The Babel narrative is the final installment of the primeval history
section, that is the section that does not deal specifically with the
nation that is Israel. In attempting to find structure in the primeval
history, J. Blenkinsopp argues that “[g]enesis 1-11 reflects the
structure of the Atrahasis Epic, with an introduction (Gen 2:1-3; cf
Atrahasis Epic 1.1-351), three threats (Genesis 2:4-3:24; 4:23-24;
6:11-9:29; cf. Atrahasis Epic 1.352-415; 2.1.1-5.21; 2.5.22-3.6.4) and a
conclusion (Gen 11:1-32; cf. Atrahasis Epic 3.6.5-8.18), a sequence
that he calls the ‘ancestor epic pattern.’”# Even though all of the
individual stories can function independently, the genealogies act as a
literary sinew that connects all of the narratives together. The lack of
human character development allows the reader to focus on the character
of God and on the subject matter of Genesis, telling us who we are and
God’s disposition towards us. The primeval history is introduced by the
blessings and commandments issued in Genesis 1 to be fruitful and
multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the
animals. The three threats in some way or another are antonyms of these
blessings, with the exception of the command to multiply, humanity has
apparently no inkling of desire to disobey that directive. All of the
threats build up in anticipation to the conclusion brought together in
the Babel narrative, which finally sets the stage for God’s decisive
action in calling on Abram through whom He will bless all the nations.
It is of first importance to understand the context of the passage at
hand. The two genealogies that bookend the Babel narrative are important
both individually and together. The genealogy found in chapter 10
explains humanity’s connection together, that all came from Noah. God
desired to use Noah as a new Adam for creation, with the brief episode
of Ham’s debasement of his father the story is quick to convey that even
when God starts over again, creation and specifically humanity is
stilled riddled with the effects of the fall. The genealogy we find here
is what is referred to as a segmented genealogy, which is intended to
“fill out the families of characters who no longer will play a central
role in the pentateuchal story.”# This leads us to understand that the
people in this genealogy are no longer of importance to the narrative,
and indeed with the proceeding genealogy in 11:10-26 being linear, that
is it “connects characters at the center of the unfolding of the plot.”#
However, what is of interest to us here is the preceeding genealogy, in
that it provides us with an explanation of the surrounding cultures in
the mesopotamian area, not to be taken literally necessarily, but this
being the final installation of the primeval history, there are notes of
transition from out-of-time accounts to real life situations. One
scholar suggests that we understand the segmented genealogy in chapter
10 to be an explanation of the surrounding cultures. The genealogy is
first concerned with the genealogy of Japheth, after this account there
is little or no reference of the descendants of Japheth. For instance
Tarshish is used in the book of Jonah to reference the place Jonah was
escaping to, the notion is that he was fleeing from the call of God to a
place as far away as any, Jonah might as well have been trying to get
to the moon. The point is that Tarshish is a place far from
Israel/Nineveh, so in Genesis 10, it is an explanation of cultures and
nations far from Israel, ones that are ultimately of no consequence to
Israel. The descendants of Ham however include people like Canaan. The
obvious significance of the land of Canaan to the people of Israel is
rather axiomatic, this signifies that the people who derive from Ham are
those who are of immediate concern to the people of Israel. This
correlates with the proceeding curse applied to Ham after the debacle in
the tent with his father Noah. Finally, the genealogy gets to Shem who
was the recipient of a blessing from Noah. It is with Shem that we are
most concerned with because in 11:10-26 we read of the connection
between Shem and Terah, the father of Abram. The Shem genealogy is
divided in both accounts at Peleg for in vv25 we read, the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided.
the account goes on then to describe the descendants of Joktan, the
brother of Peleg. It is with this division that chapter 11 speaks of.
