Genesis 11

Genesis 11:1-2

Some of the Hamites migrated “east” (specifically southeast) to the plain of Shinar (cf. Genesis 10:10). This was in the Mesopotamian basin (modern Iraq). “In light of such intentional uses of the notion of ’eastward’ within the Genesis narratives, we can see that here too the author intentionally draws the story of the founding of Babylon into the larger scheme at work throughout the book. It is a scheme that contrasts God’s way of blessing (e.g., Eden and the Promised Land) with man’s own attempt to find the ‘good.’ In the Genesis narratives, when man goes ’east,’ he leaves the land of blessing (Eden and the Promised Land) and goes to a land where the greatest of his hopes will turn to ruin (Babylon and Sodom). [Note: Idem, “Genesis,” p. 104. “Following the Ararat departure, the people migrated southeast to the lower Euphrates valley. Genesis 1-11 then has come full circle from ‘Eden’ to ‘Babel,’ both remembered for the expulsion of their residents.” [Note: Mathews, p. 467.

Genesis 11:3-4

The motivation for building a city was to make the builders a name (cf. Psalms 14:1). Later God would “make a name” for Abram (Genesis 12:2-3). The object of this endeavor was to establish a center by which they might maintain their unity. “A defensive wall is the hallmark of a city (see Genesis 4:17). Cities in the ancient Near East were not designed to be lived in but were intended for religious and public purposes.” [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 179. God desired unity for humankind, but one that He created, not one founded on a social state. [Note: Mathews, p. 473. They wanted to “empower” themselves. Both motive and object were ungodly. God had instructed man to fill the earth (Genesis 1:28), to spread over the whole planet. The builders of the “tower” seem to have intended that it serve as a memorial or landmark, among other things. It was probably a ziggurat used for religious purposes. “Mesopotamian religion claimed that their cities were of divine parentage. A symbol of this obsession with divinity among the Mesopotamians was the ziggurat (Akk. ziqqurratu) that was erected as early as the third millennium B.C. The ziggurat was a step-ladder edifice, made up of mud bricks, whose bottom was square or rectangular. The precise meaning of the structure is unknown, though it is widely agreed that it formed a stairway between the gods and earth (cf. Genesis 28:12). At the foot of the ziggurat as well as the pinnacle was a temple area serving as a habitation for the god. Ziggurats may have been considered an earthly imitation of the heavenly residence of the gods.” [Note: Ibid., pp. 470-71. Cf. Waltke, Genesis, p. 179.

Genesis 11:5-6

The builders undoubtedly expected to ascend to heaven to meet God. Instead God descended to earth to meet them. If God had allowed this project to continue the results would have been even worse and more serious than they were at this time. The sin of the builders was their refusal to obey God-given directives.

“Depraved humanity are united in their spiritual endeavor to find, through technology, existential meaning apart from God and the means to transgress its boundaries. Unless God intervenes and divides them by confounding their speech, nothing can stop human beings in their overweening pride and their desire for autonomy.” [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 182. The construction of cities by itself was not sinful. God chose Jerusalem for His people, and He will create the New Jerusalem for believers to inhabit. It is the pride and security that people place in their cities that God disapproves.

Genesis 11:7

God’s soliloquy in this verse mimics the language of the tower builders in Genesis 11:3-4 (cf. Genesis 1:26). The tower was so puny that He had to come down to see it (cf. Isaiah 40:22). The confusion of language probably involved more than just the introduction of new words. “If language is the audible expression of emotions, conceptions, and thoughts of the mind, the cause of the confusion or division of the one human language into different national dialects might be sought in an effect produced upon the human mind, by which the original unity of emotion, conception, thought, and will was broken up. This inward unity had no doubt been already disturbed by sin, but the disturbance had not yet amounted to a perfect breach.” [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:174-75. Some scholars believe that this judgment also involved the implantation of ethnic and racial distinctions in humankind. The Table of Nations in chapter 10 may imply this. [Note: See Merrill, “The Peoples . . .,” p. 22.

