ASIA PACIFIC THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

THE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TOWER OF BABEL NARRATIVE (GENESIS 11:1-9)

A PAPER SUBMITTED TO REV. DAVID HYMES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOT 620 PENTATEUCHAL STUDIES

BY WENIFREDO O. CAPAPAS, JR.

BAGUIO CITY, PHILIPPINES SEPTEMBER 2005

INTRODUCTION

Many articles have been written about the Tower of Babel. Some Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals tend to see some relation between the confusion of languages in the Babel narrative and the manifestation of speaking in different tongues during the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. The writers curiosity was aroused by the linking of these two separate events and he was motivated to investigate in order to know whether there is indeed such relationship that exists. If their relationship could be substantiated, the writer would like to know what kind of relationship does exist between them. It is his contention in this paper that the Babel incident has a great theological significance for present-day believers. Its theological import becomes more meaningful for Pentecostals when it is related with the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

I.

THE SETTING

The narrative in Genesis 11 established the location of Babel incident in the land in the east, on a plain in Shinar. Biblical scholars find significance in the expressions eastward, toward the east, east of, and similar expressions in the Pentateuchal literature. They are used to refer to Adam and Eves place of habitation after the fall (Genesis 3:24), Cains place of wandering after he went out of Gods presence (4:16), and the land where Lot dwells after he parted from Abraham (13:10-12).1 According to John Sailhamer, the expression eastward in Genesis 11:2, connects the Tower of Babel narrative to the larger framework of Genesis narrative. 2 It shows the contrast between the way of Gods blessing and mans way of finding what he thinks good for him without God. It signifies leaving the place of blessing and going to a place of greatest hopes, which eventually came to ruin. 3 Many scholars believe that the city referred to as Babel (11:9) was Babylon. 4 Wenham came to this conclusion by looking at the etymology of words.5 Sailhamer deduced the idea from the genealogy in Genesis 10 Frank E. Gaebelein, gen. ed., The Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 104. John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 134.
3 2 1

Ibid., 134-135.

Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion S.J. (Minneapolis, Minnesotta: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984), 540.

interspersed by the account of the building of Babylon (Genesis 10:9-10).6 Contrary to popular opinion, Steve Reimer, an archaeologist, proposes that Uruk, a large and significant city during the ancient times, is the city being referred to in Genesis 11:2 and 8. 7 He said that Babel is the region where that city could be found. 8 He argued that Babylon could not be that city because archeologists consider the city of Babylon to have been established a considerable time after written sources appear in numerous Ancient Near Eastern languages. 9 He based his theory on the premise that the Babel incident was not a confusion of languages but the fall of the Uruk Empire, 10 which resulted in the development of ethnic communities.11 Reimers theory, however, raises more questions than answers. Just like the identification of the original city in Genesis 11:9, the tower has also become a focus of much contention among scholars. A Jewish scholar, U. Casutto, identifies the tower in Genesis 11 as the seven-storey ziggurat in the city of Babylon called Etemenanki (House of the foundation of heaven and earth), 12 which was dedicated to the Babylonian deity, Marduk. John Skinner joins Casutto in identifying the Tower with a Babylonian ziggurat.13 However, for him, the identification of the specific structure was inconclusive. 14

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1987), 234-235.
6

Sailhamer, 134.

Steve Reimer, The Tower of Babel: An Archaeologically Informed Reinterpretation, Direction 25, no. 2 (Fall 1996): 65 [journal on-line]; available from http://63.136.1.23/pls/eli/eli_bg.superframe?PID=n0384-8515_ 025 _02_0064&artid=ATLA0001021980; Internet; accessed 30 August 2005.
8

Ibid., 70. Ibid., 65. Ibid. Ibid., 70.

10

11

U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part II: From Noah to Abraham, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1992), 227-228. John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 228-229.
14 13

12

Ibid.

The function of ziggurat is far from ascertained. There are still some disagreements regarding the ancient Mesopotamians beliefs behind it.15 Nonetheless, the idea that it is a place where the deity comes down to reveal himself is apparent in the names ascribed to them. 16 The ziggurat is believed to be the means by which direct contact was made between the divine and the human world.17 It is the place where god and man meet. 18 The fact that ziggurat is used for cultic purposes raises one of the primary objections to its identification with the Tower in Genesis 11. The narrative in Genesis 11 does not mention of any idol or reference to worship.19 Instead, the story seems to depict the building of the city and the tower as an act of defiance to the divine will and not to please a deity. Citing Howard F. Vos, Allen P. Ross raises several objections regarding the identification of the Tower in Genesis 11 with the Mesopotamian ziggurats. 20 Among them is the one I have already pointed out above. Ross said that Genesis presents the building as evidence of the peoples disobedience, but the Babylonian work was for the purpose of worshiping a local deity.21 In light of the biblical narrative and archaeological information, the objections raised against the Babylonian ziggurat as the Tower of Babel are justified and valid. The second view about the Tower is largely in terms of its purpose. It was built to reach the heavens as an act of rebellion and pride. It was not built for worship like the ziggurats, but to challenge God. Some scholars who subscribe to this view even argue that the Tower was built with the serious intention to reach the dwelling- place of the gods22 or God.23
15

