Genesis 11 commentary

GE ESIS 11 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
The Tower of Babel
1 ow the whole world had one language and a
common speech.
BAR ES, "Gen_11:1
The previous state of human language is here briefly described. “The whole land”
evidently means the whole then known world with all its human inhabitants. The
universality of application is clearly and constantly maintained throughout the whole
passage. “Behold, the people is one.” And the close is on this point in keeping with the
commencement. “Therefore was the name of it called Babel, because the Lord had there
confounded the lip of all the land.”
Of one lip, and one stock: of words. - In the table of nations the term “tongue”
was used to signify what is here expressed by two terms. This is not undesigned. The two
terms are not synonymous or parallel, as they form the parts of one compound
predicate. “One stock of words,” then, we conceive, naturally indicates the matter, the
substance, or material of language. This was one and the same to the whole race. The
term “lip,” which is properly one of the organs of articulation, is, on the other hand, used
to denote the form, that is, the manner, of speaking; the mode of using and connecting
the matter of speech; the system of laws by which the inflections and derivations of a
language are conducted. This also was one throughout the human family. Thus, the
sacred writer has expressed the unity of language among mankind, not by a single term
as before, but, with a view to his present purpose, by a combination of terms expressing
the two elements which go to constitute every organic reality.
CLARKE, "The whole earth was of one language - The whole earth - all
mankind was of one language, in all likelihood the Hebrew; and of one speech -
articulating the same words in the same way. It is generally supposed, that after the
confusion mentioned in this chapter, the Hebrew language remained in the family of
Heber. The proper names, and their significations given in the Scripture, seem
incontestable evidences that the Hebrew language was the original language of the earth
- the language in which God spake to man, and in which he gave the revelation of his will
to Moses and the prophets. “It was used,” says Mr. Ainsworth, “in all the world for one
thousand seven hundred and fifty-seven years, till Phaleg, the son of Heber, was born,
and the tower of Babel was in building one hundred years after the flood, Gen_10:25;
Gen_11:9. After this, it was used among the Hebrews or Jews, called therefore the Jews’
language, Isa_36:11, until they were carried captive into Babylon, where the holy tongue
ceased from being commonly used, and the mixed Hebrew (or Chaldee) came in its

place.” It cannot be reasonably imagined that the Jews lost the Hebrew tongue entirely
in the seventy years of their captivity in Babylon; yet, as they were mixed with the
Chaldeans, their children would of course learn that dialect, and to them the pure
Hebrew would be unintelligible; and this probably gave rise to the necessity of
explaining the Hebrew Scriptures in the Chaldee tongue, that the children might
understand as well as their fathers. As we may safely presume the parents could not have
forgotten the Hebrew, so we may conclude the children in general could not have
learned it, as they did not live in an insulated state, but were mixed with the
Babylonians. This conjecture removes the difficulty with which many have been
embarrassed; one party supposing that the knowledge of the Hebrew language was lost
during the Babylonish captivity, and hence the necessity of the Chaldee Targums to
explain the Scriptures; another party insisting that this was impossible in so short a
period as seventy years.
GILL, "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech,.... Or
had been (w), before the flood, and from that time to this, and still was, until the
confusion took place; the account of which, and the occasion of it, are given in this
chapter: by the whole earth is meant the inhabitants of it, see Isa_37:18 and so the
Jerusalem Targum paraphrases the words,"and all the generations of the earth were of
one language, and of one speech, and of one counsel, for they spoke in the holy tongue in
which the world was created at the beginning;''and to the same purpose the Targum of
Jonathan: all the posterity of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, used the same language, though
it does not appear that they were all in one counsel or consultation, or of one mind about
building a city or tower, which the Targum seems to suggest; for it is not likely that
Shem and his sons were in it: nor by "one lip" and "the same words or things" (x), as
these phrases may be rendered, are we to understand the same simplicity of speech and
business, and likeness of manners; for it appears there was a difference with respect to
these in the immediate sons of Noah, and it may be supposed to be much more in their
remote offspring; nor as if they were all of the same religion, embraced the same
doctrines, and spoke the same things; for as idolatry and superstition obtained in the
race of Cain before the flood, so Ham and his posterity soon fell into the same, or the
like, afterwards: and it may be observed that the same distinction was made of the
children of God, and of the children of men, before the confusion and dispersion, as was
before the flood, Gen_11:5 from whence it appears they were not in the same sentiments
and practice of religion: but this is to be understood of one and the same language,
without any diversity of dialects, or without any hard and strange words, not easily
understood; and perhaps it was pronounced by the lip and other instruments of speech
in the same way; so that there was no difficulty in understanding one another, men,
women, and children, all the people in common, princes and peasants, wise and unwise,
all spoke the same language and used the same words; and this the Targumists take to be
the holy or Hebrew language; and so Jarchi and Aben Ezra, and the Jewish writers in
general, and most Christians; though some make a question of it, whether it might not
be rather the Syriac, or Chaldee, or Arabic; but there is no need of such a question, since
these with the Hebrew are all one and the same language; and no doubt it was the
eastern language, without giving it any other name, which now subsists in the above
dialects, though not in anyone alone, which was first spoken; though more purely and
without the difference of dialects it now consists of, or without the various different
inflexions now made in it; for nothing is more reasonable to suppose, than that the
language Adam spoke was used by Noah, since Adam lived within one hundred years

and a little more of the birth of Noah; and it is not to be questioned but Noah's sons
spoke the same language as he did, and their posterity now, which was but little more
than one hundred years after the flood: there are various testimonies of Heathens
confirming this truth, that originally men spoke but one language; thus Sibylla in
Josephus (y), who says,"when all men were οµοφωνων, of the same language, some
began to build a most high tower, &c.''so Abydenus (z) an Heathen historian, speaking of
the building of the tower of Babel, says,"at that time men were οµογλωσσους, of the same
tongue;''in like manner Hyginus (a), speaking of Phoroneus, the first of mortals, that
reigned, says,"many ages before, men lived without towns and laws, "una lirgua
loquentes", speaking one language, under the empire of Jove.''
HE RY, "The close of the foregoing chapter tells us that by the sons of Noah, or
among the sons of Noah, the nations were divided in the earth after the flood, that is,
were distinguished into several tribes or colonies; and, the places having grown too strait
for them, it was either appointed by Noah, or agreed upon among his sons, which way
each several tribe or colony should steer its course, beginning with the countries that
were next them, and designing to proceed further and further, and to remove to a greater
distance from each other, as the increase of their several companies should require. Thus
was the matter well settled, one hundred years after the flood, about the time of Peleg's
birth; but the sons of men, it should seem, were loth to disperse into distant places; they
thought the more the merrier and the safer, and therefore they contrived to keep
together, and were slack to go to possess the land which the Lord God of their fathers
had given them (Jos_18:3), thinking themselves wiser than either God or Noah. Now
here we have,
I. The advantages which befriended their design of keeping together, 1. They were all
of one language, Gen_11:1. If there were any different languages before the flood, yet
Noah's only, which it is likely was the same with Adam's, was preserved through the
flood, and continued after it. Now, while they all understood one another, they would be
the more likely to love one another, and the more capable of helping one another, and
the less inclinable to separate one from another. 2. They found a very convenient
commodious place to settle in (Gen_11:2), a plain in the land of Shinar, a spacious plain,
able to contain them all, and a fruitful plain, able, according as their present numbers
were, to support them all, though perhaps they had not considered what room there
would be for them when their numbers should be increased. Note, Inviting
accommodations, for the present, often prove too strong temptations to the neglect of
both duty and interest, as it respects futurity.
II. The method they took to bind themselves to one another, and to settle together in one
body. Instead of coveting to enlarge their borders by a peaceful departure under the
divine protection, they contrived to fortify them, and, as those that were resolved to
wage war with Heaven, they put themselves into a posture of defence. Their unanimous
resolution is, Let us build ourselves a city and a tower. It is observable that the first
builders of cities, both in the old world (Gen_4:17), and in the new world here, were not
men of the best character and reputation: tents served God's subjects to dwell in; cities
were first built by those that were rebels against him and revolters from him. Observe
here,
JAMISO , "Gen_11:1-32. Confusion of tongues.
the whole earth was of one language. The descendants of Noah, united by the
strong bond of a common language, had not separated, and notwithstanding the divine

command to replenish the earth, were unwilling to separate. The more pious and well-
disposed would of course obey the divine will; but a numerous body, seemingly the
aggressive horde mentioned (Gen_10:10), determined to please themselves by
occupying the fairest region they came to.
K&D, "“And the whole earth (i.e., the population of the earth, vid., Gen_2:19) was
one lip and one kind of words:” unius labii eorundemque verborum. The unity of
language of the whole human race follows from the unity of its descent from one human
pair (vid., Gen_2:22). But as the origin and formation of the races of mankind are
beyond the limits of empirical research, so no philology will ever be able to prove or
deduce the original unity of human speech from the languages which have been
historically preserved, however far comparative grammar may proceed in establishing
the genealogical relation of the languages of different nations.
SBC, "The New Testament is always converting into blessings the curses of the Old
Testament. The burdens and severities of the Law are not only the types but the very
substances of Gospel liberty and truth; the confusion of Babel leads to a greater
harmony, and its dispersion ends in a more perfect union.
I. After the flood the whole earth was of one language and one speech. Now not even one
country has one language within itself. No two persons that ever meet have it. The words
may have the same spelling, but they do not carry to the hearer exactly the same sense in
which they were spoken. There is not on this earth, in any fraction of it, one language
and one speech; hence a great part of our sin and misery.
II. Even if there were a language perfectly the same, yet, until there was a setting to
rights of disorders which have come into human thought, and until minds were
themselves set in one accord, there could not be unity.
III. The men of the old world determined to do two things which real unity never does.
They resolved to make a great monument to their own glory, and they thought to
frustrate a law of God and to break a positive rule of our being. Their unity was a false
unity. They sought their own praise, and it ran contrary to the mind of God. Their
profane unity was dashed into hundreds of divergent atoms, and was carried by the four
winds to the four corners of the earth.
IV. What were the consequences of this scattering of the race? (1) It carried the
knowledge of the true God and of the one faith into all the lands whither they went; (2)
God replenished the whole surface of the globe by spreading men over it; (3) it was a
plea for prayer, an argument for hope, a pledge of promise.
V. From that moment God has steadily carried on His design of restoring unity to the
earth: His choosing of Abraham, His sending of Christ, the coming of the Holy Ghost at
Pentecost, were all means to this very end.
J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 10th series, p. 103.
CALVI , "1.And the whole earth was of one language. Whereas mention had
before been made of Babylon in a single word, Moses now more largely explains
whence it derived its name. For this is a truly memorable history, in which we may
perceive the greatness of men’s obstinacy against God, and the little profit they
receive from his judgments. And although at first sight the atrocity of the evil does

