Text -- Genesis 11:1-31 (NET)

The Dispersion of the Nations at Babel

11:1 The whole earth had a common language and a common vocabulary. 11:2 When the people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. 11:3 Then they said to one another, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” (They had brick instead of stone and tar instead of mortar.) 11:4 Then they said, “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves. Otherwise we will be scattered across the face of the entire earth.” 11:5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the people had started building. 11:6 And the Lord said, “If as one people all sharing a common language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be beyond them. 11:7 Come, let’s go down and confuse their language so they won’t be able to understand each other.” 11:8 So the Lord scattered them from there across the face of the entire earth, and they stopped building the city. 11:9 That is why its name was called Babel– because there the Lord confused the language of the entire world, and from there the Lord scattered them across the face of the entire earth.

The Genealogy of Shem

11:10 This is the account of Shem. Shem was 100 old when he became the father of Arphaxad, two years after the flood. 11:11 And after becoming the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters. 11:12 When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. 11:13 And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters. 11:14 When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber. 11:15 And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters. 11:16 When Eber had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg. 11:17 And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived 430 years and had other sons and daughters. 11:18 When Peleg had lived 30 years, he became the father of Reu. 11:19 And after he became the father of Reu, Peleg lived 209 years and had other sons and daughters. 11:20 When Reu had lived 32 years, he became the father of Serug. 11:21 And after he became the father of Serug, Reu lived 207 years and had other sons and daughters. 11:22 When Serug had lived 30 years, he became the father of Nahor. 11:23 And after he became the father of Nahor, Serug lived 200 years and had other sons and daughters. 11:24 When Nahor had lived 29 years, he became the father of Terah. 11:25 And after he became the father of Terah, Nahor lived 119 years and had other sons and daughters. 11:26 When Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

The Record of Terah

11:27 This is the account of Terah. Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran. And Haran became the father of Lot. 11:28 Haran died in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldeans, while his father Terah was still alive. 11:29 And Abram and Nahor took wives for themselves. The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife was Milcah; she was the daughter of Haran, the father of both Milcah and Iscah. 11:30 But Sarai was barren; she had no children. 11:31 Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot (the son of Haran), and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram’s wife, and with them he set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. When they came to Haran, they settled there.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Gen 11:1

Now while they all understood one another, they would be the more capable of helping one another, and the less inclinable to separate.

Wesley: Gen 11:2

A spacious plain, able to contain them all.

Wesley: Gen 11:3

The country being a plain, yielded neither stone nor morter, yet that did not discourage them, but they made brick to serve instead of stone, and slime, or pitch, instead of morter.

Some think they intended hereby to secure themselves against the waters of another flood, but if they had, they would have chosen to build upon a mountain rather than upon a plain. But two things it seems they aimed at in building. To make them a name: they would do something to be talked of by posterity.

Wesley: Gen 11:3

builders. Philo Judeus saith they engraved every one his name upon a brick; yet neither did that serve their purpose.

Wesley: Gen 11:3

It was done (saith Josephus) in disobedience to that command, Gen 9:1, replenish the earth. God orders them to scatter. No, say they, we will live and die together. In order hereunto they engage themselves and one another in this vast undertaking. That they might unite in one glorious empire, they resolve to build this city and tower, to be the metropolis of their kingdom, and the center of their unity.

Wesley: Gen 11:5

'Tis an expression after the manner of men, he knew it as clearly as men know that which they come upon the place to view.

Wesley: Gen 11:5

Which speaks, Their weakness and frailty, it was a foolish thing for the children of men, worms of the earth, to defy heaven. Their sinfulness, they were the sons of Adam, so it is in the Hebrew; nay, of that Adam, that sinful disobedient Adam, whose children are by nature children of disobedience. Their distinction from the children of God, from whom those daring builders had separated themselves, and built this tower to support and perpetuate the separation.

Wesley: Gen 11:6

And if they continue one, much of the earth will be left uninhabited, and these children of men, if thus incorporated, will swallow up the little remnant of God's children, therefore it is decreed they must not be one.

Wesley: Gen 11:6

And this is a reason why they must be crossed, in their design.

Wesley: Gen 11:7

This was not spoken to the angels, as if God needed either their advice or their assistance, but God speaks it to himself, or the Father to the Son and Holy Ghost.

Wesley: Gen 11:7

Nor could they well join hands when their tongues were divided: so that this was a proper means, both to take them off from their building, for if they could not understand one another, they could not help one another; and to dispose them to scatter, for when they could not understand one another, they could not enjoy one another. Accordingly three things were done, Their language was confounded. God, who when he made man taught him to speak, now made those builders to forget their former language; and to speak a new one, which yet was the same to those of the same tribe or family, but not to others: those of one colony could converse together, but not with those of another. We all suffer hereby to this day: in all the inconveniences we sustain by the diversity of languages, and all the trouble we are at to learn the languages we have occasion for, we smart for the rebellion of our ancestors at Babel; nay, and those unhappy controversies, which are strifes of words, and arise from our misunderstanding of one another's languages, for ought I know, are owing to this confusion of tongues. The project of some to frame an universal character in order to an universal language, how desirable soever it may seem, yet I think is but a vain thing for it is to strive against a divine sentence, by which the languages of the nations will be divided while the world stands. We may here lament the loss of the universal use of the Hebrew tongue, which from henceforth was the vulgar language of the Hebrews only, and continued so till the captivity in Babylon, where, even among them, it was exchanged for the Syriac. As the confounding of tongues divided the children of men, and scattered them abroad, so the gift of tongues bestowed upon the Apostles, Act 2:4-11, contributed greatly to the gathering together of the children of God, which were scattered abroad, and the uniting of them in Christ, that with one mind and mouth they might glorify God, Rom 15:6. (The imagination of a late writer, that God did not confound their tongues, but their religious worship, is grounded on criticisms concerning the meaning of the Hebrew word, which are absolutely false. Beside, would God confound their religious worship? Surely, He is a God of order, and not of confusion. Their building was stopped, they left off to build the city - This was the effect of the confusion of their tongue's; for it not only disabled them from helping one another, but probably struck a damp upon their spirits, since they saw the hand of the Lord gone out against them.