H.W.F. Saggs, The Greatness That was Babylon (New York: Hawthorne, 1962), 355 ff.; cited in Dale S. DeWitt, The Historical Background of Genesis 11:1-9: Babel or Ur?, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22, no. 1 (March, 1979): 21 [journal on-line]; available from http://63.136.1.23/pls/eli/eli_bg.superframe? PID=n0360-8808_022_01_0015&artid=ATLA0000771211; Internet; accessed 30 August 2005. PJ. Harland, Vertical or Horizontal: The Sin of Babel, Vetus Testamentum 48, no. 4 (1998): 521-522 [journal on-line]; available from http://63.136.1.23/pls/eli/eli_bg.superframe?PID=n0042-4935_048_04_ 0515& artid=ATLA0001002383; Internet; accessed 30 August 2005.
17 16

Ibid., 522. Ibid., 521. Ibid., 523.

18

19

Howard F. Vos, Genesis and Archaeology, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1985), 47; cited in Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of the Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988), 240.
21

20

Ibid. Skinner, 226.

22

This view looks at the narrative Genesis 11 as an outworking of Adam and Eves sin in Genesis 3. Mans desire has always been to reach the divine. He wants to break from Gods imposed limitation and gain independence from God. The narrative shows the futility of this striving. 24 On this, Von Rad said: . . . men in their striving for fame, alliance, and political development set themselves against God. But a punishment befell them: they were so concerned with unity and alliance now live scattered in a disorder in which they can no longer understand one another. 25 The last view about the Tower is that it was a tower of defense 26 or fortress that will serve as landmark in that vast plain.27 The structure was not built to reach God in heaven. 28 The text does not allude at all to this idea. Von Rad warned that The statement that the tower should reach to heaven must not be pressed; it is only an expression for the special height of the building (cf. Deut. 1:28).29 The purpose of the structure, therefore, was not offensive [to contend with God] but defensive. It is a defence so that the people will not be scattered. 30 In his discussion on the purpose of the Tower, Thomas W. Mann observed that: The word scatter occurs three times within the nine verses of the story (4, 8, 9), each time with over the face of the whole earth. The emphasis on this motif suggests that the primary motivation for building the tower is not outright rebellion against God (who is never mentioned in the speech), nor an assault against heaven, nor even arrogance. The real reason for the project is fear. The builders are insecure. 31 Jamieson agrees with this idea when he said that the whole strain of the context [of lest we be scattered abroad] shows that the object of the builders, in the erection of the tower, was to prevent the occurrence of the

23

Wenham, 239. Harland, 523-524.

24

Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1972), 151.
26

25

Harland, 529.

Robert Jamieson, Genesis-Deuteronomy, vol. 1, A Commentary: Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1945), 122.
28

27

Harland, 527-528. Von Rad, 149. Harland, 528.

29

30

Thomas W. Mann, The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch (Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1988), 26.

31

dreaded dispersion.32 I consider this latter view as more tenable than the Tower as ziggurat primarily because of its consistency with the biblical narrative. In holding to this view, I am not discounting the validity of the second view, which is the Tower as a monument of mans desire to be autonomous from God. In fact, these two views could be fused together if Genesis 11:1-9 pericope will be treated as a unity. The two separate and differing interpretations arose from breaking the passage into two layers by Source Criticism. The view that the building of the Tower was an act of pride and rebellion against God is assigned to J, while the Tower as a means of avoiding dispersal is assigned to P.33

II. THE REAL PROBLEM When we look at Genesis 11:1-9 as one united pericope, we may say that the people were motivated to build the city and the tower by pride (we may make name for ourselves) and fear (and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth). V.P. Hamilton said that tower in the Scripture symbolizes strength, resistance, and pride (Isa. ii 15, xxx 25, xxxiii 18).34 For Harland, The striving after a name in Gen. xi . . . is inappropriate ambition [or pride].35 Speaking about the peoples fear, Jamieson said that: The prevalence of such feelings indicated a distrust of Gods promise (ch. ix. 2) as well as a love of ease and pleasure, more than a regard to the declared will of God (ch. ix. 1).36 The peoples pride to accomplish something independent of God and the fear of scattering led to the disobedience of Gods will. The Scripture shows that they united themselves to resist Gods purpose. 37 It also tells us that God came down to see that which they were building up. David Atkinson commented that when the Lord said Come, let us go down (Gen. 1:7), it pictures divine amusement between God and his heavenly court.38

32

Jamieson, 123. Harland, 516, 526-527.