not appear; yet the punishment which follows it, testifies how highly God was
displeased with that which these men attempted. They who conjecture that the
tower was built with the intent that is should prove a refuge and protections if, at
any time, God should determine to overwhelm the earth with a deluge, have no
other guide, that I can see, but the dream of their own brain. For the words of
Moses signify no such thing: nothing, indeed, is here noticed, except their mad
ambitions and proud contempt of God. ‘Let us build a tower (they say) whose top
may reach to heaven, and let us get ourselves a name.’ We see the design and the
aim of the undertaking. For whatsoever might happen, they wish to have an
immortal name on earth; and thus they build, as if in opposition to the will of God.
And doubtless ambition not only does injury to men, but exalts itself even against
God. To erect a citadel was not in itself so great a crime; but to raise an eternal
monument to themselves, which might endure throughout all ages, was a proof of
headstrong pride, joined with contempt of God. And hence originated the fable of
the giants who, as the poets have feigned, heaped mountains upon mountains, in
order to drag down Jove from his celestial throne. This allegory is not very remote
from the impious counsel to which Moses alludes; for as soon as mortals, forgetful of
themselves; are inflated above measure, it is certain that like the giants, they wage
war with God. This they do not openly profess, yet it cannot be otherwise than that
every one who transgresses his prescribed bounds, makes a direct attack upon God.
With respect to the time in which this event happened, a fragment of Berosus is
extant, (if, indeed, Berosus is to be accounted the author of such trifles,) where,
among other things, a hundred and thirty years are reckoned from the deluge to the
time when they began to build the tower. This opinion, though deficient in
competent authority, has been preferred, by some, to that which commonly obtained
among the Jews, and which places about three hundred and forty years between the
deluge and the building of the tower. or is there anything more plausible in what
others relate; namely, that these builders undertook the work, because men were
even then dispersed far and wide, and many colonies were already formed; whence
they apprehended that as their offspring was daily increasing, they must, in a short
time, migrate to a still greater distance. But to this argument we may oppose the
fact, that the peculiar blessing of God was to be traced in this multiplication of
mankind. Moreover, Moses seems to set aside all controversy. For after he has
mentioned Arphaxad as the third of the sons of Shem, he then names Peleg, his
great-grandson, in whose days the languages were divided. But from a computation
of the years which he sets down, it plainly appears that one century only intervened.
It is, however, to be noted, that the languages are not said to have been divided
immediately after the birth of Peleg, and that no definite time was ever specified.
(321) It must, indeed, have added greatly to the weight of oah’s sufferings, when
he heard of this wicked counsel, which had been taken by his posterity. And it is not
to be doubted that he was wounded with the deepest grief, when he beheld them,
with devoted minds, rushing to their own destruction. But the Lord thus exercised
the holy man, even in extreme old age, to teach us not to be discouraged by a
continual succession of conflicts. If any one should prefer the opinion commonly
received among the Jews; the division of the earth must be referred to the first
transmigrations, when men began to be distributed in various regions: but what has

been already recorded in the preceding chapter, respecting the monarchy of
imrod, is repugnant to this interpretation. (322) Still a middle opinion may be
entertained; namely, that the confusion of tongues may perhaps have happened in
the extreme old age of Peleg. ow he lived nearly two hundred and forty years; nor
will it be absurd to suppose that the empire founded by imrod endured two or
three centuries. I certainly, — as in a doubtful case, — freely admit that a longer
space of time might intervene between the deluge and the design of building the
tower. Moreover, when Moses says, ‘the earth was of one lip,’ he commends the
peculiar kindness of God, in having willed that the sacred bond of society among
men far separated from each other should be retained, by their possessing a
common language among themselves. And truly the diversity of tongues is to be
regarded as a prodigy. For since language is the impress of the mind, (323) how does
it come to pass, that men, who are partakers of the same reason, and who are born
for social life, do not communicate with each other in the same language? This
defect, therefore, seeing that it is repugnant to nature, Moses declares to be
adventitious; and pronounces the division of tongues to be a punishment, divinely
inflicted upon men, because they impiously conspired against God. Community of
language ought to have promoted among them consent in religion; but this
multitude of whom Moses speaks, after they had alienated themselves from the pure
worship of God, and the sacred assembly of the faithful, coalesce to excite war
against God. Therefore by the just vengeance of God their tongues were divided.
HAWKER, "The sacred historian relates in this Chapter an awful proof of man’s fallen
nature, and thereby confirms the divine declaration concerning it, that every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. For notwithstanding
that the flood had swept away the whole human race, excepting that part preserved with
Noah in the ark; and God’s displeasure against sin had manifested itself in this dreadful
judgment, yet the sin of man soon broke out afresh; and, in the daring attempt of
building the tower of Babel, evidently discovered that man ventured to defy the
Omnipotency of God. The relation of this foolish, as well as impious undertaking, is
contained in this Chapter, together with, the divine judgment which followed. Towards
the close of the chapter, the Reader is first introduced to the history of Abram, of whom
such honourable testimony is afterwards given throughout the whole volume of
Scripture.
Gen_11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
Happy world, may it not be said, when no confusion or misapprehension could arise
from a diversity of languages! What a train of evils hath this variety alone produced in
the earth in after ages! Is it not more than probable that this was the holy tongue,
(Hebrew), and learned first in Paradise?
COKE, "Genesis 11:1. The whole earth— All the inhabitants of the earth, before they were
divided and dispersed, spoke one common language, as descended from one common
parent. The word, rendered languages ‫ׂשפה‬ sapah, signifies lip, as the margin of our
Bibles has it; and the word ‫דברים‬ debarim, speech, is plural, and may be rendered "the
same words:" so that, probably, hereby is only expressed, that "all men used the same
words pronounced in the same manner; they had the same pronunciation, and the same
language." Mr. Parkhurst observes, that as sapah signifies sense, sentiment, as well as

speech and language, the meaning of this place is, "that mankind in general were
unanimous in their speech and counsels, and appeared so in their sentiments and
designs (probably because united under one political government); and coming to the
delightful plain of Shinar, they intended all to settle there, instead of spreading
themselves into the unknown countries of the earth; and to this purpose encouraged
one another to build a large city, and a high tower or temple, to prevent their separation,
Genesis 11:4 but that God miraculously interposed, and confounded or frustrated this
rebellious scheme, which was inconsistent with his will." It clearly appears, that whatever
further may be implied, the words certainly express an intercommunity of the same
language, and a confusion of that common language afterwards, Genesis 11:7. The
reader will be pleased to remember, that when it is said in the foregoing chapter, that
the earth was divided by Noah's posterity according to their tongues or language, we
remarked, at the beginning of that chapter, that the division of the earth was posterior to
the event recorded here, of the confusion of languages.
PULPIT, "Genesis 11:1
And the whole earth. I.e. the entire population of the globe, and not simply the
inhabitants of the land of Shinar (Ingiis; cf. Genesis 9:29). Was. Prior to the
dispersion spoken of in the preceding chapter, though obviously it may have been
subsequent to that event, if, as the above-named author believes, the present
paragraph refers to the Shemites alone. Of one language. Literally, of one lip, i.e.
one articulation, or one way of pronouncing their vocables. And of one speech.
Literally, one (kind of) words, i.e. the matter as well as the form of human speech
was the same. The primitive language was believed by the Rabbins, the Fathers, and
the older theologians to be Hebrew; but Keil declares this view to be utterly
untenable. Bleek shows that the family of Abraham spoke in Aramaic (cf. Jegar-
sahadutha, Genesis 31:47), and that the patriarch himself acquired Hebrew from
the Canaanites, who may themselves have adopted it from the early Semites whom
they displace& While regarding neither the Aramaic, Hebrew, nor Arabic as the
original tongue of mankind, he thinks the Hebrew approaches nearest the primitive
Semite language out of which all three were developed.
BI 1-3, "Of one language
God’s gift of speech
1. Language or speech God hath allowed to men as men.
2. One language did God vouchsafe to all for good. It was mainly to keep them to the
Church.
3. Sin perverts the sweet blessing of one speech to conspiracy against God (Gen_
11:9). (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Two kinds of unanimity
Men may do wrong things unanimously, as well as things that are right. We must