Wesley: Gen 11:7

They departed in companies after their families and after their tongues, Gen 10:5, Gen 10:20, Gen 10:31, to the several countries and places allotted to them in the division that had been made, which they knew before, but would not go to take possession of, 'till now they were forced to it. Observe

The very thing which they feared came upon them; that dispersion which they thought to evade. That it was God's work; the Lord scattered them; God's hand is to be acknowledged in all scattering providences; if the family be scattered, relations scattered, churches scattered, it is the Lord's doing. That they left behind them a perpetual memorandum of their reproach in the name given to the place; it was called Babel, confusion. The children of men were now finally scattered, and never will come all together again 'till the great day. when the Son of Man shall sit upon the throne of his glory, and all nations shall be gathered before him, Mat 25:31-32.

Wesley: Gen 11:10

Observe here, That nothing is left upon record concerning those of this line, but their names and ages; the Holy Ghost seeming to hasten thro' them to the story of Abraham. How little do we know of those that are gone before us in this world, even those that lived in the same places where we live! Or indeed of those who are our contemporaries, but in distant places. That there was an observable gradual decrease in the years of their lives. Shem reached to 600 years, which yet fell short of the age of the patriarchs before the flood; the three next came short of 500, the three next did not reach to 300, and after them we read not of any that attained to 200 but Terah; and not many ages after this, Moses reckoned 70 or 80 to be the utmost men ordinarily arrive at. When the earth began to be replenished, mens lives began to shorten so that the decrease is to be imputed to the wise disposal of providence, rather than to any decay of nature. That Eber, from whom the Hebrews were denominated, was the longest lived of any that were born after the flood; which perhaps was the reward of his strict adherence to the ways of God.

Wesley: Gen 11:27

Here begins the story of Abram. We have here, His country: Ur of the Chaldee's - An idolatrous country, where even the children of Eber themselves degenerated. His relations, mentioned for his sake, and because of their interest in he following story. His father was Terah, of whom it is said, Jos 24:2, that he served other gods on the other side the flood; so early did idolatry gain footing in the world. Enough it is said, Gen 11:26, that when Terah was seventy years old he begat Abram, Nabor and Haran, which seems to tell us that Abram was the eldest son of Terah, and born in the 70th year; yet by comparing Gen 11:32, which makes Terah to die in his 205th year, with Act 7:4, where it is said that Abram removed from Haran when his father was dead, and Gen 12:4, where it is said that he was but 75 years old when he removed from Haran, it appears that he was born in the 130th year of Terah, and probably was his youngest son. We have, Some account of his brethren Nahor, out of whole family both Isaac and Jacob had their wives. Haran, the father of Lot, of whom it is here said, Gen 11:28, that he died before his father Terah. 'Tis likewise said that he died in Ur of the Chaldees, before that happy remove of the family out of that idolatrous country. His wife was Sarai, who, tho' some think was the same with Iscah the daughter of Haran. Abram himself saith, she was the daughter of his father, but not the daughter of his mother, Gen 20:12. She was ten years younger than Abram. His departure out of Ur of the Chaldees, with his father Terah, and his nephew Lot, and the rest of his family, in obedience to the call of God. This chapter leaves them in Haran or Charran, a place about the mid - way between Ur and Canaan, where they dwelt 'till Terah's head was laid; probably because the old man was unable, through the infirmities of age, to proceed in his journey.

JFB: Gen 11:2

The fertile valley watered by the Euphrates and Tigris was chosen as the center of their union and the seat of their power.

JFB: Gen 11:3

There being no stone in that quarter, brick is, and was, the only material used for building, as appears in the mass of ruins which at the Birs Nimroud may have been the very town formed by those ancient rebels. Some of these are sun-dried--others burnt in the kiln and of different colors.

JFB: Gen 11:3

Bitumen, a mineral pitch, which, when hardened, forms a strong cement, commonly used in Assyria to this day, and forming the mortar found on the burnt brick remains of antiquity.

JFB: Gen 11:4

A common figurative expression for great height (Deu 1:28; 9:1-6).

JFB: Gen 11:4

To build a city and a town was no crime; but to do this to defeat the counsels of heaven by attempting to prevent emigration was foolish, wicked, and justly offensive to God.

JFB: Gen 11:6

An apparent admission that the design was practicable, and would have been executed but for the divine interposition.

JFB: Gen 11:7

Literally, "their lip"; it was a failure in utterance, occasioning a difference in dialect which was intelligible only to those of the same tribe. Thus easily by God their purpose was defeated, and they were compelled to the dispersion they had combined to prevent. It is only from the Scriptures we learn the true origin of the different nations and languages of the world. By one miracle of tongues men were dispersed and gradually fell from true religion. By another, national barriers were broken down--that all men might be brought back to the family of God.

