THE TOWER OF BABEL: NEW INTERPRETATIONS (GENESIS 11:1-9)

You might wonder how there can possibly be some new wrinkle of understanding regarding this very familiar episode in Genesis 11:1-9. If so, you are underestimating the ingenuity of Bible scholars. And although sometimes they come up with totally different interpretations of Scripture passages based on new archeological findings, sometimes the driving force is the desire to “make a name for themselves” (to borrow a phrase from this very story) in academic circles. I know from personal experience that it is hard to get a doctorate degree by merely parroting what others in the field have already said.

Two possible examples of this trend can be seen in the Anchor Bible commentary series. In the field of Old Testament studies, Marvin Pope wrote an extensive commentary on the book of Job in which he offered brand new interpretations of a large percentage of its verses based on his prior studies on the Ugaritic language, which was related to ancient Hebrew. A few of his suggestions have been adopted by others, but many more have not been accepted by other scholars.

And as a New Testament example, J. M. Ford wrote the volume on the book of Revelation from the unique viewpoint that most of it was actually written by John the Baptist. I have yet to read of anyone following her lead on that thesis.

So I am personally rather skeptical when any brand new insights on a well-studied passage such as the Tower of Babel episode is proposed. Getting to the correct root of the author's intent behind this narrative does not involve any vital doctrinal points, but even so we should strive to critically examine how likely others' ideas are to stand the test of time. Here are two different readings of Genesis 11:1-9 coming out in recent times for you to test your critical skills on.

As the first example, a few years ago a man in our congregation presented me with several books by Michael S. Heiser about which he was very enthusiastic. I have previously critiqued Heiser's ideas in The Unseen Realm, Supernatural and Demons in blogposts such as “Psalm 82” and “The Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9).” Without going into Heiser's entire thesis again, suffice it to say that he feels those who were building the tower committed a sin so grievous to God that He (in Heiser's words) punished, abandoned and disowned them. Then to cap it off, God assigned some of his own trusted angels to be in charge of these cast-off nations with the full knowledge that these supernatural beings would take it on themselves to become rival gods of these nations in contrast to the only God and would lead them even further from the truth until the coming of Christ to earth.

In stark contrast to Heiser's rather harsh judgment on the inhabitants of Babel, John Walton in a recent Christianity Today issue attempts to downplay somewhat the seriousness of the tower builders' sin while coming up with an entirely different explanation for God's displeasure with them. His reasoning behind this new proposal, which he defended in his doctorate thesis, is as follows:

A. “Making a name for ourselves” should not at all be interpreted in a negative manner as if they wanted to elevate themselves above their appointed station. This is because, “Making a name is a phrase that speaks of honor and admirable reputation. In the Old Testament, it is used most often to refer to God making a name for himself – a great name that enhances his reputation (see Isa 63:14; Neh 9:10). On a few occasions, it refers to God making a name for someone (like Abram in Gen. 12:2 or David in 2 Sam. 7:9 and 1 Chron. 17:8). It is always positive.

Walton admits that “Genesis 11 is the only time in Scripture where people are making a name for themselves, but that does not mean it is inherently an offensive act.” Of course neither does it automatically mean that it is a noble act; so it is, at least in his eyes, a neutral statement. His only proof that it is an honorable endeavor is to cite several ancient documents from pagan sources. But again, he is forced to admit that by today's standards, an attempt to “make a name for yourself” has a definitely egotistical ring to it.

B. Next he disputes the well-accepted fact that the tower builders were disobeying God's command back in Genesis 9:1 to scatter out and fill the world. He says that this was not really a command at all but a blessing instead, and you can't disobey a blessing. He again is forced to admit “that, grammatically, the verse is an imperative, but in Hebrew, imperatives have many functions besides command.” So as in his first argument, the best he can offer is the choice of the least accepted interpretation out of two possibilities.

C. His last, and clinching argument, cites archeological findings. Thus, he says “that almost all interpreters now recognize that towers such as the one described here are called ziggurats and – most importantly – now know why they were built...They were not built for people to ascend to heaven but rather for the god to descend from heaven. The idea was that the tower provided a convenience by which the god could make a grand entrance into the temple where he would be worshiped.”

D. The above arguments leave Walton in the position of trying to explain what was wrong with their actions if neither A, B, or C was really a problem. So he comes up with the following reasoning, again using the practices of other Near Eastern civilizations as a guide:

The pagan religions of the time believed that their gods were totally dependent on human beings to provide them with food and other comforts. Thus, by analogy, the inhabitants of Babel were attempting to strike a deal with God that would be of mutual benefit to both parties. “They would make a god beholden to them, they would flourish, and their fame would spread – they would be people favored by a god. The problem was not that the wanted to make a name for themselves. The problem was that they were exploiting a relationship with God to do so.”

So what should we make of such a different thesis? Here are a few points to ponder concerning the four pillars of Walton's idea before adopting it wholesale.

A. Despite what Walton suggests, there is a world of difference between God carrying out an action and human beings feeling that they can accomplish the same thing unaided. This distinction is pointed out in Scripture most clearly in the taunt songs in Isaiah and Ezekiel concerning foreign potentates who attempt to climb the mountains to heaven in order to rival the gods themselves. Thus, “making a name for ourselves” not only sounds egotistical to our own sensibilities, such hubris is even more offensive to God. We see this clearly by God's comment that if left to their own devices they will attempt more and more to rival Him in power.

B. Then there is Walton's admittedly weak argument stating that the tower builders were not technically disobeying the divine edict that they should scatter and fill the earth. In rebuttal, all one has to do is look at the “punishment” God meted out for their disobedience. He confused their languages so that they could no longer work together and ended up dispersing throughout the land into smaller tribes. It is a classic case of parenting by the use of natural consequences, i.e. “the punishment fits the crime.”

C. There are several problems with the third argument as well. Walton, who is by no means a liberal Bible critic himself, falls into the trap of those scholars who see superficial similarities between what is in the Old Testament and what we know about the surrounding cultures of the time. Thus, he assumes that because the Tower of Babel has some similarities in appearance with the ziggurats of the Babylonians, the intended purposes of those must therefore have been the same. We know that such reasoning does not at all hold when comparing, for example, the Babylonian Flood story with the biblical one. Several details are identical in both, but the theological underpinning of the two stories is worlds apart.

Secondly, it is not at all agreed among experts that the Tower of Babylon was in fact a ziggurat.

Thirdly, a number of scholars also disagree somewhat with Walton's contention that the purpose of a ziggurat was to bring the god down into the adjacent temple where he could be worshiped. In fact, the consensus appears to be that its purpose was two-fold: (a) to elevate the high priest toward heaven where (b) his prayers and offerings would bring the god down from heaven so that he could reside on the top of the ziggurat, not in any temple.

Then we come to Walton's conclusion as to the real sin of the people of Babel: wanting to strike a mutually beneficial bargain with God. The main problem with that explanation is that it finds absolutely no confirmation in the biblical text itself, either in God's statement regarding the people or in his subsequent confusing of their languages.

So we see two new and interesting ways of approaching this story in Genesis 11:1-9. But since they strike out in quite different directions from the generally accepted interpretations, they must both be taken with a large dose of salt before swallowing either one of them. New is not always better.