distinguish between union and conspiracy; we must distinguish between identity and
mere association for a given object. Twelve directors may be of one language and of one
speech, but the meaning of their unity may be self-enrichment, at the expense of
unsuspecting men, who have put their little all into their keeping and direction. It is
nothing, therefore, to talk about unanimity in itself considered. We must, in all these
things, put the moral question, “What is the unanimity about?” “Is this unanimity
moving in the right direction?” If it be in a wrong direction, then unanimity is an
aggravation of sin; if it be in a right direction, then union is power, and one-heartedness
is triumph. But it is possible that unanimity may be but another word for stagnation.
There are words in our language which are greatly misunderstood, and unanimity is one
of them; peace is another. When many persons say peace, what do they mean? A living,
intelligent, active cooperation, where there is mutual concession, where there is courtesy
on every hand, where there is independent conviction, and yet noble concert in life? Not
at all. They say that a Church is unanimous, and a Church is at peace, when a correct
interpreter would say it was the unanimity of the grave, the peace of death. So I put in a
word here of caution and of explanation: “The whole earth was of one language and of
one speech”; here is a point of unanimity, and yet there is a unanimous movement in a
wrong direction. (J. Parker, D. D.)
One language and one speech
What that language was it is not necessary on the present occasion to examine. The
arguments are very strong that it was Hebrew. But the fact that all men did use the same
tongue, and the way in which the fact is recorded, lead us to infer that there was
something much more than identity of dialect. For we all well know how language is
connected with thought and feelings, and how our words react and determine our
feelings. So that a oneness of expression will go a great way to produce oneness of soul.
Have we not all proved its effect to unite and bind us one with another? Is not that the
charm of the familiar language of co-patriots in foreign lands? Is not this one of the
secrets of the bliss of song? So that a real and perfectly “one language and one speech”
might be expected to have a most united result on the minds of all who used it, and a
most favourable influence on the spirit of true religion. But it is a thing which now is not.
No one country has it within itself. No two persons that ever meet have it. It is a lost
thing. There is not, truly, upon this earth, in any fraction of it, “one language” and “one
speech”; and hence a very great part of our sin and our misery! And even if there were a
language perfectly the same, yet until there was a setting to rights of disorders which
have come into human thought, and until minds were themselves set in one accord,
there could not be unity. So that, indeed, there must be something which belongs to a
higher dispensation than this. For if the thoughts were disordered, they would
themselves give disordered senses to the words spoken. And remember one other thing.
In that age, it was not so long after the flood, nor had people been so divided, nor truth
so lapsed, but that all must have known the faith of the one true God. And, therefore,
their worship must have been one, the same thoughts and the same expressions going up
to the same God everywhere. But the world was evidently not yet ripe for unity. Unity is
a beautiful flower, but it can only grow in its own proper soil. Then the Fall cropped up,
and at once poisoned human nature. They could not use even their one language or their
one mind without its unity becoming sin. So they took occasion, by their very oneness, to
determine to do two things, which real unity never does. They resolved to make a great
monument to their own glory, and they thought to frustrate an original law of God and
to break a positive rule of our being. For the primary principle of all religion is that we

should seek first the glory of our Maker. Therefore God breathed upon their work, and it
was crushed. It was a false unity. They sought their own praise, and it ran contrary to the
mind of God. And God Himself at once traced the sin to that root—an unhallowed and
unsanctified oneness of mind and language; and God proceeded to punish them in that
very thing which they thus misused, and to take away from them that privilege and
blessing for which man was not yet educated and prepared. So the Lord scattered them
abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth. Said I not right they were not ripe for
this precious gift—the omnipotence of unity? Generations must pass; new eras must
unfold; Christ must come down and suffer; the Holy Spirit dwell amongst us; the Church
must live and work; missionaries must preach; martyrs must die; the whole earth must
be regenerate before men could hear their own, their higher, their destined unity. And so
the unity, the profane unity, was dashed into hundreds of divergent atoms, and was
carried by the four winds to the four corners of the earth. And what was the consequence
of this judicial scattering, and this division of the human race which began on the plains
of Shinar, and has been increasing ever since, and which we see all around us now? God
never does a work, how purative soever it may be, in which there is not a mercy and
some purpose or another. Doubtless this scattering of the early post-diluvians carried
the knowledge of the true God and of the one faith into all the lands whither they went,
even as the early Christians, when they fled from Jerusalem, bore the seed of the gospel
into every land. And that knowledge, diluted, indeed, and marred, would go down from
generation to generation; and hence, perhaps, the fact—the remarkable fact—that there
is no instance in the history of the whole earth of a people, even in the remotest islands
of the Pacific, who had not some vestige of the knowledge and worship of a god. And
once more there was a plea for prayer, an argument for hope, a pledge of promise—“We
were all one once, Lord. Thou didst scatter us. Bring back again Thine own image. Give
us, give the whole earth, its unity again.” I will not now speak of the evil results of that
broken language and these severed interests of the family of man. They are too large and
too patent to be catalogued here. I will proceed with the unfolding, as it seems to me, of
God’s great means for the restitution of unity. From that moment God has steadily,
progressively, uniformly carried on His great design to restore the unity which man then
fulfilled. Just as He set Himself at once to give back the lost paradise—a better than the
first was—has He graciously worked in His working to repair, and much more than
repair, the fractured oneness. It became necessary by this dispersion that God should
select one family and one race which He should make a special and secure depository of
His one truth. Otherwise probably the truth, split and scattered, would not have
survived in the earth. And therefore the next fact in history is the call of Abraham. And
when God elected Abraham and his descendants to be the stewards of revelation, it was
for this very end—that truth might continue one in the world. But in that act of electing
grace God did not choose Abraham only, but in Abraham that “Seed” which was to
gather together not only all truth, but all people into Himself. Accordingly, “in the
fulness of time” Christ came. And by His life, death, resurrection, and ascension He
became the Head into which all members—thousands and millions of members—were to
be gathered and united, and so to make a oneness—oh! how different from all before!
how glorious! how entire!—the oneness of one body and one life, the oneness of God. To
give effect to, to supplement and complete that unity, the Holy Ghost came as at
Pentecost. And at once—mark the fact—He dealt with language, that lost gift—the “one
language” and the “one speech”; language, doubtless a gift to man at the creation, but
now how much more better a gift by the redemption. So it came to pass that the gulf of
separation—unknown speech—that great gulf of separation, was, at that moment, taken
away. But it was not only in tongue and in speech that they assimilate, but in mind and
heart. For the theme and interest of all are one—“We do hear them speak in our tongues

the wonderful works of God.” Observe, then, the effects. At that moment all the Church
was really and truly of one heart and one soul; and that union expressed itself in the gift
of speech which made all language one. So that the unity was the same, only greater and
purer than that before judgment fell upon Babel. And why was it, why was it at
Pentecost? It was a beautiful thing, but it did not last. It was a bright rift in the cloud of
separation. Why was it, and why did some retain the power of language while in the
Church by the gift of tongues, why was it? I have no doubt in my own mind that it was
the first drop in the shower—a pledge of what is to be. And will it not one day come—one
pure language on the whole earth, one worship, and one service with one consent? But
this, I conceive, is the order: First, the body of Christ made one, made one by the
individual embodiment into Him of each one of His elect, in His own proper season.
Then the mind, made one by the indwelling and inworking of the same Holy Spirit. And
then the language, made one by some infusion of the power of the Holy Ghost in the
latter days. You have read, perhaps, of two heathen men of different countries, both
converted, who met, but could not understand each other’s speech, when one by chance
or providence said “Hallelujah,” and the other, taking up the formulary, said “Amen.”
And they ran into each other’s arms. The story may be true or not, but it is a pretty
allegory, and a true type of what I believe shall one day be. (J. Vaughan, M. A.)
COFFMAN, "Introduction
Toledoth V (Genesis 11:10-26)
Toledoth VI (Genesis 11:27)
It would be impossible to exaggerate the importance of this chapter, since it recounts the
Second Hardening of mankind, in which, on the plains of Shinar there flowered the
second general rebellion of humanity against the Creator. The same pattern is evident in
both. In the first, it began with a single act of disobedience; but it eventually resulted in
the total corruption of Adam's race, the First Judicial Hardening of humanity, followed
by the judgment of God upon their gross wickedness and the destruction of the whole
antediluvian world in the waters of the Deluge.
In this second instance, it also began with the shameful wickedness of Canaan: but the
eventual exaltation of man against his God became general in the events associated with
the Tower of Babel and once more became so serious that the situation demanded God's
direct interference with it. This came immediately in the form of the confusion of
tongues and the introduction of the device of the Chosen People, through whom God
would yet provide a Saviour and Redeemer for men. Therein lies the significance of the
presentation of the family line of Shem, the Messianic line, here recorded in close
connection with the events of Babel, and which stand here as an explanatory
introduction to the call of Abraham.
The story is basically the same in both cases: "man's defiance of God."[1] The setting,
however, is different. The first Fall occurred among the flowers and fruits of Eden; the
second one came in the bricks and asphalt of the city. Therefore, we see nothing less in
this event than the Second Judicial Hardening of Adam's race, the first resulting in the

Flood, this one resulting in the call of Abraham and the commissioning of a "Chosen
People," by means of whom God's purpose of Redemption would still be achieved.
Speiser described the account here as "authentic beyond all expectation,"[2] and Neff
spoke of it as having, "the utmost significance."[3] The extremely abbreviated nature of
the sacred record here, however, has obscured the importance of it for some.
Verse 1-2
"And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. And it came to pass as they
journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there."
"The whole earth ... one language ... one speech ..." Since all people at that time were
descendants of Noah, therefore being one family, it could scarcely have been any other
way than as stated here.
"They journeyed east ..." The older versions read "from the east" (KJV), and "when they
removed from the east" (Douay), etc.; and many current scholars assure us that the
original here "actually says, from the east."Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1981), p. 245.">[4] Some insist, however, that, "The Hebrew is
uncertain here,"[5] and that the place should be rendered "eastward," since that
conforms better with where it is thought that the people lived at that time. We should
accept the words as they have come down to us. Men really do not have enough
information to justify their adjusting God's Word to say what they think it should have
said. Sure, it does seem strange in the light of facts revealed as to where the ark rested
and the directions later given for the dispersion of Noah's posterity. Nevertheless, the
notion that such migrations could have been in a single direction only is precarious
indeed. We are not at all embarrassed by many things in the sacred record that we
simply cannot explain or account for at all, but we glory in the grace of God that enables
us to believe it anyway. We have great confidence that if we knew all the facts, the perfect
understanding of many arcane passages in the Bible would be the result.
"Plain in the land of Shinar ..." This is the great plain upon which Nimrod built Babylon
and other cities. The Septuagint reads "Babylonia" here for "Shinar." "It is the land
wherein were situated the great cities of Babylon, Erech, and Akkad."[6] In Zechariah
(Zechariah 5), there is the vision of the ephah basket with a woman in it (probably the
image of a goddess) symbolizing Wickedness (Zechariah 5:8); and when Zechariah asked
where she was being taken, an angel revealed to him, that, "They bear the ephah to build
her a house in the land of Shinar: and when it is prepared, she shall be set there in her
own place" (Zechariah 5:11). This prophetic revelation shows that it was the
establishment and enthronement of wickedness in Shinar that constituted the great
error visible in this event at Babel. In all ages to come, Babylon would be the symbol of
civilization in its corporate organization opposed to God in pride, arrogance, and
defiance. It was literally true that the cancer that began here at the tower of Babel was to
form a metastasis in every great city of the earth for all ages to come, making Babylon
the "Mother of harlots and abominations" of the earth, not merely in the religious
connotations of the current dispensation, but also in the political developments ever