JFB: Gen 11:28

Now Orfa; that is, "light," or "fire." Its name probably derived from its being devoted to the rites of fire-worship. Terah and his family were equally infected with that idolatry as the rest of the inhabitants (Jos 24:15).

JFB: Gen 11:31

The same as Iscah [Gen 11:29], granddaughter of Terah, probably by a second wife, and by early usages considered marriageable to her uncle, Abraham.

JFB: Gen 11:31

Two days' journey south-southeast from Ur, on the direct road to the ford of the Euphrates at Rakka, the nearest and most convenient route to Palestine.

Clarke: Gen 11:1

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.

Clarke: Gen 11:2

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.

Clarke: Gen 11:3

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.

Clarke: Gen 11:4

Let us build us a city and a tower - On this subject there have been various conjectures. Mr. Hutchinson supposed that the design of the builders was to erect a temple to the host of heaven - the sun, moon, planets, etc.; and, to support this interpretation, he says וראשו בשמים verosho bashshamayim should be translated, not, whose top may reach unto heaven, for there is nothing for may reach in the Hebrew, but its head or summit to the heavens, i.e. to the heavenly bodies: and, to make this interpretation the more probable, he says that previously to this time the descendants of Noah were all agreed in one form of religious worship, (for so he understands ושפה אחת vesaphah achath , and of one lip), i.e. according to him, they had one litany; and as God confounded their litany, they began to disagree in their religious opinions, and branched out into sects and parties, each associating with those of his own sentiment; and thus their tower or temple was left unfinished

It is probable that their being of one language and of one speech implies, not only a sameness of language, but also a unity of sentiment and design, as seems pretty clearly intimated in Gen 11:6. Being therefore strictly united in all things, coming to the fertile plains of Shinar they proposed to settle themselves there, instead of spreading themselves over all the countries of the earth, according to the design of God; and in reference to this purpose they encouraged one another to build a city and a tower, probably a temple, to prevent their separation, "lest,"say they, "we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth:"but God, miraculously interposing, confounded or frustrated their rebellious design, which was inconsistent with his will; see Deu 32:8; Act 17:26; and, partly by confounding their language, and disturbing their counsels, they could no longer keep in a united state; so that agreeing in nothing but the necessity of separating, they went off in different directions, and thus became scattered abroad upon the face of the earth. The Targums, both of Jonathan ben Uzziel and of Jerusalem, assert that the tower was for idolatrous worship; and that they intended to place an image on the top of the tower with a sword in its hand, probably to act as a talisman against their enemies. Whatever their design might have been, it is certain that this temple or tower was afterwards devoted to idolatrous purposes. Nebuchadnezzar repaired and beautified this tower, and it was dedicated to Bel, or the sun

An account of this tower, and of the confusion of tongues, is given by several ancient authors. Herodotus saw the tower and described it. A sybil, whose oracle is yet extant, spoke both of it and of the confusion of tongues; so did Eupolemus and Abydenus. See Bochart Geogr. Sacr., lib. i., c. 13, edit. 1692. On this point Bochart observes that these things are taken from the Chaldeans, who preserve many remains of ancient facts; and though they often add circumstances, yet they are, in general, in some sort dependent on the text. 1. They say Babel was built by the giants, because Nimrod, one of the builders, is called in the Hebrew text גבור gibbor , a mighty man; or, as the Septuagint, γιγας, a giant. 2. These giants, they say, sprang from the earth, because, in Gen 10:11, it is said, He went, מן הארץ ההוא min haarets hahiv , out of that earth; but this is rather spoken of Asshur, who was another of the Babel builders. 3. These giants are said to have waged war with the gods, because it is said of Nimrod, Gen 10:9, He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; or, as others have rendered it, a warrior and a rebel against the Lord. See Jarchi in loco. 4. These giants are said to have raised a tower up to heaven, as if they had intended to have ascended thither. This appears to have been founded on "whose top may reach to heaven,"which has been already explained. 5. It is said that the gods sent strong winds against them, which dispersed both them and their work. This appears to have been taken from the Chaldean history, in which it is said their dispersion was made to the four winds of heaven, בארבע רוחי שמיא bearba ruchey shemaiya , i.e. to the four quarters of the world. 6. And because the verb פוץ brev eht esua phuts , or נפץ naphats , used by Moses, signifies, not only to scatter, but also to break to pieces; whence thunder, Isa 30:30, is called נפץ nephets , a breaking to pieces; hence they supposed the whole work was broken to pieces and overturned. It was probably from this disguised representation of the Hebrew text that the Greek and Roman poets took their fable of the giants waging war with the gods, and piling mountain upon mountain in order to scale heaven. See Bochart as above.

Clarke: Gen 11:5

And the Lord came down - A lesson, says an ancient Jewish commentator, to magistrates to examine every evidence before they decree judgment and execute justice.