Although, chapter 11 is not the first mention of Babel. In the account
of the sons of Ham, we read that Cush was the father of Nimrod, who
established the kingdoms of Babylon(or Babel),
Erech, Accad and Calneh, which are in the land of Shinar which is the
area that Genesis 11 is concerned with. Nimrod’s name literally means
“we shall rebel,”# indicating
the rebellious example that we are to unpack in chapter 11. With this
background information in mind, we can now approach the text at hand.
Chapter
11 opens up with the word ‘Now’ indicating a literary break from the
previous section. This phrase shows up continually after genealogies and
narratives to pronounce a new direction in the text. We see this all
throughout the primeval section of Genesis in the garden(2:5, 10), in
the fall(3:1, 20), with Cain and Abel(4:1) and with Noah(5:29, 6:1, 11).
It is a common literary marking found all over the Old and New
Testaments, so in that commonality there is nothing particularly unique
in its use in this passage, only that we know we are dealing with a
narrative break in the text. The text continues that the whole earth or
world used one language and the same words. This draws our attention to
the unity of the people of the earth at a time before the diversifying
of Noah’s family. Genesis 10:5, 20, 31-32 all indicate that the
diversification of language had happened already. However, the ambiguity
of verse 2 regarding who these people are who built this city is
perhaps pointing to the fact that this truly is an etiological
explanation for the development of language at a time before Noah’s sons
scattered, but after the flood.
Verse
2 tells us that they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled
there, the land where Nimrod in 10:10 is said to have established the
great cities and civilizations of Babylon and Assyria. The NASB says as they journeyed east, whereas the NRSV says as they migrated from the east. Regardless
of where they were coming from, they found themselves at the plains of
Shinar. Hamilton notes that whether they are going east or coming from
the east is moot, “they are east of Canaan, east of Eden, this is the
judgment bestowed upon Adam and Eve.# Whoever these people are they are
travelling in the greater Mesopotamian area and they are under God’s
judgment. They come to this land of Shinar and they decide to settle
there, the correlation of travelling east of Eden and settling at this
place they have come to cannot be overlooked. This is, ultimately is the
primary threat of the text, that they are congregating at one place,
disobeying God’s command to fill the earth and subdue it. From this
disobedience comes the idea to build a tower and a city which we will
see momentarily. The focal point is not the city or the tower
ultimately, they are only bi-products of this initial act of
disobedience.
Verse
3 really begins the satirical discourse regarding the decisions of
these people who settle at Shinar. The key phrases here ‘they said’ and
‘come’ are part of the chiastic emphasis that we will unpack after the
exegete, for now it is good enough to identify it as an echo of God’s
speaking creation into existence. But
as a father might construct banks and buildings of residence in the
coordination of city planning, these people are attempting something
like what a toddler might dream up as he plays with his lego. They use
tar for mortar and burnt brick instead of stone. Hamilton mentions that
“Even the means for building the structure is reference to humanity’s
impotence, they couldn’t even use good Palestinian stone, they had to
use man made brick.”# Verse 4 we read their intention, “They
said, ‘Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top
will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise
we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.’”
This is most likely referring to the Babylonian Ziggurat, the temple of
Marduk. This is an attempt to reverse the effects of the fall, that
humanity would try and build for themselves a way into God’s rest. We
read some type of man made tree of life, one that would allow their name
to live forever, and their name does indeed live forever but not in the
way they expected. “The making a name,” says Hamilton, “and the
prevention of scattering cannot be separated.”# Perhaps this is telling
us that humanity wanted to provide for themselves a way of re-entering
righteousness without the help of God, or perhaps they so desperately
wanted to re-enter relationship with God that this was the only way they
could think of, a self provision of the mountain of God, a type of
synthetic Sinai. In the NIV the name for themselves is predicated on the
building of the tower and so that they will not be scattered. In NASB
and NRSV the making the name for ourselves is separated from the action
of construction, the name they make for themselves is not necessarily
due to the building of the tower. Regardless, the language indicates
that if they don’t do either of these things, they will be scattered. So
the emphasis in the NIV
is on making a name for themselves while in the NASB/NRSV it is on them
not wanting to be scattered. This also lends to the chiastic structure
of the passage in that the fears of the people echo the judgment that is
about to be bestowed upon them.