Genesis 11:8

The resultant confusion led to a scattering of the people over the “whole earth” (cf. Genesis 11:9). God did not allow human rebellion to reach the level that it did before the Flood. God forced people to do what they refused to do voluntarily, namely, scatter over the face of the earth. Some interpreters take the confusion of languages to have been a local phenomenon only. One writer believed lightning struck the tower of Babel and the confusion of speech that followed resulted from a scrambling of the electrical circuits in the brains of those struck. [Note: James E. Strickling, “The Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues,” Kronos (Fall 1982), pp. 53-62. This is an interesting idea but impossible to prove. Most interpreters, however, regard this event as the source of the major language groups in the world today.

Genesis 11:9

“Babel” sounds like the Hebrew word for “confuse” (balal), and it means “the gate of gods” in Akkadian.

“. . . Genesis 11:1-9, the tower of Babel story, is a satire on the claims of Babylon to be the center of civilization and its temple tower the gate of heaven (E[numa]E[lish] 6:50-80): Babel does not mean gate of God, but ‘confusion’ and ‘folly.’ Far from its temple’s top reaching up to heaven, it is so low that God has to descend from heaven just to see it! (Genesis 11:4-9).” [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, pp. xlviii-xlix.] This was the original Babylon that forever after was the city most characterized by rebellion against God’s authority. It stands as a symbol of organized rebellion against God elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Revelation 17, 18). [Note: See Everett H. Peterson, “Prehistory and the Tower of Babel,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 19:2 (September 1982):87-90. “Man certainly did not expect his project to take such a turn. He did not anticipate that the name he wanted to make for himself would refer to a place of noncommunication.” [Note: J. Ellul, The Meaning of the City, p. 18. The story of Babel is important for several reasons.

1. It explains the beginning of and reason for the various languages of mankind.

2. It probably explains the origin of the “races” within humankind. “The separate language groups no longer could inter-marry freely with the rest of mankind. As in-breeding and lack of access to the larger pool of genes occurred, ethnic characteristics developed. Furthermore, each local environment tended to favor selection of certain traits, and eliminate the others. Ethnic characteristics, such as skin color, arose from loss of genetic variability, not from origin of new genes through mutation as suggested by evolution.

“The concept of race is an evolutionary idea .. . (Acts 17:26). All humans possess the same color, just different amounts of it. We all descended from Noah and Adam.” [Note: A plaque explaining an exhibit at the Institute for Creation Research Museum, Santee, Calif., which I observed on May 21, 1997. “The Bible doesn’t tell us what skin color our first parents had, but, from a design point of view, the ‘middle [color]’ makes a great beginning. Starting with medium-skinned parents (AaBb), it would take only one generation to produce all the variation we see in human skin color today. In fact, this is the normal situation in India today. Some Indians are as dark as the darkest Africans, and some-perhaps a brother or sister in the same family-as light as the lightest Europeans. I once knew a family from India that included members with every major skin color you could see anywhere in the world.

“But now notice what happens if human groups were isolated after creation. If those with very dark skins (AABB) migrate into the same areas and/or marry only those with very dark skins, then all their children will have very dark skins. (AABB is the only possible combination of AB egg and sperms cells, which are the only types that can be produced by AABB parents.) Similarly, parents with very light skins (aabb) can have only very light-skinned children, since they don’t have any A or B genes to pass on. Even certain medium-skinned parents (AAbb or aaBB) can get ’locked-in’ to having only medium-skinned children, like the Orientals, Polynesians, and some of my ancestors, the Native Americans.

“Where people with different skin colors get together again (as they do in the West Indies, for example), you find the full range of variation again-nothing less, but nothing more either, than what we started with. Clearly, all this is variation within kind.. . .

“What happened as the descendants of medium-skinned parents produced a variety of descendants? Evolution? Not at all. Except for albinism (the mutational loss of skin color), the human gene pool is no bigger and no different now than the gene pool present at creation. As people multiplied, the genetic variability built right into the first created human beings came to visible expression. The darkest Nigerian and the lightest Norwegian, the tallest Watusi and the shortest Pygmy, the highest soprano and the lowest bass could have been present right from the beginning in two quite average-looking people. Great variation in size, color, form, function, etc., would also be present in the two created ancestors of all the other kinds (plants and animals) as well.

