foods for a period of time?  Not at all.  God will honor any sacrifices we make for him.  What it does mean is that there is no warrant for calling such a sacrifice a “fast.”  Furthermore, apart from those who cannot abstain from all food for health-related issues, surely we can do better than a “Daniel fast.”  I could go to Olive Garden, pig-out on the all-you-can-eat soup and salad, and technically be on “the Daniel fast.”  But surely this undermines the purpose of fasting: a time of personal discipline and dedication to spiritual matters.  If we are going to fast, and our health permits, let’s fast the Biblical way: total abstention from food.  That is a genuine sacrifice, and most of us can do it!

That is the topic of the latest article I published at the Institute for Biblical Studies.  Check it out.

There is a short, concise examination of cremation over at the Parchment and Pen blog.  The author, Jeff Spry, concludes that burial, not cremation, is the Biblical norm.  He demonstrates that cremation is viewed quite negatively in Scripture. 

What are your thoughts on cremation?  Is it acceptable for a Christian?  Should it be viewed equally with burial?