Clarke: Gen 11:6

The people is one, etc. - From this, as before observed, we may infer, that as the people had the same language, so they had a unity of design and sentiment. It is very likely that the original language was composed of monosyllables, that each had a distinct ideal meaning, and only one meaning; as different acceptations of the same word would undoubtedly arise, either from compounding terms, or, when there were but few words in a language, using them by a different mode of pronunciation to express a variety of things. Where this simple monosyllabic language prevailed (and it must have prevailed in the first ages of the world) men would necessarily have simple ideas, and a corresponding simplicity of manners. The Chinese language is exactly such as this; and the Hebrew, if stripped of its vowel points, and its prefixes, suffixes, and postfixes separated from their combinations, so that they might stand by themselves, it would nearly answer to this character even in its present state. In order therefore to remove this unity of sentiment and design, which I suppose to be the necessary consequence of such a language, God confounded their language - caused them to articulate the same word differently, to affix different ideas to the same term, and perhaps, by transposing syllables and interchanging letters, form new terms and compounds, so that the mind of the speaker was apprehended by the hearer in a contrary sense to what was intended. This idea is not iii expressed by an ancient French poet, Du Bartas; and not badly, though rather quaintly, metaphrased by our countryman, Mr. Sylvester

Some speak between the teeth, some in the nose, Some in the throat their words do ill dispose -

"Bring me,"quoth one, "a trowel, quickly, quick!

One brings him up a hammer. "Hew this brick,

Another bids; and then they cleave a tree

"Make fast this rope,"and then they let it flee

One calls for planks, another mortar lacks

They bear the first a stone, the last an axe

One would have spikes, and him a spade they give

Another asks a saw, and gets a sieve

Thus crossly crost, they prate and point in vain

What one hath made another mars agai

These masons then, seeing the storm arrive

Of God’ s just wrath, all weak and heart-deprived

Forsake their purpose, and, like frantic fools

Scatter their stuff and tumble down their tools

Du Bartas - Babylon

I shall not examine how the different languages of the earth were formed. It certainly was not the work of a moment; different climates must have a considerable share in the formation of tongues, by their influence on the organs of speech. The invention of new arts and trades must give birth to a variety of terms and expressions. Merchandise, commerce, and the cultivation of the sciences, would produce their share; and different forms of government, modes of life, and means of instruction, also contribute their quota. The Arabic, Chaldee, Syriac, and Ethiopic, still bear the most striking resemblance to their parent, the Hebrew. Many others might be reduced to a common source, yet everywhere there is sufficient evidence of this confusion. The anomalies even in the most regular languages sufficiently prove this. Every language is confounded less or more but that of eternal truth. This is ever the same; in all countries, climates, and ages, the language of truth, like that God from whom it sprang, is unchangeable. It speaks in all tongues, to all nations, and in all hearts: "There is one God, the fountain of goodness, justice, and truth. Man, thou art his creature, ignorant, weak, and dependent; but he is all-sufficient - hates nothing that he has made - loves thee - is able and willing to save thee; return to and depend on him, take his revealed will for thy law, submit to his authority, and accept eternal life on the terms proposed in his word, and thou shalt never perish nor be wretched."This language of truth all the ancient and modern Babel builders have not been able to confound, notwithstanding their repeated attempts. How have men toiled to make this language clothe their own ideas; and thus cause God to speak according to the pride, prejudice and worst passions of men! But through a just judgment of God, the language of all those who have attempted to do this has been confounded, and the word of the Lord abideth for ever.

Clarke: Gen 11:7

Go to - A form of speech which, whatever it might have signified formerly, now means nothing. The Hebrew העה habah signifies come, make preparation, as it were for a journey, the execution of a purpose, etc. Almost all the versions understand the word in this way; the Septuagint have δευτε, the Vulgate venite , both signifying come, or come ye. This makes a very good sense, Come, let its go down, etc. For the meaning of these latter words see Gen 1:26, and Gen 18:21.

Clarke: Gen 11:9

Therefore is the name of it called Babel - בבל babel , from בל bal , to mingle, confound, destroy; hence Babel, from the mingling together and confounding of the projects and language of these descendants of Noah; and this confounding did not so much imply the producing new languages, as giving them a different method of pronouncing the same words, and leading them to affix different ideas to them

Besides Mr. Hutchinson’ s opinion, (see on Gen 11:4 (note)), there have been various conjectures concerning the purpose for which this tower was built. Some suppose it was intended to prevent the effects of another flood, by affording an asylum to the builders and their families in case of another general deluge. Others think that it was designed to be a grand city, the seat of government, in order to prevent a general dispersion. This God would not permit, as he had purposed that men should be dispersed over the earth, and therefore caused the means which they were using to prevent it to become the grand instrument of its accomplishment. Humanly speaking, the earth could not have so speedily peopled, had it not been for this very circumstance which the counsel of man had devised to prevent it. Some say that these builders were divided into seventy-two nations, with seventy-two different languages; but this is an idle, unfounded tale.

Clarke: Gen 11:10

These are the generations of Shem - This may he called the holy family, as from it sprang Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, David, Solomon, and all the great progenitors of the Messiah

We have already seen that the Scripture chronology, as it exists in the Hebrew text, the Samaritan, the Septuagint, Josephus, and some of the fathers, is greatly embarrassed; and it is yet much more so in the various systems of learned and unlearned chronologists. For a full and rational view of this subject, into which the nature of these notes forbids me farther to enter, I must refer my reader to Dr. Hales’ s laborious work, "A New Analysis of Sacred Chronology,"vol. ii., part 1, etc., in which he enters into the subject with a cautious but firm step; and, if he has not been able to remove all its difficulties, has thrown very considerable light upon most parts of it.