afterward from the foundation of Babylon.
PETT, "THE SIN OF THE NATIONS (11:1-9).
We are now to be shown why the nations divided up into different languages with the
consequent suspicions, hatreds and warfares which resulted. Overall it will be seen as a
result of puffed up pride and deliberate rebellion against God. (This chapter is only seen
as a new chapter in our Bibles. In the record it was simply a continuation of the
narrative). God has not been mentioned in Genesis 10 except as a superlative (Genesis
11:9). The nations have grown without God. Now we are to see that the situation in
Genesis 10 was caused by Yahweh as a result of man’s sinfulness and rebellion.
Genesis 11:1
‘Now the whole earth was of one language and one speech.’
It is noteworthy in Genesis 10 that, although there was no suggestion of splitting nations
according to language, reference to differing languages is made in Genesis 10:5, Genesis
10:20, and Genesis 10:31. That was in preparation for this chapter, as was the diversity
of nations. Clearly to begin with, all the sons of Noah spoke the same language. The
writer is asking, what then was the cause of the later distinctions?
WHEDON, "Verse 1
1. Whole earth… one language… one speech — Hebrew, as margin, one lip and one
words. The whole population of the earth was one lip, and one kind of words. They were
one in the manner (lip) and the matter (words) of language, that is, they had the same
words for things, and the same modes of expression. There is no tautology, as in the
common translation, but there are here two distinct ideas, 1) the same stock of words,
and 2) the same inflexions and pronunciation. The Noachian language was probably the
immediate parent of the Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac. This primitive language has long
ago vanished, but its ruins or debris are scattered everywhere, and can, with more or less
certainty, be traced toward a parent formation. There are known at present, according to
Kaulen, 860 languages, divided into three great families: 1) isolating, 2) agglutinative,
and 3) inflective, each of the last two being regarded as derived from the next preceding;
and the science of philology, by studying their manifold analogies and differences, is
steadily reducing them to species and genera, all leading up to ultimate unity. The lines
of variation all converge toward a distant centre, which, though it may never be
scientifically reached, yet is seen by scientific faith. While languages are structurally
divided, as above, they are also genealogically divided into Shemitic, Hamitic, and
Aryan. This last is a provisional division, having a great number as yet unclassified. We
give on pp. 156, 157, Schleicher’s genealogical tree of the Shemitic and Aryan families,
the dotted lines representing the dead languages. Of course this represents the present
phase of philological knowledge and opinion, and is subject to revision by the advance of
science. The Hamitic family has not yet been satisfactorily analysed.

It may be mentioned that the Egyptian is considered by Max Muller as an offshoot of the
original Asiatic tongue, before it was broken up into Turanian, Semitic, and Aryan.
One or two illustrations of the unity in this vast variety may suffice. The consonant t,
interchanged with its cognates d and th, is the essential element of the second personal
pronoun (English thou) in the principal languages of the Shemitic and Aryan families,
both as a separate pronoun and as a personal termination. The Hebrew for thou is attah
(masc.) and at, (fem.,) thou killest is Katalta (masc.) and Katalt, (fem.) This consonant
conveys the idea of the second person through all the conjugations, or species. The same
law is seen in Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Coptic of the Shemitic family. Look now into
the Aryan or Indo-European family, and we find in Sanscrit, tua; in Beng., tui; Russ., tu;
Greek, συ; Latin and its descendants, tu; German, Dutch, and Danish, du; Gothic and
Saxon, thu; English, thou. As a personal ending it is replaced by or used in connexion
with its cognate s; thus, for thou art, we have Sanscrit, asi; Russ., gesi; Greek, εις; Latin,
es; German, bist, etc. All languages, as far as analyzed, may, according to Max Muller, be
reduced to four or five hundred roots, or phonetic types, which form their constituent
elements. These sounds are not interjections, nor imitations, but are produced by a
power inherent in human nature when the appropriate occasions arise. Man instinctively
uses these sounds to express certain conceptions, and they become modified by
composition, inflexion, etc., so as to finally produce the infinite varieties of language.
Thus the two consonants B (with its cognates P and F) and R, taken together, are
instinctively used to express the idea of bearing, or sustaining; take as examples, ‫,פרה‬
φερω, fero, bhri, bairan, baren, βαρος, bairn, bear, burden, pario, fructus, fruit, etc.
THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES, Genesis 11:1-9.
The narrative here again doubles back upon itself to give the cause of the national
divisions described in chap. 10. It reverts to an event which took place in the days of
Peleg, (Genesis 10:25,) the fourth in descent from Shem. As the unity of the human
race, in the strictest sense of the word, is declared by the account of the deluge, which
reduced all mankind to a single family from which the whole world was repeopled, so in
this chapter the unity of language is declared, and the primal cause of all the lingual
diversities is set forth. The diversity of languages is a divine judgment upon human
selfishness and pride, leading to manifold national misunderstandings and bloody
conflicts, thus sorely hindering intellectual and moral progress, yet also serving as a
providential hinderance to sin. Pride had already broken the bond of brotherly unity, and
hence the human family, feeling the lack of that inward attraction, sought an outward
unity. Thus ever in history is man drawn to his brother by his instincts, yet perpetually
repelled from him by selfishness. Hence the vast monarchies which in all ages have
striven to consolidate the race, yet have ever been distinguished by luxury, or have
exploded in revolution. Hence the hierarchies, which, through bloody centuries, have
blindly striven to make good the lack of love’s fusing flame by chaining men in the unity
of ecclesiastical despotism. As sin vanishes, and the brotherhood of charity is restored,
these differences of language will vanish also, for in the Messianic reign all “people,
nations, and languages shall serve Him,” (Daniel 7:14,) an epoch foreshadowed by the
Pentecostal miracle, which made every man to hear the truth in his own language.
LANGE, "FOURTH SECTION

The Tower of Babel, the Confusion of Languages, and the Dispersion of the Nations
Genesis 11:1-9
1And the whole earth was of one language [lip], and of one speech.[FN1] 2And it came to
pass, as they journeyed[FN2] from the east[FN3], that they found a plain in the land of
Shinar, and they dwelt there 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick,
and burn them thoroughly [literally, to a burning]. And they had brick for stone, and
slime had they for mortar [cement]. 4And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a
tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name [a signal, sign of
renown], lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth 5 And the Lord
came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men had builded 6 And
the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have one language; and this they begin
to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do 7
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language [on the very spot], that they
may not understand one another’s speech 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from
thence upon the face of all the earth; and they left off to build the city 9 Therefore is the
name of it called Babel[FN4] [for ‫ֶל‬‫ב‬ְ‫ל‬ַ‫ּב‬, division of speech, confusion; other
explanations: ‫ֵל‬‫ּב‬ ‫ָב‬‫ּב‬, gate of Belus, ‫ֵל‬‫ּב‬‫ַר־‬‫ּב‬, castle of Belus], because the Lord did there
confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them
abroad upon the face of all the earth.
GENERAL PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION
1. The literature: Bibelwerk, Matthew, p19. The present work, p119, where the title of
Niebuhr’s work should be more correctly given: “History of Assur and Babel.” Berlin,
1858. Kurtz: “History of the Old Testament.” Haug, on the “Writing and Language of the
Second Kind of Cuneiform Inscriptions.” Gottingen, 1855. J. Brandis, on the “Historical
Results from the Deciphering of the Assyrian Inscriptions.” Berlin, 1856. Fabri: “The
Origin of Heathendom and the Problem of its Mission.” Barmen, 1859. The latest:
Kaulen: “The Confusion of Languages at Babel.” Mainz, 1861. Explorers of the ruins of
Babylon, especially Rich, Ker-Porter, Layard, Rawlinson, Oppert.
2. The history of the building the tower at Babel forms the limit to the history of the
primitive time. It may be regarded as the genesis of the history of the human striving
after a false outward unity, of the doom of confusion that God therefore imposed upon it,
of the dispersion of the nations into all the world, and of the formation of heathendom as
directly connected therewith. In the proper treatment of this there comes into
consideration: 1. the relation of the historical fact-consistency of the representation to its
universal symbolical significance for the history of the world, and to its special
symbolical significance for the kingdom of God; 2. the relation of the fact itself to the
common historical knowledge, as well as to the history of the kingdom of God; 3. the
relation of the confounding, therein represented, to the original unity of the human race
in its language, as well as to the multiplicity that originally lay in human speech; 4. the
historical and archæological testimonies; 5. the reflection of the historical fact in the
mythical stories.

3. Kurtz correctly maintains (History of the Old Testament, p95) against H. A. Hahn, that
this place forms the boundary between the history of the primitive time and the history of
the Old Testament. Evidently is the history of primeval religion distinguished from the
general history of the Old Testament by definite monuments, namely, by the
characteristic feature of the faith in promise, as presented in the genealogies, through
which faith Abraham, as the type of the patriarchal religion, stands in contrast with
Melchidezek, the type of the primitive religion,—even as the morning twilight of the new
time stands in contrast with the evening twilight of the old. And Song of Solomon, too,
according to Galatians 3and Romans 4, it is not Moses who is the beginning of the
covenant religion, but Abraham. Moreover, in the history of the tower-building there is
brought out not only the ground form for the historical configuration the world is to
assume, but also the contrast between heathenism and the beginnings of the theocracy.
For the sake of this contrast, according to our view, the section may still be regarded as
belonging to the first period from the beginnings of the Shemitic patriarchalism; although
when regarded in itself alone, and under the historical form of view of the Old
Testament, it appears as an introduction to the history of Abraham.
4. The genesis of the human striving after a false outward unity, or uniformity and
conformity. As in the history of Cain, the first beginnings of culture in the building of
cities, in the discoveries and inventions of the means of living, of art, and of weapons of
defence, were buried in their own corruption (since the germs of culture, however lawful
in themselves, are overwhelmed in their ungodly worthlessness), and as in the history of
Nimrod the post-diluvian beginnings of civilization, and of outward political institutions,
were darkened by the indications of despotic violence, so also, in the history of the
tower-building, must we distinguish the natural striving of the human race after an
essential unity, from their aberration in a bold and violent effort to obtain an outward
consistency, an outward uniformity (or conformity rather) to be established at the cost of
the inward unity. Delitzsch says correctly (p310): “the unity which had hitherto bound
together the human family was the community of one God, and of one divine worship.
This unity did not satisfy them; inwardly they had already lost it; and therefore it was that
they strove for another. There Isaiah, therefore, an ungodly unity, which they sought to
reach through such self-invented, sensual, outward means, whilst the very thing they
feared they predicted as their punishment. In its essence, therefore, it was a Titanic
heaven-defying undertaking.”[FN5] The inward unity of faith ought to have been the
centre of gravity, the rule and the measure of their outward unity. The historical form of
their true unity was the religion of Shem; its concrete middle point was Shem himself. It
sounds, therefore, like a derisive allusion to the despised blessing of Shem, when they
say: Go to, let us build a tower for us, and make unto ourselves a name (a Shem).
When, therefore, the tower-building, the false outward idea of unity is frustrated, then it
is that Abraham must appear upon the stage as the effective middle point of humanity,
and the preparer of the way for the unity that was to come. Abraham forms the
theocratic contrast to the heathen tower-building. Since that time, however, the striving
of human nature has ever taken the other direction, namely, to establish by force the
outward unity of humanity at the expense of the inward, and in contradiction to it; this
has appeared as well in the history of the world monarchies as in that of the hierarchies.
The history of Babel had its presignal in the city of Cain, its symbol in the building of the
tower, its beginning in the Babylonian world-monarchy; but its end, according to
Revelation 16:17, falls in the “last time.” The contrast to this history of an outward force-
unity is formed by Shem, Abraham, Zion, Christ, the Church of believers, the bride of