“Evolutionists assume that all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with an extremely small gene pool. For evolutionists, enlargement of the gene pool by selection of random mutations is a slow, tedious process that burdens each type with a ‘genetic load’ of harmful mutations and evolutionary leftovers. Creationists assume each created kind began with a large gene pool, designed to multiply and fill the earth with all its tremendous ecologic and geographic variety. (See Genesis, chapter 1.)” [Note: G. Parker, pp. 111, 113-14. See also Ham, et al., pp. 15-16, 131-55. See ibid., pp. 19, 197-207, for discussion of how animals could have reached remote parts of the earth.] “Many thinkers labor under the illusion that evolution is an empirical science when in fact it is a philosophy.” [Note: Norman L. Geisler, “Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:1 (March 1999):7. 3. The Babel story demonstrates the inclination of fallen man to rebel against God and to try to provide for his needs in his own way rather than by trusting and obeying God. 4. It illustrates that rebellion against God results in (a) broken fellowship with God and man, and (b) failure to realize God’s intention for man in his creation, namely, that he rule the earth effectively. 5. It provides the historical background for what follows in Genesis. Abraham came from this area. “Irony is seen in the beginning and the ending of this passage. The group at Babel began as the whole earth (Genesis 11:1), but now they were spread over the whole earth (Genesis 11:9). By this time the lesson is clarified: God’s purpose will be accomplished in spite of the arrogance and defiance of man’s own purposes. He brings down the proud, but exalts the faithful. “The significance of this little story is great. It explains to God’s people how the nations were scattered abroad. Yet the import goes much deeper. The fact that it was Babylon, the beginning of kingdoms under Nimrod from Cush, adds a rather ominous warning: Great nations cannot defy God and long survive. The new nation of Israel need only survey the many nations around her to perceive that God disperses and curses the rebellious, bringing utter confusion and antagonism among them. If Israel would obey and submit to God’s will, then she would be the source of blessing to the world. “Unfortunately, Israel also raised her head in pride and refused to obey the Lord God. Thus she too was scattered across the face of the earth.” [Note: Allen P. Ross, “The Dispersion of the Nations in Genesis 11:1-9,” Bibliotheca Sacra 138:550 (April-June 1981):133. See also Sailhamer, “Genesis,” pp. 103-4.

Genesis 11:10-26

F. What became of Shem 11:10-26"The Babel account (Genesis 11:1-9) is not the end of early Genesis. If it were, the story would conclude on the sad note of human failure. But as with earlier events in Genesis 1-11, God’s grace once again supersedes human sin, insuring the continued possibilities of the promissory blessings (Genesis 1:28; Genesis 9:1).. . . The scaffolding of human pride would be dismantled by the erection of the Shemite line that culminates in obedient Abraham, who likewise is found in the region of Shinar. Abraham would prove to be the nations’ deliverance.” [Note: Mathews, p. 487. “Without the blessing of God the situation of humanity is without hope: that seems to be the chief thrust of the opening chapters of Genesis.” [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. li.] In contrast to the genealogy in chapter 5, this one emphasizes life and expansion rather than death, even though longevity was declining. [Note: For short histories of the prepatriarchal period of ancient Near Eastern history, see John Bright, A History of Israel, pp. 17-37; or Siegfried Schwantes, A Short History of the Ancient Near East.] This genealogy starts with Noah’s son Shem whom God blessed, and it concludes with Abram whom God purposed to bless.