Clarke: Gen 11:12

And Arphaxad lived - The Septuagint bring in here a second Cainan, with an addition of one hundred and thirty years. St. Luke follows the Septuagint, and brings in the same person in the same way. But the Hebrew text, both here and in 1 Chronicles 1:1-28, is perfectly silent on this subject, and the best chronologists have agreed in rejecting this as a spurious generation.

Clarke: Gen 11:26

And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran - Haran was certainly the eldest son of Terah, and he appears to have been born when Terah was about seventy years of age, and his birth was followed in successive periods with those of Nahor his second, and Abram his youngest son. Many have been greatly puzzled with the account here, supposing because Abram is mentioned first, that therefore he was the eldest son of Terah: but he is only put first by way of dignity. An in stance of this we have already seen, Gen 5:32, where Noah is represented as having Shem, Ham, and Japheth in this order of succession; whereas it is evident from other scriptures that Shem was the youngest son, who for dignity is named first, as Abram is here; and Japheth the eldest, named last, as Haran is here. Terah died two hundred and five years old, Gen 11:32; then Abram departed from Haran when seventy-five years old, Gen 12:4; therefore Abram was born, not when his father Terah was seventy, but when he was one hundred and thirty

When any case of dignity or pre-eminence is to be marked, then even the youngest son is set before all the rest, though contrary to the usage of the Scriptures in other cases. Hence we find Shem, the youngest son of Noah, always mentioned first; Moses is mentioned before his elder brother Aaron; and Abram before his two elder brethren Haran and Nahor. These observations are sufficient to remove all difficulty from this place.

Clarke: Gen 11:29

Milcah, the daughter of Haran - Many suppose Sarai and Iscah are the same person under two different names; but this is improbable, as Iscah is expressly said to be the daughter of Haran, and Sarai was the daughter of Terah, and half sister of Abram.

Clarke: Gen 11:31

They went forth - front Ur of the Chaldees - Chaldea is sometimes understood as comprising the whole of Babylonia; at other times, that province towards Arabia Deserta, called in Scripture The land of the Chaldeans. The capital of this place was Babylon, called in Scripture The beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency, Isa 13:19

Ur appears to have been a city of some considerable consequence at that time in Chaldea; but where situated is not well known. It probably had its name Ur אור, which signifies fire, from the worship practiced there. The learned are almost unanimously of opinion that the ancient inhabitants of this region were ignicolists or worshippers of fire, and in that place this sort of worship probably originated; and in honor of this element, the symbol of the Supreme Being, the whole country, or a particular city in it, might have had the name Ur. Bochart has observed that there is a place called Ouri, south of the Euphrates, in the way from Nisibis to the river Tigris. The Chaldees mentioned here had not this name in the time of which Moses speaks, but they were called so in the time in which Moses wrote. Chesed was the son of Nahor, the son of Terah, Gen 22:22. From Chesed descended the Chasdim, whose language was the same as that of the Amorites, Dan 1:4; Dan 2:4. These Chasdim, whence the Χαλδαιοι, Chaldeans, of the Septuagint, Vulgate, and all later versions, afterwards settled on the south of the Euphrates. Those who dwelt in Ur were either priests or astronomers, Dan 2:10, and also idolaters, Jos 24:2, Jos 24:3, Jos 24:14, Jos 24:15. And because they were much addicted to astronomy, and probably to judicial astrology, hence all astrologers were, in process of time, called Chaldeans, Dan 2:2-5

The building of Babel, the confusion of tongues, and the first call of Abram, are three remarkable particulars in this chapter; and these led to the accomplishment of three grand and important designs

1.    The peopling of the whole earth

2.    The preservation of the true religion by the means of one family; an

3.    The preservation of the line uncorrupted by which the Messiah should come

When God makes a discovery of himself by a particular revelation, it must begin in some particular time, and be given to some particular person, and in some particular place. Where, when, and to whom, are comparatively matters of small importance. It is God’ s gift; and his own wisdom must determine the time, the person, and the place. But if this be the case, have not others cause to complain because not thus favored? Not at all, unless the favoring of the one for a time should necessarily cut off the others for ever. But this is not the case. Abram was first favored; that time, that country, and that person were chosen by infinite wisdom, for there and then God chose to commence these mighty operations of Divine goodness. Isaac and Jacob also received the promises, the twelve patriarchs through their father, and the whole Jewish people through them. Afterwards the designs of God’ s endless mercy were more particularly unfolded; and the word, which seemed to be confined for two thousand years to the descendants of a single family, bursts forth on all hands, salvation is preached to the Gentiles, and thus in Abram’ s seed all the nations of the earth are blessed

Hence none can find fault, and none can have cause to complain; as the salvation which for a time appeared to be restricted to a few, is now on the authority of God, liberally offered to the whole human race!

Calvin: Gen 11:1

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. Nor 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 Noah’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 Nimrod, 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. Now he lived nearly two hundred and forty years; nor will it be absurd to suppose that the empire founded by Nimrod 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.

Calvin: Gen 11:2

2.They found a plain in the land of Shinar. It may be conjectured from these words, that Moses speaks of Nimrod and of the people whom he had collected around him. If, however, we grant that Nimrod 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.

Calvin: Gen 11:3

3.And they said one to another ³²⁴ That is, they mutually exhorted each other; and not only did every man earnestly put his own hand to the work, but impelled others also to the daring attempt.