33

V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: N.p., 1990), 353; cited in Harland, 526.
35

34

Harland, 526. Jamieson, 123. Harland, 258.

36

37

David Atkinson, The Message of Genesis 1-11: The Dawn of Creation, The Bible Speaks Today, eds. J. A. Motyer and John R. W. Stott (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990.

38

Speaking along this line, Donald E. Gowan said that the writer got some enjoyment from depicting God as having to get closer just to see that project which was so gigantic from a human perspective. 39 The confusion of tongues in Babel is commonly viewed as a judgment from God 40 and a means to fulfill His purpose that men will fill the earth (Gen. 1:27; 9:1).41 According to Mann, the word scatter has almost always a negative connotation in the Hebrew Scriptures. 42 It should be noted, however, that some scholars viewed the confusion of tongues in Babel not so much as punishment, but as a preventive act to avert a great potential evil. 43 God Himself acknowledged that there is great power at mans disposal when they are united (Gen. 11:6). This fact is very clear in the city and the tower they were building. But without submission to Gods will and purpose, this power is a threat to mankind.44 The view that the confusion of languages was a judgment from God has basis in and fits with the larger scheme of Genesis 1-11. It is clear that sin is being dealt with in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. God has been depicted as one who judges sin throughout the narrative. The writer of this paper agrees with Von Rad that Gods intervention in Genesis 11 is both punitive and preventive. 45 It is notable that what the people feared (11:4) had actually happened to them. God scattered them on the face of the earth by confusing their language, without finishing the city that they wanted to build (Genesis 11:5-8). Gibson commented that the people have brought their division among themselves, and they have done so because they have first made a division between themselves and God.46

III. THE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE Donald E. Gowan, From Eden to Babel: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 1-11, International Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 118.
40 39

Wenham, 241-242, 245.

Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of the Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988), 247.
42

41

Mann, 26. Gowan, 119. Ibid. Von Rad, 149.

43

44

45

John C. L. Gibson, ed., Genesis, vol. 1, The Daily Study Bible Series (Edinburgh, Scotland: The Saint Andrew Press, 1981), 209.

46

The following are the theological significance of the Babel narrative: 1. Pride and independence from God invite Gods judgment. Babel serves as a warning to Israel and to any people. It has become a symbol of any anti-God program. It shows that whoever exalts himself up, whether individuals or nations will be brought low. 47 Man should not raise himself up above the limitation or station that God assigned to him. His rightful place is under Gods rulership and to be in constant submission to Him. Despite mans defiance, God will still fulfill His plan. No one can thwart His purposes.48 He will always be God and man will always be man. 2. Unity without submission to Gods will and purposes is dangerous. Unity is an ideal for any society or group of people. However, it is very dangerous if it exists among people who do not acknowledge God or submit to His will. In his discussion on the significance of Babel, Gowan said: . . . the city was the first and the most obvious example of the human ability to concentrate talent and resources so as to multiply power---commercial, political, social, and religious power. . . . Unfortunately those most awesome accumulations of power also result in the worst inflictions of pain, on our fellow human beings and on the world of nature.49 3. Babel finds its reversal in Pentecost. Many Bible scholars have related the Babel incident with Pentecost in Acts 2.50
51

The relationship that exists between the two events is reversal. 52 Below are

some reversals listed by Macchia: 1) one language disrupted vs. many languages understood by hearers; 2) people dispersed in confusion vs. people sent forth in unity and clarity of truth; 3) humancentered (name for themselves) vs. God-centered (speaking the mighty works of God); 4) symbol of human folly and divine judgment vs. blessing. 53

47

Ross, 241-242. Ibid., 247. Gowan, 119-120.

48

49

Claus Westermann, Genesis: A Practical Commentary, trans. David E. Green (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 83.
51

50

Wenham, 246.

Frank D. Macchia, Unity and Otherness: Lessons from Babel and Pentecost, Living Pulpit 13, no. 4 (October-December 2004): 5 [journal on-line]; available from http://63.136.1.23/pls/eli/eli_bg.superframe? PID= n1059-2733_013_04_0005&artid= ATLA0001449995; Internet; accessed 30 August 2005.
53

52

Ibid.