This is the line of Israel’s ancestors. It is a vertical list of the type used in the ancient Near East to document legitimate claims to thrones or inheritances. [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 249. This genealogy, as the one in chapter 5, appears to be complete. The purpose of the genealogy is to connect Abram to Noah and to give background information essential for understanding the story of Abram that follows. [Note: Mathews, p. 488, included a helpful chart of the 20 generations from Adam to Abram.] “. . . the author’s aim is to show that God’s promise concerning the seed of the woman cannot be thwarted by the confusion and scattering of the nations at Babylon.” [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 136. “If the message of Genesis is essentially one of redemption, Genesis 3-11 explains why man needs salvation and what he needs to be saved from. Chaps. 1-2, in describing the original state of the world, also describe the goal of redemption, to which ultimately the world and humanity will return when the patriarchal promises are completely fulfilled.” [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. lii.] “An extensive statistical analysis of the life-spans of the patriarchs, as given in Genesis Chapter 5 and 11, shows that statistically the life-span can be considered constant before the Flood, while after the Flood the data can be fitted by an asymptotic exponential decay curve. Also, it is concluded that as for the life-spans reported in Genesis Chapter 11, the data in the Masoretic text are the authentic ones; those in the Septuagint have been tampered with. Moreover, it is statistically unlikely that there are gaps in the genealogies in Genesis Chapter 11.” [Note: William L. Seaver, “A Statistical Analysis of the Genesis Life-Spans,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 20:2 (September 1983):80. The genealogies in Genesis 11:10-26 and 1 Chronicles 1:17-27 are identical, but the one in Luke 3:34-36 inserts the name Cainan between Arpachshad and Shelah.

The inclusion of Cainan may indicate that Luke used the Septuagint to compose his genealogy since this name appears in this translation but not in the Hebrew Bible genealogies. Cainan appears elsewhere in Luke’s list as Adam’s great-grandson (Luke 3:37-38), so this may be a scribal error. [Note: See M. S. Mills, “A Comparison of the Genesis and Lukan Genealogies (The Case for Cainan)” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978).] Most scholars regard “Eber” (Genesis 11:14) as the individual from whom the Jews received the name “Hebrew.” Adam, Noah, and Abram all fathered three named sons linking them as saviors of humanity. In Abram’s case these sons (descendants) were Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph.

The genealogy of Shem (Genesis 11:10-26) in this pericope prefaces the story of Abram (Genesis 11:27 to Genesis 25:11). This structure serves as a prototype for the narrative that follows in Genesis. Similarly the genealogy of Ishmael (Genesis 25:12-18) introduces the story of Jacob and Esau (Genesis 25:19 to Genesis 35:29), and the genealogy of Esau (Genesis 36:1-43) introduces the story of Joseph (Genesis 37:2 to Genesis 50:26).

“With Genesis 11:26 the scene has finally been set for the patriarchal history to unfold. The opening chapters of Genesis have provided us the fundamental insights for interpreting these chapters properly. Genesis 1 revealed the character of God and the nature of the world man finds himself in. Genesis 2, 3 portrayed the relationship between man and woman, and the effects man’s disobedience has had on man-woman and divine-human relations. Chap. 5 sketched the long years that passed before the crisis of the great flood (chaps. 6-9), which almost destroyed all humanity for its sinfulness. The table of the nations (chap. 10) started the process of Israel’s geographical and political self-definition with respect to the other nations in the world, but Genesis 11:1-9 reminded us that the nations were in confusion and that mankind’s proudest achievements were but folly in God’s sight and under his judgment. “However, according to Genesis 11:10-26, just five generations after Peleg, whose lifetime according to Genesis 10:25 saw the confusion of languages at Babel, Abram arrives. As Genesis 12:3 will declare, it is through him that all the families of the earth will be blessed. Man is not without hope. The brevity of this genealogy is a reminder that God’s grace constantly exceeds his wrath. He may punish to the third or fourth generation but he shows mercy to thousands (Deuteronomy 5:9; Deuteronomy 7:9).” [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, pp. 253-54. The chronological framework for the patriarchal stories (Abraham through Joseph) rests on two important texts.

1. 1 Kings 6:1 states that the Exodus took place 480 years before the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (i.e., 967 B.C.). This makes the date of the Exodus close to 1446 B.C.