Verse 5
is the hinge of the passage, changing from human endeavour to the
response of God and as such, it brings to mind a number of significant
concepts. First, continuing with the satirical commentary, “Despite
man’s attempt to build a tower to the heavens, God must still come down
to see.”# Man’s greatest achievement when set alongside God’s
omnipotence makes man look quite impotent. Second, when we read that God
came down, we must think of this in two senses. The image of God coming
down presents us with the pretense of judgment just as we see in the
case of Sodom and Gomorrah, God is about to act in response to the
sinfulness of man. However the idea is also similar to those instances
of God coming down to mount Sinai, God coming down to Aaron and Miriam
at the tent, God coming down to humanity through the incarnation. God
coming down to see on one hand it is a response to humanity’s rebellion
and on the other hand God’s action is an antidote rather than
punishment, always provisional, never retributive. It is God’s way of
providing for humanity, a way of restricting the effects of sin, just as
we have see with the mark of Cain. God is coming down to see, He is
about to do something.
In
verse 6 we see how God reacts to what humanity is up to. The phrase
‘the Lord said’ echoes the actions of those who built the tower in
verses 3 and 4. Here there is discrepancy in the text regarding
complete/incomplete language. The NIV says If
as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this,
then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. NASB states, They
are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what
they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be
impossible for them. NRSV, They are one people,... and this is only the beginning of what they will do.
There seems to be some translation disagreement going on here.
Regardless, the unification of one nation and tongue means limitless
possibilities. If we look forward we see God covenants with Abram,
bringing blessing through Abram to all the nations. That He will bless
all nations indicates that this unification is not the best situation
for humanity, at least not through the means that they are attempting.
Looking at the one people with the one language, God says this is only
the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will
now be impossible for them. This is not a fear, that what they strive
to achieve is in some way threatening God, rather it shows more of a
concern for humanity. In a sense we see God worried not for Himself but
for humanity, just as a parent shows concern for a wayward child.
The solution to humanity’s rebellion is again brought to bear through God’s action. The antidote lies in verse 7, “Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.”
Brueggemann points out that this should be understood as “They do not
listen to one another,” rather than “They cannot understand.” Just as in
Genesis 42:21, “failed speech is linked to the disappearance of trust.
Not listening is related to death in relationships.”# To which Kidner
adds, “It makes it clear that unity and peace are not ultimate goods:
better division than collective apostasy.”#
The result of God’s judgment is found in verse 8, So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.
Here we read that the very thing that they were hoping to avoid in
building the city is brought to them through the building of the city.
And in verse 9, the bestowment of the name, therefore
its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language
of the whole earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over
the face of the whole earth.
Here the connection is made to Babel, that is Babylon. Through this we
understand that Babylon was under the judgment of God and that Babylon’s
greatest accomplishment was really their greatest downfall, a final
satirical blow to the national powerhouse.
As
I had mentioned before, the entire passage has a marked chiastic
emphasis to it, with verse 5 being the hinge looking like this:
A - vv. 1 The whole earth used the same language
B - vv. 3b Come, let us
C - vv. 4a Build for ourselves a city, and tower
D - vv. 5a The LORD came down
C1 - vv. 5b the city and the tower which the sons of men had built
B - vv. 7 Come, let Us
A - vv. 9 the language of the whole earth
With
every action that is made, there is a response issued from God in order
to correct humanity’s blunders or reinstitute God’s decree.
The
last question we must address is what theological insights in this
passage can we apply ourselves to? In his introduction to the commentary
on the primeval history Victor Hamilton directs our minds to the
underlying, overarching narrative saying,
Babel
is a demonstration of the folly of the most illustrious civilization
and religious system of the day, the indication that without God’s
blessing on the human situation, humanity is without hope... If it (the
primeval history) wants to show us that man’s plight is the product of
his own disobedience and indeed is bound to worsen without divine
intervention, Genesis 1-11 is providing a picture of the world at odds
with mesopotamia and modern understanding.