Let us make brick. Moses intimates that they had not been induced to commence this work, on account of the ease with which it could be accomplished nor on account of any other advantages which presented themselves; he rather shows that they had contended with great and arduous difficulties; by which means their guilt became the more aggravated. For how is it that they harass and wear themselves out in vain on a difficult and labourious enterprise, unless that, like madmen, they rush impetuously against God? Difficulty often deters us from necessary works; but these men, when they had neither stones nor mortar, yet do not scruple to attempt the raising of an edifice which may transcend the clouds. We are taught therefore, by this example, to what length the lust of men will hurry them, when they indulge their ambition. Even a profane poet is not silent on this subject, —

“Man, rashly daring, full of pride,
Most covets what is most denied.” ³²⁵
And a little afterwards, —
“Counts nothing arduous, and tries
Insanely to possess the skies.” ³²⁶

Calvin: Gen 11:4

4.Whose top may reach unto heaven. This is an hyperbolical form of speech, in which they boastingly extol the loftiness of the structure they are attempting to raise. And to the same point belongs what they immediately subjoin, Let us make us a name; for they intimate, that the work would be such as should not only be looked upon by the beholders as a kind of miracle, but should be celebrated everywhere to the utmost limits of the world. This is the perpetual infatuation of the world; to neglect heaven, and to seek immortality on earth, where every thing is fading and transient. Therefore, their cares and pursuits tend to no other end than that of acquiring for themselves a name on earth. David, in the forty ninth psalm, deservedly holds up to ridicule this blind cupidity; and the more, because experience (which is the teacher of the foolish) does not restore posterity to a sound mind, though instructed by the example of their ancestors; but the infatuation creeps on through all succeeding ages. The saying of Juvenal is known, — ‘Death alone acknowledges how insignificant are the bodies of men.’ ³²⁷ Yet even death does not correct our pride, nor constrain us seriously to confess our miserable condition: for often more pride is displayed in funerals than in nuptial pomp. By such an example, however, we are admonished how fitting it is that we should live and die humbly. And it is not the least important part of true prudence, to have death before our eyes in the midst of life, for the purpose of accustoming ourselves to moderation. For he who vehemently desires to be great in the world, is first contumelious towards men, and at length, his profane presumption breaks forth against God himself; so that after the example of the giants, he fights against heaven.

Lest we be scattered abroad. Some interpreters translate the passage thus, ‘Before we are scattered:’ but the peculiarity of the language will not bear this explanation: for the men are devising means to meet a danger which they believe to be imminent; as if they would say, ‘It cannot be, that when our number increases, this region should always hold all men; and therefore an edifice must be erected by which their name shall be preserved in perpetuity, although they should themselves be dispersed in different regions.’ It is however asked, whence they derived the notion of their future dispersion? Some conjecture that they were warned of it by Noah; who, perceiving that the world had relapsed into its former crimes and corruptions, foresaw, at the same time, by the prophetic spirit, some terrible dispersion; and they think that the Babylonians, seeing they could not directly resist God, endeavored, by indirect methods, to avert the threatened judgment. Others suppose, that these men, by a secret inspiration of the Spirit, uttered prophecies concerning their own punishment, which they did not themselves understand. But these expositions are constrained; nor is there any reason which requires us to apply what they here say, to the curse which was inflicted upon them. They knew that the earth was formed to be inhabited and would everywhere supply its abundance for the sustenance of men; and the rapid multiplication of mankind proved to them that it was not possible for them long to remain shut up within their present narrow limits; wherefore, to whatever other places it would be necessary for them to migrate, they design this tower to remain as a witness of their origin.

Calvin: Gen 11:5

5.And the Lord came down. The remaining part of the history now follows, in which Moses teaches us with what ease the Lord could overturn their insane attempts, and scatter abroad all their preparations. There is no doubt that they strenuously set about what they had presumptuously devised. But Moses first intimates that God, for a little while, seemed to take no notice of them, ³²⁸ in order that suddenly breaking off their work at its commencement, by the confusion of their tongues, he might give the more decisive evidence of his judgment. For he frequently bears with the wicked, to such an extent, that he not only suffers them to contrive many nefarious things, as if he were unconcerned, or were taking repose; but even further, their impious and perverse designs with animating success, in order that he may at length cast them down to a lower depth. The descent of God, which Moses here records, is spoken of in reference to men rather than to God; who, as we know, does not move from place to place. But he intimates that God gradually and as with a tardy step, appeared in the character of an Avenger. The Lord therefore descended that he might see; that is, he evidently showed that he was not ignorant of the attempt which the Babylonians were making.

Calvin: Gen 11:6

6.Behold, the people is one. Some thus expound the words, that God complains of a wickedness in men so refractory, that he excites himself by righteous grief to execute vengeance; not that he is swayed by any passions, ³²⁹ but to teach us that he is not negligent of human affairs, and that, as he watches for the salvation of the faithful, so he is intent on observing the wickedness of the ungodly; as it is said in Psa 34:16,

“The face of the Lord is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth.”

Others think there is a comparison between the less and the greater, no if it had been said, ‘They are hitherto few and only use one language; what will they not dare, if, on account of their multitude, they should become separated into various nations?’ But there rather seems to me to be a suppressed irony, as if God would propose to himself a difficult work in subduing their audacity: so that the sense may be, ‘This people is compacted together in a firm conspiracy, they communicate with each other in the same language, by what method therefore can they be broken?’ Nevertheless, he ironically smiles at their foolish and hasty confidence; because, while men are calculating upon their own strength, there is nothing which they do not arrogate to themselves.