2. Exodus 12:40 records that “the sons of Israel lived in Egypt” 430 years before the Exodus, or about 1876 B.C. This is the probable date when Jacob’s family moved to Egypt (ch. 46). From these two texts we can calculate other dates in the patriarchal period. [Note: For a helpful survey of the recent history of scholarly opinion regarding the historical reliability of the patriarchal narratives, see Kenneth L. Barker, “The Antiquity and Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives,” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, pp. 131-39; Emil C. Wcela, “The Abraham Stories, History and Faith,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 10 (October 1970):176-81; and Nahum M. Sarna, “Abraham in History,” Biblical Archaeology Review 3 (December 1977):5-9. The historicity of the patriarchs continues to be a matter of scholarly debate. The problem is the lack of explicit reference to the patriarchs in nonbiblical literature and in archaeology. Scholars who reject the biblical testimony as unauthentic have been labeled “minimalists,” and those who belive the Hebrew Bible credibly supplements nonbiblical material are known as “maximalists.” I am one of the latter believing that the biblical records reliably testify to historical individuals and events recorded in this section of Genesis. [Note: For a good discussion of the historicity of the patriarchs and the authenticity of the patriarchal accounts, see Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, pp. 24-55, or Wolf, pp. 113-17. “It is .. . not because scholars of to-day begin with more conservative presuppositions than their predecessors that they have a much greater respect for the patriarchal stories than was formerly common, but because the evidence warrants it.” [Note: H. H. Rowley, “Recent Discovery and the Patriarchal Age,” in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament, p. 318. “It is beyond question that traditional and conservative views of biblical history, especially of the patriarchal period, will continue to be favored by whatever results accrue from ongoing Ebla research.” [Note: Eugene H. Merrill, “Ebla and Biblical Historical Inerrancy,” Bibliotheca Sacra 140:550 (October-December 1983):318. See also Giovanni Pettinato, “The Royal Archives of Tell Mardikh-Ebla,” Biblical Archaeologist 39 (May 1976):44-52. Patriarchal Chronological Data [Note: From Eugene H.

Merrill, “Fixed Dates in Patriarchal Chronology,” Bibliotheca Sacra 137:547 (July-September 1980):248. Birth of TerahGen_11:24 Birth of AbramGen_11:27 Abram’s departure from HaranGen_12:4 Abram’s marriage to HagarGen_16:3 Birth of IshmaelGen_16:16 Reaffirmation of covenantGen_17:1 Destruction of Sodom and GomorrahGen_19:24 Birth of IsaacGen_21:2-3; cf. Genesis 21:5 Death of SarahGen_23:2 Marriage of IsaacGen_25:20 Birth of Jacob and EsauGen_25:26 Death of AbramGen_25:7 Marriage of EsauGen_26:34 Death of IshmaelGen_25:17 Jacob’s journey to HaranGen_28:2 Jacob’s marriagesGen_29:23; Genesis 29:28; Genesis 30:4; Genesis 30:9 Birth of JudahGen_29:35 End of Jacob’s 14 year labor for his wivesGen_29:30 Birth of JosephGen_30:23 End of Jacob’s stay with LabanGen_31:41 Jacob’s arrival at ShechemGen_33:18 Rape of DinahGen_34:1-2 Marriage of JudahGen_38:1-2 Selling of JosephGen_37:2; Genesis 37:28 Joseph imprisonedGen_39:20; cf. Genesis 41:1 Joseph releasedGen_41:1; Genesis 41:46 Death of IsaacGen_35:28 Beginning of famineGen_41:54 Brothers’ first visit to EgyptGen_42:1-3 Judah’s incest with TamarGen_38:18 Brothers’ second visit to EgyptGen_43:1; Genesis 43:15; Genesis 45:6; Genesis 45:11 Jacob’s descent to EgyptGen_46:6; cf. Genesis 47:9 Death of JacobGen_47:28 Death of JosephGen_50:22

Genesis 11:27-12

1. Terah and Abram’s obedience 11:27-12:9 All that Moses wrote in this pericope (Genesis 11:27 to Genesis 12:9) deals with Abram and his future in the Promised Land. Abram obeyed the Lord’s command to relocate to a land that God would give to him and his descedants with the promise that he would become a blessing to the rest of the world. Abram’s example of obedience is a model for all believers to forsake all else to obtain the promised blessings of God and to serve Him by becoming a blessing to others.

“Within the book of Genesis no section is more significant than Genesis 11:27 to Genesis 12:9.” [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 281.