According to Macchia, the relationship between Babel and Pentecost is not just of reversals, but also of promise-fulfillment.54 The confusion of languages in Babel is not just a judgment but also a blessing.55 Luke agrees with the positive aspect of dispersion when he recorded that God determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him . . . (Acts 17:26-27).56 This indicates that God dispersed the peoples throughout the earth so that they can find God again. 57 This finding of God again could be experienced in the gospel, which was thrust forth during the Day of Pentecost. In Pentecost, God blesses every language on earth as a means for divine revelation, and makes communication possible even while preserving the integrity of languages and cultures. 58

IV. CONCLUSION Babel was a product of mans pride and desire for independence from God. It is a testimony of mans futile attempt to go against Gods expressed purpose. Present-day believers could learn a lot from the narrative. They will learn that: 1) Pride, selfish ambition, and independence from God will surely bring about Gods judgment; 2) There is danger in unity that does not recognize God and; 3) Even in judgment, God is accomplishing His purpose and working things out for the good of His creation. By dispersing the people, He brought about the fulfillment of His plan for man to fill the earth. Furthermore, it prevented them from being continually united against Him, which will ultimately result in harming themselves and the rest of Gods creation. The Pentecost gives a foretaste of the reversal

54

Ibid., 6. Harland, 532. Macchia, 6. Ibid.

55

56

57

Catherine Gonzales and Justo Gonzales, Babel and Empire: Pentecost and Empire: Preaching on Genesis 11:1-9 and Acts 2:1-12, Journal for Preachers 16, no. 4 (1993): 24 [journal on-line]; available from http://63. 136.1.23/pls/eli/eli_bg.superframe? PID=n1057-266x_016_04_0022&artid=ATLA0000862220; Internet; accessed 30 August 2005.

58

of Babel, which will find its completion in that day when God changes the speech of the peoples to a pure speech (Zephaniah 3:9).59

59

Wenham, 246.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Atkinson, David. The Message of Genesis 1-11: The Dawn of Creation. The Bible Speaks Today. Edited by J. A. Motyer and John R. W. Stott. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990. Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part II: From Noah to Abraham. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1992. Gaebelein, Frank E., gen. ed. The Expositors Bible Commentary. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990. Gibson, John C. L., ed. Genesis. Vol. 1. The Daily Study Bible Series. Edinburgh, Scotland: The Saint Andrew Press, 1981. Gonzales, Catherine, and Justo Gonzales. Babel and Empire: Pentecost and Empire: Preaching on Genesis 11:1-9 and Acts 2:1-12. Journal for Preachers 16, no. 4 (1993): 22-26. Journal on-line. Available from http://63.136.1.23/pls/eli/eli_bg. superframe?PID=n1057-266x_016_04_0022&artid=ATLA0000862220. Internet. Accessed 30 August 2005. Gowan, Donald E. From Eden to Babel: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 1-11. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988. Hamilton, V. P. The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17. Grand Rapids, Michigan: N.p., 1990), 353; Cited in PJ. Harland, Vertical or Horizontal: The Sin of Babel. Vetus Testamentum 48, no. 4 (1998): 526. Journal online. Available from http://63.136. 1.23/pls/eli/eli_bg. superframe?PID=n0042-4935_048_04_ 0515& artid=ATLA0001002383. Internet. Accessed 30 August 2005. Harland, PJ. Vertical or Horizontal: The Sin of Babel. Vetus Testamentum 48, no. 4 (1998): 515-533. Journal online. Available from http://63.136.1.23/pls/eli/eli_bg.superframe? PID=n0042-4935_048_04_ 0515& artid=ATLA0001002383. Internet. Accessed 30 August 2005. Jamieson, Robert. Genesis-Deuteronomy. Vol. 1. A Commentary: Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1945), 122. Macchia, Frank D. Unity and Otherness: Lessons from Babel and Pentecost. Living Pulpit 13, no. 4 (OctoberDecember 2004): 5-7. Journal on-line. Available from http://63.136.1.23/ pls/eli/eli_bg.superframe? PID= n10592733_013_04_0005&artid =ATLA0001449995. Internet. Accessed 30 August 2005. Mann, Thomas W. The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch. Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1988. Reimer, Steve. The Tower of Babel: An Archaeologically Informed Reinterpretation. Direction 25, no. 2 (Fall 1996): 64-72. Journal on-line. Available from http://63.136.1.23 /pls/eli/eli_bg.superframe?PID=n03848515_ 025 _02_0064&artid =ATLA 0001021980. Internet. Accessed 30 August 2005. Ross, Allen P. Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of the Book of Genesis. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988. Saggs, H.W.F. The Greatness That was Babylon. New York: Hawthorne, 1962, 355 ff. Cited in Dale S. DeWitt, The Historical Background of Genesis 11:1-9: Babel or Ur? Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22, no. 1 (March, 1979): 21. Journal on-line. Available from http://63.136.1.23/pls/eli/eli_bg.superframe? PID=n0360-8808_022_01 _0015&artid= ATLA0000771211. Internet. Accessed 30 August 2005. Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. Von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1972. Vos, Howard F. Genesis and Archaeology, rev. ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1985, 47. Cited in Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of the Book of Genesis, 240. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988. Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1-15. Vol. 1. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1987. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-11: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion S.J. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984. ________. Genesis: A Practical Commentary. Translated by David E. Green. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987.