Christ, according to Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:9.
5. The genesis of the confounding to which it was doomed by God. The germinal
multiplicity, as contained in the unity of the human race, is to be regarded as the natural
basis of the event. We cannot, as has been attempted by Origen and others, derive an
organic division of the nations in their manifold contrasts (and just as little the varied
multiplicity of life in the world) from the fall merely, or from human corruption. To this
effect it is well observed by Delitzsch, that “even without that divine and miraculous
interposition, the one original language, by virtue of the abundance of gifts and powers
that belong to humanity, would have run through an advancing process of enrichment,
spiritualization, and diversity.” This germinal multiplicity forms, therefore, the other side,
or the higher, spiritual side, in the confusion of languages; but this, too, we must
distinguish in its genesis and in its world-historical consequences. Since the Babylonian
tower-building denotes the genesis of the national separations as the genesis of
heathendom (but not the monstrous development of heathendom which goes on
through the ages), Song of Solomon, in like manner, does it denote the genesis of the
speech-confounding, but not its great development in the course of time. This Genesis,
however, is to be considered in reference to the following points: 1. With the violent
striving after an outward unity there is connected the crushing of the diversity2. This
violent suppression calls out, by way of reaction, the effort and intensity of the
diversifying tendency, or the conflict of spirits3. With this conflict of spirits there develops
itself, also, the contrast of varying views and modes of expression4. The disordered and
broken unity becomes dissolved into partial unities, which form themselves around the
middle points of tribal affinity, and so form their watchwords. Thus far goes on the
process of dissolution, in the sin and guilt of the strife after an outward unity. But here
comes in the divine judgment in its miraculous imposition: the spirits, the modes of
conception, the modes of expression, the tongues themselves, are all so confounded,
that there becomes a perfect breach of unity, and more than this, a hostile springing
apart of unfettered elements that had been bound up in a forced unity. So did the divine
doom establish a genesis in the confusion of languages—a genesis which afterwards, in
the course of time, came to its full development.
6. The genesis of the dispersion of the peoples in all the world, and of the formation of
heathendom that from thence began. In opposition to the centripetal force of humanity,
impaired by its own supertension and the outward alienating tendency, comes now the
reaction of the morbid centrifugal power set free by the sentence of God. So commence
the national emigrations of antiquity, setting away from the centre of community, forming
in this a contrast to the migrations of the Christian time, which maintain their connection
with the centre of humanity, the host of the Christian church. In greater and smaller
waves of migration do the nations scatter abroad, and grow widely diverse in their
separate lands, and in the midst of the views which they awaken; and this to such a
degree that everywhere they lose themselves in a peculiarly paganistic autochthonic
consciousness, or, as it may be generally styled, a servile life of nature. The line of
Shem is least affected by the drawing of this centrifugal power. It extends itself slowly
from Babylon, in a small degree to the east, and in great part to the southwest. The
main stream of the Hamites takes a southwestern direction towards Canaan and Africa;
another stream appears to have turned itself eastwardly over Persia and towards India.
The great stream of the Japhethites goes first northward, in order to divide itself into a
western and an eastern current; a part, however, in all probability, taking a still more
northern direction, until, through upper Asia, it reaches the New World. The most

evident division of the Shemites is into three parts, which still reflect themselves in the
three main Shemitic languages. The fundamental separation has gone on into wider
separations; for example, into the division of the Indian and the Persian Arians. These
divisions are, again, in a great degree, effaced by combinations which proceeded from
the contrast between earlier and later migrations in the same direction. Song of
Solomon, for example, in eastern Asia, the Japhethites appear to have supervened
upon the Hamites, in Asia Minor and Persia upon the Shemites; and Song of Solomon,
in many ways, have the earlier Japhethite features been overlaid and set aside by the
later. In Canaan, on the other hand, the Hamites appear to have supervened upon the
original Shemitic inhabitants; and then, again, at a later date, the Israelites supervened
upon the Hamitic Canaanites.
The most direct consequence of this dispersion of the nations was the formation of
races, in which different factors coöperated: 1. The family type; 2. the spiritual direction;
3. the climate in its strong effect upon the physical ground-forms which were yet in their
state of childlike flexibility. A further consequence was the formation of ethnographical
contrasts in civilization. In reference to this there must be distinguished:
1) The contrast between the savage nations who had become utterly unhistorical, or
perfectly separated from the central humanity, and the historical nations.
2) The contrast of barbarian nations who for a long time preserved a state of negative
indifference as compared with the nations that were within the community of culture.
3) The contrast presented by the nations and tribes of isolated culture, as compared
with the centralized culture, or that of the world monarchies as it appeared in its latest
form, the Græco-Roman-humanitarian sphere of culture.
4) The contrast presented by the nations of this centralized culture, or as it finally
appeared in the Græco-Roman-humanitarian culture, as compared with the central
theocratic people of cultus or religion.
The last contrasts reveal, as the second consequence, a double counterworking against
the paganistic isolization; the first is a tendency to the outer unity (world-monarchy), the
other a tendency to the inner unity (theocracy). A third consequence was the war
between them.
7. The relation of the historical fact-consistency of the Biblical representation to its
symbolical significance for the universal history of the world. It is difficult to determine
the chronological order of the tower-building in the Biblical history; it is still more difficult
to fix its place in the universal secular history. It Isaiah, however, more easy to do this
when we assume that the history of the tower-building was that of a gradually elapsing
event, which is here all comprehended in its germinal transition-point (as the
commencing turning-point), conformably to the representation of the religious historico-
symbolical historiography. Following the indications of the Bible itself, we must

distinguish two periods: first, the founding of Babel, in consequence of an ungodly
centralization fancy of the first human race, and the catastrophe of the commencing
dissolution that thereby came in; secondly, the despotic founding of the kingdom of
Babel by Nimrod, as connected with it. Add to this a third, which is in like manner
attested by the Bible, namely, the further development of Babel as it continued on in
spite of the dispersion, and to whose greatness the stories of Ninus and Semiramis, as
well as the world-historical ruins of Babylon bear testimony. It is in perfect accordance
with the theocratic historiography, that events which occupy periods are comprehended
in the germinal points of their peculiar epochs. As this is the case with the tower-
building, so does it also hold true of the confusion of languages, and the dispersion of
the nations. In regard now to this germinal point especially, it has been wrongly placed
in the days of Peleg, in supposed accordance with what was said, Genesis 10:25,
concerning the meaning of the name Peleg. Keil computes that Peleg was born one
hundred years after the flood, and draws from thence the wider conclusion, that “in the
course of one hundred and fifty to one hundred and eighty years, and in the rapid
succession of births, the descendants of the three sons of Noah, who were already
married and a hundred years old at the time of the flood, must have already so greatly
multiplied as to render credible their proceeding to build such a tower” (p120). In respect
to the third designated period of the tower-building, Delitzsch thus remarks in relation to
the Biblical interpretation of the name Babel (for Balbel, a pilpel form in which the first
Lamed has fallen out): “The name Babel denotes the world city where men became
dispersed into nations, as the name Jerusalem denotes the city of God, where they are
again brought together as one family. As the name Jerusalem obtains this sense in the
light of prophecy, so is the name given to Babel, no matter whether with or without the
design of the first namer, a significant hiero-glyph of that judgment of God which was
interwoven in the very origin of this world-city, and of that tendency to an ungodly unity
which it has ever manifested. That the name, in the sense of the world-city itself, may
denote something else, is not opposed to this. The Etymologicum Magnum derives it
ἀπὸ τοῦ βήλου, and Song of Solomon, according to Masudi, do the learned Persians
and Nabatæans. It has, accordingly, been explained as the gate or the house, or,
according to Knobel, the castle of Belus (ָ‫ּב‬ equal to ‫ָב‬‫ּב‬ or ‫ֵית‬‫ּב‬, or ‫ּבר‬ for ‫ת‬ ַ‫ִיר‬‫ּב‬). Schelling’s
remark that bab in the sense of gate is peculiar to the Arabian dialect, is without ground;
it is just as much Aramaic as Arabic. The verb ‫ָב‬‫ּב‬, intrare, like ‫ָם‬‫ּב‬ ascendere, is a very
old derivative from ‫,ּבא‬ inire. But Rawlinson and Oppert have shown, on the authority of
the inscriptions, that the name of the god is not ‫ֵל‬‫ּב‬, but ‫ל‬ֵ‫א‬ (the Babylonian Phœnician
Kronos), and ‫ֶל‬‫ב‬ָ‫ּב‬, therefore, denotes the gate of El.” If the development of heathenism,
in a religious sense, and, therefore, the development of idolatry, is regarded as a
gradual process, the heathenish tendency at the time of Nimrod could not have been far
advanced. Its more distant beginning is probably to be placed in the very time of the
catastrophe; for the confusion of fundamental religious views may, in general, furnish of
itself an essential factor in the confusion of languages.
On the situation of the land of Shinar and Babylon this side of the Euphrates, compare
the Manuals for the old geography by Forbiger and others. Concerning the ruins of the
old Babel, and Babel itself, compare Winer’s “Real Lexicon,” the “Dictionary for Christian
People,” and Herzog’s “Real Encyclopedia,” under the article “Babel.” In like manner
Delitzsch, p212; Knobel, p127, and the catalogue of literature there given.
8. The special symbolic significance of Babel for the kingdom of God. Here there are to
be distinguished the following stages: 1. The significance of the tower-building; 2. the