The
entire story of Babel builds up to the pronouncement of Babylon.
Although the effect is lost in English translations, many of the words
have this alliteration escalation of babbling Babylon. The narrative,
operating on an isolated plain proves to show that man’s greatest
achievements are vanity, but Babylon’s more so. Hamilton also makes note
that, “unlike creation and flood, no good correlating story exists in
other Near Eastern societies.” However, as we have already pointed out,
the concept of building a tower that reaches to the heavens is similar
to what the
Babylonians attempted to do with their Ziggurats. The passage’s place
within the primeval history as the concluding episode of humanity’s
attempts to frustrate God’s creative efforts even after the flood is a
continuation of the theme of creation, decreation, recreation.
Regardless of man’s attempts to achieve independent dominion over
creation and even God, God will continue to provide divine antidotes to
the human problem. The primeval history seeks, especially with the
genealogy that follows the Babel narrative, to connect Abraham and
eventually Israel with the rest of creation, making the assertion that
Israel is really nothing special in comparison to the rest of creation.
God does not choose to establish Israel for any reason other than that
He loves them and the rest of His creation. Within it’s place in the
rest of the canon, the primeval account tells us more about God’s
disposition towards humanity than it does about God’s creative acts. The
primeval history connects the reader to a time when no one was around,
relaying divine knowledge about the etiologies of things people might
ask of themselves, through mythological language. As the concluding
account of the primeval history, Babel plays a more prominent role than
many would give it credit.
For
Luther, the root of this passage is in Nimrod, the story ultimately
begins with him. Luther draws a parallel between Nimrod and Cain, in
that Nimrod establishes a city for himself the way that Cain establishes
a ‘false church.’ Luther does not draw conclusions about the actual
tower, for this is mere conjecture, however, Luther is interested in
understanding the sins of the people who build the tower. “I believe
their motive is expressed in the words: ‘Come, let us build ourselves a
city and a tower.’ These words are evidence of smug hearts, which put
their trust in the things of this world without trusting God and despise
the church because it lacks all power and pomp.”# Ultimately their sin
is extraordinary smugness and contempt for Yahweh. We should keep in
mind that for Luther, everything in the Bible has a worldly equivalent
in his time. For him, the sons of Ham who establish the city are likened
to the Turkish people and the Papacy. Luther also comments on the fact
that God allowed the men to build, or begin to build this tower, “[b]ut
after the sin has been committed, God ‘comes down’; that is, then at
last it is realized that He is at hand and is angry.”# Finally, it is
good to understand how Luther understands the consequences of the
punishment brought through God’s judgment. He observes that the church
of his day and the government are not untouched by these consequences.
For the Western church is cut off from the East, and the German nation
is slowly being taken by the Turks. “Thus we also are punished by the
confusion of languages, and ever since Babel was built all kingdoms have
felt this plague.”#
Unfortunately,
the Babel account is often overlooked when people refer to the primeval
account. The juicy bits involve bringing order out of chaos, and
creating material things from nothing. People rarely want to hear about
the time some folks tried to build a tower but couldn’t because God
confused them. That story
is just for children. While on the surface it may seem like just an
ancient, prescientific etiology of language, there is more going on in
the text than many realize. Satirical jabs at ruling powerhouses, the
undoing of creation by man. We have seen again, the efforts that God
goes through in trying to re-establish His relationship with us. Perhaps
the greatest part is that you can now tell your kids the beautiful
story of Babel.
Opere Citato
Alexander, T. Desmond, and David W. Baker, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Brueggermann, Walter. Genesis. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.
Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1990.
Kidner, Derek. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. London: Tyndale, 1967.
Pelikan, Jaroslav and Daniel E. Poellot, eds. Lectures on Genesis Chapters 6-14, vol. 5 of Luther’s Works. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1960.
No comments:
Post a Comment