This they begin to do. In saying that they begin, he intimates that they make a diligent attempts accompanied with violent fervor, in carrying on the work. Thus in the way of concession, God declares, that supposing matters to be so arranged, there would be no interruption of the building.

Calvin: Gen 11:7

7.Go to, let us go down. We have said that Moses has represented the case to us by the figure hypotyposis, ³³⁰ that the judgments of God may be the more clearly illustrated. For which reason, he now introduces God as the speaker, who declares that the work which they supposed could not be retarded, shall, without any difficulty, be destroyed. The meaning of the words is of this kind, ‘I will not use many instruments, I will only blow upon them, and they, through the confusion of tongues, shall be contemptibly scattered. And as they, having collected a numerous band, were contriving how they might reach the clouds; so on the other hand, God summons his troops, by whose interposition he may ward off their fury. It is, however, asked, what troops he intends? The Jews think that he addresses himself to the angels. But since no mention is made of the angels, and God places those to whom he speaks in the same rank with himself, this exposition is harsh, and deservedly rejected. This passage rather answers to the former, which occurs in the account of man’s creation, when the Lord said, “Let us make man after our image.” For God aptly and wisely opposes his own eternal wisdom and power to this great multitude; as if he had said, that he had no need of foreign auxiliaries, but possessed within himself what would suffice for their destruction. Wherefore, this passage is not improperly adduced in proof that Three Persons subsist in One Essence of Deity. Moreover, this example of Divine vengeance belongs to all ages: for men are always inflamed with the desire of daring to attempt what is unlawful. And this history shows that God will ever be adverse to such counsels and designs; so that we here behold, depicted before our eyes what Solomon says:

‘There is no counsel, nor prudence, nor strength against the Lord,’ (Pro 21:30.)

Unless the blessing of God be present, from which alone we may expect a prosperous issue, all that we attempt will necessarily perish. Since, then, God declares that he is at perpetual war with the unmeasured audacity of men; anything we undertake without his approval will end miserably, even though all creatures above and beneath should earnestly offer us their assistance. Now, although the world bears this curse to the present day; yet, in the midst of punishment, and of the most dreadful proofs of Divine anger against the pride of men, the admirable goodness of God is rendered conspicuous, because the nations hold mutual communication among themselves, though in different languages; but especially because He has proclaimed one gospel, in all languages, through the whole world, and has endued the Apostles with the gift of tongues. Whence it has come to pass, that they who before were miserably divided, have coalesced in the unity of the faith. In this sense Isaiah says, that the language of Canaan should be common to all under the reign of Christ, (Isa 19:18;) because, although their language may differ in sound, they all speak the same thing, while they cry, Abba, Father.

Calvin: Gen 11:8

8.So the Lord scattered them abroad. Men had already been spread abroad; and this ought not to be regarded as a punishment, seeing it rather flowed from the benediction and grace of God. But those whom the Lord had before distributed with honor in various abodes, he now ignominiously scatters, driving them hither and thither like the members of a lacerated body. This, therefore, was not a simple dispersion for the replenishing of the earth, that it might every where have cultivators and inhabitants; but a violent rout, because the principal bond of conjunction between them was, cut asunder.

Calvin: Gen 11:9

9.Therefore is the name of it called Babel. Behold what they gained by their foolish ambition to acquire a name! They hoped that an everlasting memorial of their origin would be engraven on the tower; God not only frustrates their vain expectation, but brands them with eternal disgrace, to render them execrable to all posterity, on account of the great mischief indicted on the human race, through their fault. They gain, indeed, a name, but not each as they would have chosen: thus does God opprobriously cast down the pride of those who usurp to themselves honors to which they have no title. Here also is refuted the error of those who deduce the origin of Babylon from Jupiter Belus. ³³¹