Babel of Nimrod, or the despotic form of empire, and its tendency to conquest; 3. the
significance of the world-monarchy of Nebuchadnezzar; 4. the Old Testament symbolic
interpretation of Babel ( Psalm 137; Isaiah 14; Jeremiah 50; Daniel 2:37; Daniel 7:4;
Habakuk); 5. The New-Testament apocalyptic Babylon ( Revelation 14, 16, 17).
Throughout Holy Scripture, Babel forms a world-historical antithesis to Zion.
9. The relation of the confounding, as presented, to the original unity of the human race,
as also to the original multiplicity as lying at the foundation of human speech. The two
poles by which the catastrophe of the speech-confounding are limited, are the following:
In the first place, even after the confusion of languages, there exists a fundamental
unity; there is the logical unity of the ground-forms of language (verb, substantive, etc.),
the rhetorical unity of figurative modes of expression, the lexical unity of kindred
fundamental sounds, the grammatical unity of kindred linguistic families, such as the
Shemitic, the Indo-Germanic, and the historical unity in the blending of different idioms;
as, for example, in the κοινή, or common dialect, there are blended the most diverse
dialects of the Greek; so in the New-Testament Greek, to a certain extent, the Hebrew
and old Greek; in the Roman languages, Latin, German, and Celtic dialects; Song of
Solomon, also, in the English; in the Lutheran High German, too, there are different
dialects of Germany. Science takes for its reconciling medium an ideal unity from the
beginning of the separations; faith supposes a real unity, and Song of Solomon, finally,
Christendom and the Bible. In the second place, however, it must be acknowledged that
in the original manifoldness of human power and views there was already indicated a
manifoldness of different modes of expression. “Indeed,” says Delitzsch, “even if this
wonderful divine interposition had not taken place, the one primitive speech would not
have remained in stagnant immobility. By reason of the richness of the gifts that are
stored in humanity, it would have run through a process of progressive self-enrichment,
spiritualization, development, and manifold diversity; but now, when the linguistic unity of
humanity was lost, together with its unity in God, and with it, also, the unity of an all-
defining consciousness, there came, in the place of this multiplicity in unity, a breaking
up, a cleaving asunder, where all connection seems lost, but which, nevertheless,
through a thousand indices, points back to the fact of an original oneness. For, as
Schelling says, confusion of language only originates wherever discordant elements
which cannot attain to unity can just as little come from one another. In every developing
speech the original unity works on, even as the affinity partially shows; a taking away of
all unity would be the taking away of language itself; and, thereby, of everything
human,—a limit to which, according to Schelling’s judgment, the South American
Indians are approaching, as tribes that can never become nations, and which are yet a
living witness of a complete and inevitable disorganization” (Delitzsch, p114, 115). In
accordance with the religious character of Holy Scripture, we must, before all things,
regard the confusion of languages as a confusion of the religious understanding.
Languages expressive mainly of the subjective, languages of the objective, those of an
ingenuous directness, and those of acute or ingenious accommodation, must very soon
present great contrasts.
In regard to the original language, which preceded the confusion, and formed its ground,
the learned men of the Jewish Synagogue, and after them, the church fathers, as well
as many orthodox theologians (among the modems with some limitation, Pareau,
Havernik, Von Gerlach, Baumgarten), have expressed the opinion that the Hebrew was
the language of the primitive time and of Paradise, and that it was propagated after the
flood by the race of Eber. On the contrary, however, it is observed that Abraham himself

did not originally speak Hebrew, but Aramaic.[FN6] “On this account,” says Delitzsch,
“we must regard as better grounded the position of the Syriac, Aramaic, and Persian
writers, that the Syriac, or the Nabatæan, was the primitive speech, and that in the
confusion of tongues it was still retained as the language of Babylon. But, moreover, the
Shemitic in its general acceptation,” he continues, “cannot lay claim to that perfection
which must have belonged to the primitive speech. We find nothing to urge against the
supposition that the original language, as such, may have become lost in those that are
historically known” (Delitzsch, p316; Keil, p119). Nevertheless, we do not believe that
this supposition receives any strength from what is a mere prejudice, namely, that in
respect to its structure the paradise language must have been a very perfect one. The
speech of holy innocence has no need to prove its claims through forms developed with
great exactness. As the Shemitic verbal forms lie in the middle between the
monosyllabic character of the Chinese and the polysyllabic character of the Indo-
Germanic; as they carry with themselves, also, in a high degree, that impression of
immediateness, of the onomatopic, of the sensible presentation of the spiritual, of the
spiritualizing of the sensible, Song of Solomon, without doubt, do they lie specially near
to the ground-form of different national tongues. In respect to the relation of the different
languages, there may be compared the following writings as specially belonging to the
subject, namely: Delitzsch: “Jeschurun;” Fürst: “Concordance;” “Treatises of Kunic,”
Ernest Renan; see Delitzsch, p632. Besides these, Kaulen, p70 (The Hebrew in its
peculiar character stands nearest to the conception of the primitive speech).
Zahn, in his treatise (“The Kingdom of God,” p90), presents a clear idea of the similarity
of different languages. “The great ‘Language Atlas’ of Balbi is designed on the most
carefully considered principles (Paris, 1826). After a keenly investigated division of
language and dialect, he designates eight hundred and sixty languages as spoken on
the earth, namely, fifty-three in Europe, one hundred and fifty-three in Asia, one hundred
and fifteen in Africa, four hundred and twenty-two in America, one hundred and
seventeen in the fifth portion of the world; and yet at this day must the whole sum be
taken at a greater number, especially in consequence of researches in Africa.” Kaulen.
Linguistic investigations that belong here are connected with the names of Herder,
Adelung, Vater, Klaproth, Balbi, Remüsat, W. Von Humboldt, Schleicher, Heyse, Bopp,
Steinthall, Pott, Schott, Ewald, Fürst, Bunsen, Max Müller, Jones, Oppert, Haug, and
others. In favor of the original unity of languages, as against Pott and others who call it
in question, see Kaulen, p26; “Treatises on the Origin of Languages,” by the same
author, p106.
10. The historical and archœological testimonies for the fact of the confusion of
languages. Bunsen: “Comparative Philology would have been compelled to set forth as
a postulate the supposition of some such division of languages in Asia, especially on the
ground of the relation of the Egyptian language to the Shemitic, even if the Bible had not
assured us of the truth of this great historical event. It is truly wonderful, it is matter of
astonishment, [it is more than a mere astounding fact,] that something so purely
historical [and yet divinely fixed], something so conformable to reason, [and yet not to be
conceived of as a mere natural development], is here related to us out of the oldest
primeval period, and which now, for the first time, through the new science of philology,
has become capable of being historically and philosophically explained.” Between this
history and the previous chapter must lie the primitive history of the eastern Asiatics,
namely, the time of the formation of the Chinese language, that primitive speech that
has no formative words, that Isaiah, no inflecting forms. The Chinese can hardly take

rank as a radical language, but only as a very ancient and strikingly one-sided
ramification. To the linguistic testimonies there may be added the fact that Babylon
became the oldest world-monarchy; there is also its very ancient fame, and the fact that
the influence which went out from Babylon has in the most varied forms pervaded the
whole history of the world, to say nothing of its giant ruins and the desolation which has
so long rested as a judgment upon them.”
11. The mirroring of the confusion of languages as found in the mythical stories. See
Delitzsch, p313; Lücken, p278; Eusebius, Prœparatio, ix14. Abydenus: “Some say that
the men who first came forth from the earth, being confident in their greatness and
strength, and despising the gods in their fancied, estimation of their own powers,
undertook to build a high tower in the place where Babylon now is. They would already
have made a near approach to the Heavens, had not the winds come to the help of the
gods and overturned their tower. Its ruins have received the name of Babylon. Men had
hitherto spoken but one language, but now, in the purpose of the gods, their speech
became diverse; to this belongs the war that broke out between Kronos and Titan.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. Genesis 11:1-2. The settling in the land of Shinar.—The whole earth, that Isaiah, the
whole human race.—One language and one speech (Lange more literally, one lip and
one kind of words). The form and the material of language were the same for all.—From
the East (Lange renders, towards the East. Our margin, Eastward).—From the land of
Ararat, southeast (‫מקדם‬ as one word: the land of, or from the East).—A plane.—For
them, as they came from the highlands, the plane was the low country, a valley plane
(‫—.)בקעה‬Shinar, the same as Babylonia, though extending farther northward.—And they
dwelt there.—The preference for the hill country does not appear to have belonged to
the young humanity. Under the most obvious points of view, convenience, fertility, and
easier capability of cultivation, seem to have given to these children of nature a
preference for the plain. Even at this day do the uncultivated inhabitants of the hills
sometimes manifest the same choice. In this respect Babylon had for them the charm of
extraordinary fruitfulness. Zahn (“Kingdom of God,” p86) gives extracts from
Hippocrates and Herodotus in proof of the singular productiveness of this land of the
palm, where the grain yields from two hundred to three hundred fold. Thence came
luxury, which was followed by the cultivation of the paradisaical gardens (Gardens of
Semiramis) and a life of sensuality, together with a sensual religious worship.
NISBET, "‘OF ONE LANGUAGE’
‘And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.’
Genesis 11:1
The New Testament is always converting into blessings the curses of the Old Testament.
The burdens and severities of the Law are not only the types but the very substances of
Gospel liberty and truth; the confusion of Babel leads to a greater harmony, and its
dispersion ends in a more perfect union.

I. After the Flood the whole earth was of one language and one speech. Now not even one
country has one language within itself. No two persons that ever meet have it. The words
may have the same spelling, but they do not carry to the hearer exactly the same sense in
which they were spoken. There is not on this earth, in any fraction of it, one language
and one speech; hence a great part of our sin and misery.
II. Even if there were a language perfectly the same, yet, until there was a setting to
rights of disorders which have come into human thought, and until minds were
themselves set in one accord, there could not he unity.
III. The men of the old world determined to do two things which real unity never does.
They resolved to make a great monument to their own glory, and they thought to
frustrate a law of God and to break a positive rule of our being. Their unity was a false
unity. They sought their own praise, and it ran contrary to the mind of God. Their
profane unity was dashed into hundreds of divergent atoms, and was carried by the four
winds to the four corners of the earth.
IV. What were the consequences of this scattering of the race? (1) It carried the
knowledge of the true God and of the one faith into all the lands whither they went; (2)
God replenished the whole surface of the globe by spreading men over it; (3) it was a
plea for prayer, an argument for hope, a pledge of promise.
V. From that moment God has steadily carried on His design of restoring unity to the
earth. His choosing of Abraham, His sending of Christ, the coming of the Holy Ghost at
Pentecost, were all means to this very end.
—Rev. Jas. Vaughan.
Illustration
(1) ‘One of the chief external hindrances to the spread of the Gospel is the confusion of
tongues, such as we read of at the building of the tower of Babel. A strange language
which the missionary meets when he crosses a sea or a mountain range, is like a wall that
stops his progress, saying, “Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further.” The men of
Galilee, at Pentecost, surmounting that difficulty by a miracle of Divine power, might
have sung with David, “By my God assisting me I overleap a wall.” Should we not break
forth on every side and burst through or overleap the barrier of strange tongues and all
other barriers that stand in the way, and never rest until the kingdoms of the world are
become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ?’
(2) ‘A Hindoo and New Zealander met upon the deck of a missionary ship. They had
been converted from their heathenism and were brothers in Christ; but they could not
speak to each other. They pointed to their Bibles, shook hands, and smiled in one
another’s faces; but that was all. At last a happy thought occurred to the Hindoo. With
sudden joy he exclaimed “Hallelujah.” The New Zealander in delight cried out “Amen.”

These two words, not found in their own heathen tongues, were to them the beginning of
“one language and one speech.”’
2 As people moved eastward,[a] they found a
plain in Shinar[b] and settled there.
BAR ES, "Gen_11:2-4
The occasion of the linguage change about to be described is here narrated. “As they
journeyed eastward.” The word “they” refers to the whole land of the previous verse,
which is put by a common figure for the whole race of man. “Eastward” is proved to be
the meaning of the phrase ‫מקדם‬ mıqedem by Gen_13:11, where Lot is said to journey
(‫מקדם‬ mıqedem) from Bethel to the plain of the Jordan, which is to the east. The human
race, consisting it might be of five hundred families, journeys eastward, with a few
points of deflection to the south, along the Euphrates valley, and comes to a plain of
surpassing fertility in the land of Shinar (Herod. 1:178, 193). A determination to make a
permanent abode in this productive spot is immediately formed.
CLARKE, "As they journeyed from the east - Assyria, Mesopotamia, and the
country on the borders and beyond the Euphrates, are called the east in the sacred
writings. Balaam said that the king of Moab had brought him from the mountains of the
east, Num_23:7.
Now it appears, from Num_22:5, that Balaam dwelt at Pethor, on the river Euphrates.
And it is very probable that it was from this country that the wise men came to adore
Christ; for it is said they came from the east to Jerusalem, Mat_2:1. Abraham is said to
have come from the east to Canaan, Isa_41:2; but it is well known that he came from
Mesopotamia and Chaldea. Isa_46:11, represents Cyrus as coming from the east against
Babylon. And the same prophet represents the Syrians as dwelling eastward of
Jerusalem, Isa_9:12 : The Syrians before, ‫מקדם‬ mikkedem, from the east, the same word
which Moses uses here. Dan_11:44, represents Antiochus as troubled at news received
from the east; i.e. of a revolt in the eastern provinces, beyond the Euphrates.
Noah and his family, landing after the flood on one of the mountains of Armenia,
would doubtless descend and cultivate the valleys: as they increased, they appear to have
passed along the banks of the Euphrates, till, at the time specified here, they came to the
plains of Shinar, allowed to be the most fertile country in the east. See Calmet. That
Babel was built in the land of Shinar we have the authority of the sacred text to prove;
and that Babylon was built in the same country we have the testimony of Eusebius,

Praep. Evang., lib. ix., c. 15; and Josephus, Antiq., lib. i., c. 5.
GILL, "And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east,.... That is, the
inhabitants of the whole earth; not Ham and his posterity only, or Nimrod and his
company; but as all the sons of Noah and his posterity for a while dwelt together, or at
least very near each other, and finding the place where they were too scanty for them, as
their several families increased, they set out in a body from the place where they were, to
seek for a more convenient one: it seems a little difficult how to interpret this phrase,
"from the east", since if they came from Ararat in Armenia, where the ark rested, as that
lay north of Shinar or Babylon, they might rather be said to come from the north than
from the east, and rather came to it than from it: so some think the phrase should be
rendered, "to the east" (b), or eastward, as in Gen_13:11. Jarchi thinks this refers to
Gen_10:30 "and their dwelling was", &c. at "the mountain of the east"; from whence he
supposes they journeyed, to find out a place that would hold them all, but could find
none but Shinar; but then this restrains it to Joktan's sons, and besides, their dwelling
there was not until after the confusion and dispersion. But it is very probable the case
was this, that when Noah and his sons came out of the ark, in a little time they betook
themselves to their former habitation, from whence they had entered into the ark,
namely, to the east of the garden of Eden, where was the appearance of the divine
Presence, or Shechinah; and from hence it was that these now journeyed: and so it was
as they were passing on:
that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; which the Targum of Jonathan
paraphrases the land of Babylon; and Hestiaeus (c), a Phoenician historian, calls it
Sennaar of Babylon; there are plain traces of this name in the Singara of Ptolemy (d) and
Pliny (e), the Hebrew letter ‫ע‬ being sometimes pronounced as "G", as in Gaza and
Gomorrah; the first of these place a city of this name in Mesopotamia, near the Tigris,
and that of the other is reckoned a capital of the Rhetavi, a tribe of the Arabs, near
Mesopotamia. This plain was very large, fruitful, and delightful, and therefore judged a
fit place for a settlement, where they might have room enough, and which promised
them a sufficient sustenance:
and they dwelt there; and provided for their continuance, quickly beginning to build
a city and tower, afterwards called Babylon: and that Babylon was built in a large plain is
not only here asserted, but is confirmed by Herodotus (f), who says of it, that it lay εν
πεδιω µεγαλω, in a vast plain, and so Strabo (g); which was no other than the plain of
Shinar.
JAMISO , "land of Shinar — The fertile valley watered by the Euphrates and
Tigris was chosen as the center of their union and the seat of their power.
CALVI , "2.They found a plain in the land of Shinar. It may be conjectured from
these words, that Moses speaks of imrod and of the people whom he had collected
around him. If, however, we grant that imrod was the chief leader in the
construction of so great a pile, for the purpose of erecting a formidable monument
of his tyranny: yet Moses expressly relates, that the work was undertaken not by the

counsel or the will of one man only, but that all conspired together, so that the
blame cannot be cast exclusively upon one, nor even upon a few.
PULPIT, "Genesis 11:2
And it came to pass, as they journeyed. Literally, in their journeyings. The root ( ‫ַע‬‫ק‬ָ‫ג‬
, to pull up, as, e.g; the stakes of a tent when a camp moves, Isaiah 33:20 ) suggests
the idea of the migration of nomadic hordes (cf. Genesis 12:9; Genesis 33:17). From
the east. Ab oriente (Ancient Versions, Calvin, et alii), meaning either that they
started from Armenia, which was in the east respectu terrae Canaan (Luther), or
from that portion of the Assyrian empire which was east of the Tigris, and called
Orientalis, as distinguished from the Occidentalis on the west (Bochart); or that
they first traveled westwards, following the direction of the Euphrates in one of its
upper branches (Bush); or that, having roamed to the east of Shinar, they ultimately
returned occidentem versus (Junius). The phrase, however, is admitted to be more
correctly rendered ad orientem (Drusius, Lange, Keil, Murphy), as in Genesis 13:11.
Kalisch interprets generally in oriente, agreeing with Luther that the migrations are
viewed by the writer as taking place in the east; while T. Lewis prefers to read from
one front part (the original meaning of kedem) to another—onwards. That they
found a plain ‫ָה‬‫ע‬ְ‫ק‬ִ‫בּ‬ ; not a valley between mountain ranges, as in Deuteronomy 8:7;
Deuteronomy 11:11; Psalms 104:8, but a widely-extended plain ( ‫ןם‬ ‫נוהיל‬‫ןם‬ ‫נוהיל‬‫ןם‬ ‫נוהיל‬‫ןם‬ ‫,נוהיל‬ LXX.), like, LXX.), like, LXX.), like, LXX.), like
that in which Babylon was situated (Herod; lib.that in which Babylon was situated (Herod; lib.that in which Babylon was situated (Herod; lib.that in which Babylon was situated (Herod; lib. 1:1781:1781:1781:178,,,, ʸ‫ש‬‫כ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫לודב‬ ʸ‫ש‬‫נוהי‬ ‫ם‬ ʆ‫ו‬ ‫ופבי‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ךו‬ʸ‫ש‬‫כ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫לודב‬ ʸ‫ש‬‫נוהי‬ ‫ם‬ ʆ‫ו‬ ‫ופבי‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ךו‬ʸ‫ש‬‫כ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫לודב‬ ʸ‫ש‬‫נוהי‬ ‫ם‬ ʆ‫ו‬ ‫ופבי‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ךו‬ʸ‫ש‬‫כ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫לודב‬ ʸ‫ש‬‫נוהי‬ ‫ם‬ ʆ‫ו‬ ‫ופבי‬ ‫ל‬ ‫;ךו‬ cf.; cf.; cf.; cf.
Strabo, lib.Strabo, lib.Strabo, lib.Strabo, lib. 2.1092.1092.1092.109). In the land of Shinar. Babylonia (cf. Genesis). In the land of Shinar. Babylonia (cf. Genesis). In the land of Shinar. Babylonia (cf. Genesis). In the land of Shinar. Babylonia (cf. Genesis 10:1010:1010:1010:10). The derivation). The derivation). The derivation). The derivation
of the term is unknown (Gesenius), though it probably meant the land of the two riversof the term is unknown (Gesenius), though it probably meant the land of the two riversof the term is unknown (Gesenius), though it probably meant the land of the two riversof the term is unknown (Gesenius), though it probably meant the land of the two rivers
(Alford). Its absence from ancient monuments (Rawlinson) suggests that it was the(Alford). Its absence from ancient monuments (Rawlinson) suggests that it was the(Alford). Its absence from ancient monuments (Rawlinson) suggests that it was the(Alford). Its absence from ancient monuments (Rawlinson) suggests that it was the
Jewish name for Chaldaea. And they dwelt there.Jewish name for Chaldaea. And they dwelt there.Jewish name for Chaldaea. And they dwelt there.Jewish name for Chaldaea. And they dwelt there.
ELLICOTT, "(2) As they journeyed.—The word literally refers to the pulling up of
the tent-pegs, and sets the human family before us as a band of nomads, wandering
from place to place, and shifting their tents as their cattle needed fresh pasture.
From the east.—So all the versions. Mount Ararat was to the north-west of Shinar,
and while so lofty a mountain could not have been the spot where the ark rested, yet
neither could any portion of Armenia or of the Carduchian mountains be described
as to the east of Babylonia. The Chaldean legends make the ark rest on Mount izir,
or Elwend, on the east of Assyria; and though Ararat may possibly signify
Aryaverta, “Holy Land,” yet the transference of the name from Elwend to Armenia
is not easily explicable. Moreover, the Bible elsewhere seems to point to Armenia as
the cradle of the human race. Most modern commentators, therefore, translate
eastward, and such certainly is the meaning of the word in Genesis 13:11, where
also the versions, excepting our own, render from the east.
Land of Shinar.—See on Genesis 10:10. The whole of Chaldea is a level plain, and
the soil immensely rich, as it is an alluvial deposit, which still goes on forming at the

head of the Persian Gulf, at the rate of a mile in a period estimated at from seventy
to thirty years (Rawlinson, Anc. Mon., i. 4). A strip of land 130 miles in breadth has
been added to the country, by the deposit of the earth washed down by the Tigris
and Euphrates, since the time when Ur of the Chaldees was a great port.
K&DK&DK&DK&D 2222----4444, ", ", ", "As men multiplied they moved from the land of Ararat “eastward,” or more
strictly to the south-east, and settled in a plain. ‫ה‬ ָ‫ע‬ ְ‫ק‬ ִ does not denote a valley between
mountain ranges, but a broad plain, πεδίον µέγα, as Herodotus calls the neighbourhood
of Babylon. There they resolved to build an immense tower; and for this purpose they
made bricks and burned them thoroughly (‫ה‬ ָ‫פ‬ ֵ‫ר‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ ִ‫ל‬ “to burning” serves to intensify the
verb like the inf. absol.), so that they became stone; whereas in the East ordinary
buildings are constructed of bricks of clay, simply dried in the sun. For mortar they used
asphalt, in which the neighbourhood of Babylon abounds. From this material, which
may still be seen in the ruins of Babylon, they intended to build a city and a tower, whose
top should be in heaven, i.e., reach to the sky, to make to themselves a name, that they
might not be scattered over the whole earth. ‫ם‬ ֵ‫שׁ‬ ‫ּו‬‫ל‬ ‫ה‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ ָ‫ע‬ denotes, here and everywhere else,
to establish a name, or reputation, to set up a memorial (Isa_63:12, Isa_63:14; Jer_
32:20, etc.). The real motive therefore was the desire for renown, and the object was to
establish a noted central point, which might serve to maintain their unity. The one was
just as ungodly as the other. For, according to the divine purpose, men were to fill the
earth, i.e., to spread over the whole earth, not indeed to separate, but to maintain their
inward unity notwithstanding their dispersion. But the fact that they were afraid of
dispersion is a proof that the inward spiritual bond of unity and fellowship, not only “the
oneness of their God and their worship,” but also the unity of brotherly love, was already
broken by sin. Consequently the undertaking, dictated by pride, to preserve and
consolidate by outward means the unity which was inwardly lost, could not be
successful, but could only bring down the judgment of dispersion.
COKE, "Genesis 11:2. As they journeyed from the earth— Hence it seems to follow,
that the whole posterity of oah continued together, till now, united under one
common head, most probably living in tents, and, according to the most early
custom, removing from place to place, for the better convenience of pasturage and
the like. And it came to pass, as they journeyed thus eastward, (for so it should be
rendered,) more and more towards the east, they arrived at a plain in the land of
Shinar, where they pitched their tents, being delighted with it, and continued. By
the land of Shinar is meant the pleasant valley, along which the river Tigris runs,
comprehending the country of Eden, the happy seat of Adam in his state of
innocence; near which, it is probable, his righteous descendants dwelt before the
flood; and consequently oah, as the guide of his family, may well be supposed
desirous of returning thither, and so of directing his course that way, or towards the
east. It is plain, from scripture, that Babel was the same with the city of Babylon;
and Moses expressly says, that Babel lay in the land of Shinar, ch. Genesis 10:10. as
well as three other cities which are there mentioned, and found to be situated on the
banks of the Tigris; and many footsteps of the name of Shinar in these parts are to
be met with, both in ancient and modern authors.

PETT, "Genesis 11:2
‘And it came about as they journeyed East that they found a plain in the land of
Shinar and they dwelt there.’
“They” simply refers to those who made the choice to go. There is an interesting
comparison here with Cain. It was Cain who left the mainstream of those who
worshipped Yahweh and set up a ‘city’, in his case of tents, in order to demonstrate
his independence and for mutual protection, and in order to build an alternative
lifestyle and civilisation. Here we are clearly to see a group of oah’s descendants
doing the same, but with less excuse for they have not yet been branded as outcasts.
They made a free choice. The writer saw their aim as being to find somewhere
where they could establish themselves in independence of God.
The land of Shinar is where imrod will later come in search of glory and conquest
(Genesis 10:10). It is the name of Babylonia proper. This will be the beginning of the
symbol of Great Babylon which is later seen as the ultimate in rebellion against God
(see Revelation 17-18).
3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make
bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used
brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar.
BAR ES, "Gen_11:3-4
A building is to be erected of brick and asphalt. The Babylonian soil is still celebrated
for these architectural materials. There is here a fine clay, mingled with sand, forming
the very best material for brick, while stones are not to be found at a convenient
distance. Asphalt is found boiling up from the soil in the neighborhood of Babylon and
of the Dead Sea, which is hence called the “lacus Asphaltites.” The asphalt springs of Is
or Hit on the Euphrates are celebrated by many writers. “Burn them thoroughly.” Sun-
dried bricks are very much used in the East for building purposes. These, however, were
to be burned, and thereby rendered more durable. “Brick for stone.” This indicates a
writer belonging to a country and an age in which stone buildings were familiar, and
therefore not to Babylonia. Brickmaking was well known to Moses in Egypt; but this
country also abounds in quarries and splendid erections of stone, and the Sinaitic

peninsula is a mass of granitic hills. The Shemites mostly inhabited countries abounding
in stone. “Asphalt for mortar.” Asphalt is a mineral pitch. The word rendered mortar
means at first clay, and then any kind of cement.
CLARKE, "Let us make brick - It appears they were obliged to make use of brick,
as there was an utter scarcity of stones in that district; and on the same account they
were obliged to use slime, that is, bitumen, (Vulg). ασφαλτος, (Septuagint) for mortar: so
it appears they had neither common stone nor lime-stone; hence they had brick for
stone, and asphaltus or bitumen instead of mortar.
GILL, "And they said one to another, go to,.... Advising, exhorting, stirring up,
and encouraging one another to the work proposed, of building a city and tower for their
habitation and protection; saying:
let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly; they knew the nature of bricks, and
how to make them before: according to Sanchoniatho (h), the brothers of Vulcan, or
Tubalcain, before the flood, were the first inventors of them; for he relates, that"there
are some that say that his brothers invented the way of making walls of bricks: he adds,
that from the generation of Vulcan came two brothers, who invented the way of mixing
straw or stubble with brick clay, and to dry them by the sun, and so found out tiling of
houses.''Now in the plain of Shinar, though it afforded no stones, yet they could dig clay
enough to make bricks, and which they proposed to burn thoroughly, that they might be
fit for their purpose. According to an eastern tradition (i), they were three years
employed in making and burning those bricks, each of which was thirteen cubits long,
ten broad, and five thick, and were forty years in building:
and they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar: they could not get
stone, which they would have chosen, as more durable; they got the best bricks they
could make, and instead of mortar they used slime; or what the Septuagint version calls
"asphaltos", a bitumen, or kind of pitch, of which there was great plenty in that
neighbourhood. Herodotus (k) speaking of the building of Babylon, uses language very
much like the Scripture;"digging a foss or ditch (says he), the earth which was cast up
they formed into bricks, and drawing large ones, they burnt them in furnaces, using for
lime or mortar hot asphaltos or bitumen.''And he observes, that"Eight days journey from
Babylon was another city, called Is, where was a small river of the same name, which ran
into the river Euphrates, and with its water were carried many lumps of bitumen, and
from hence it was conveyed to the walls of Babylon.''This city is now called Ait, of which
a traveller (l) of the last century gives the following account;"from the ruins of old
Babylon we came to a town called Ait, inhabited only with Arabians, but very ruinous;
near unto which town is a valley of pitch, very marvellous to behold, and a thing almost
incredible wherein are many springs throwing out abundantly a kind of black substance,
like unto tar and pitch, which serveth all the countries thereabout to make staunch their
barks and boats; everyone of which springs makes a noise like a smith's forge, which
never ceaseth night nor day, and the noise is heard a mile off, swallowing up all weighty
things that come upon it; the Moors call it "the mouth of hell."''Curtius relates (m), that
Alexander, in his march to Babylon, came to a city called Mennis, where was a cavern,
from whence a fountain threw out a vast quantity of bitumen or pitch; so that, says he, it
is plain, that the huge walls of Babylon were daubed with the bitumen of this fountain;

Genesis 11 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Genesis 11 commentary

Similar to Genesis 11 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Genesis 11 commentary