Calvin: Gen 11:10

10.These are the generations of Shem. Concerning the progeny of Shem, Moses had said something in the former chapter Gen 10:1 : but now he combines with the names of the men, the term of their several lives, that we might not be ignorant of the age of the world. For unless this brief description had been preserved, men at this day would not have known how much time intervened between the deluge and the day in which God made his covenant with Abraham. Moreover, it is to be observed, that God reckons the years of the world from the progeny of Shem, as a mark of honor: just as historians date their annals by the names of kings or consuls. Nevertheless, he has granted this not so much on account of the dignity and merits of the family of Shem, as on account of his own gratuitous adoption; for (as we shall immediately see) a great part of the posterity of Shem apostatized from the true worship of God. For which reason, they deserved not only that God should expunge them from his calendar, but should entirely take them out of the world. But he too highly esteems that election of his, by which he separated this family from all people, to suffer it to perish on account of the sins of men. And therefore from the many sons of Shem he chooses Arphaxad alone; and from the sons of Arphaxad, Selah alone; and from him also, Eber alone; till he comes to Abram; the calling of whom ought to be accounted the renovation of the Church. As it concerns the rest, it is probable that before the century was completed, they fell into impious superstitions. For when God brings it as a charge against the Jews, that their fathers Terah and Nahor served strange gods, (Jos 24:2,) we must still remember, that the house of Shem, in which they were born, was the peculiar sanctuary of God, where pure religion ought most to have flourished; what then do we suppose, must have happened to others who might seem, from the very first, to have been emancipated from this service? Hence truly appears, not only the prodigious wickedness and depravity, but also the inflexible hardness of the human mind. Noah and his sons, who had been eye-witnesses of the deluge, were yet living: the narration of that history ought to have inspired men with not less terror than the visible appearance of God himself: from infancy they had been imbued with those elements of religious instruction, which relate to the manner in which God was to be worshipped, the reverence with which his word was to be obeyed, and the severe vengeance which remains for those who should violate the order prescribed by him: yet they could not be restrained from being so corrupted by their vanity, that they entirely apostatized. In the meantime, there is no doubt that holy Noah, according to his extraordinary zeal and heroic fortitude, would contend in every way for the maintenance of God’s glory: and that he sharply and severely inveighed, yea, fulminated against the perfidious apostasy of his descendants; and whereas all ought to have trembled at his very look, they are yet moved by no chidings, however loud, from proceeding in the course into which their own fury has hurried them. From this mirror, rather than from the senseless flatteries of sophists, let us learn how fruitful is the corruption of our nature. But if Noah and Shem, and other such eminent teachers could not, by contending most courageously, prevent the prevalence of impiety in the world; let us not wonder, if at this day also, the unbridled lust of the world rushes to impious and perverse modes of worship, against all the obstacles interposed by sound doctrine, admonition, and threats. Here, however, we must observe, in these holy men, how firm was the strength of their faith, how indefatigable their patience, how persevering their cultivation of piety; since they never gave way, on account of the many occasions of offense with which they had to contend. Luther very properly compares the incredible torments, by which they were necessarily afflicted, to many martyrdoms. For such an alienation of their descendants from God did not less affect their minds than if they had seen their own bowels not only lacerated and torn, but cast into the mire of Satan, and into hell itself. But while the world was thus filled with ungodly men, God wonderfully retained a few under obedience to his word, that he might preserve the Church from destruction. And although we have said that the father and grandfather of Abraham were apostates, and that, probably, the defection did not first begin with them; yet, because the Church by the election of God, was included in that race, and because God had some who worshipped him in purity, and who survived even to the time of Abraham. Moses deduces a continuous line of descent, and thus enroll them in the catalogue of saints. Whence we infer, (as I have a little before observed,) in what high estimation God holds the Church, which, though so small in numbers is yet preferred to the whole world.

Shem was an hundred years old. Since Moses has placed Arphaxad the third in order among the sons of Shem, it is asked how this agrees with his having been born in the second year after the deluge? The answer is easy. It cannot be exactly ascertained, from the catalogues which Moses recites, at what time each was born; because sometimes the priority of place is assigned to one, who yet was posterior in the order of birth. Others answer, that there is nothing absurd in supposing Moses to declare that, after the completion of two years, a third son was born. But the solution I have given is more genuine.

Calvin: Gen 11:27

27.Terah begat Abram. Here also Abram is placed first among his brethren, not (as I suppose) because he was the firstborn; but because Moses, intent on the scope of his history, was not very careful in the arrangement of the sons of Terah. It is also possible that he had other sons. For, the reason why Moses speaks especially of them is obvious; namely, on account of Lot, and of the wives of Isaac and Jacob. I will now briefly state why I think Abram was not the first born. Moses shortly afterwards says, that Haran died in his own country, before his father left Chaldea, and went to Charran. ³³² But Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Charran to dwell in the land of Canaan. ³³³ And this number of seventy-five years is expressly given after the death of Terah. Now, if we suppose that Abram was born in his father’s seventieth year, we must also allow that we have lost sixty years of Terah’s age; which is most absurd. ³³⁴ The conjecture of Luther, that God buried that time in oblivion, in order to hide from us the end of the world, in the first place is frivolous, and in the next, may be refuted by solid and convincing arguments. Others violently wrest the words to apply them to a former egress; and think that he lived together with his father at Charran for sixty years; which is most improbable. For to what end should they have protracted their stay so long in the midst of their journey? But there is no need of labourious discussion. Moses is silent respecting the age of Abraham when he left his own country; but says, that in the seventy-fifth year of his age, he came into the land of Canaan, when his father, having reached the two hundredth and fifth year of his life, had died. Who will not hence infer that he was born when his father had attained his one hundredth and thirtieth year? ³³⁵ But he is named first among those sons whom Terah is said to have begotten, when he himself was seventy years old. I grant it; but this order of recital does nothing towards proving the order of birth, as we have already said. Nor, indeed, does Moses declare in what year of his life Terah begat sons; but only that he had passed the above age before he begat the three sons here mentioned. Therefore, the age of Abraham is to be ascertained by another mode of computation, namely, from the fact that Moses assigns to him the age of seventy-five when his father died, whose life had reached to two hundred and five years. A firm and valid argument is also deduced from the age of Sarai. It appears that she was not more than ten years younger than Abraham. If she was the daughter of his younger brother, she would necessarily have equalled her own father in age. ³³⁶ They who raise an objection, to the effect that she was the daughter-in-law, or only the adopted daughter of Nahor, produce nothing beyond a sheer cavil.

Calvin: Gen 11:28

28.And Haran died. Haran is said to have died before the face of his father; because he left his father the survivor. It is also said that he died in his country, that is, in Ur. The Jews turn the proper name into an appellative, and say that he died in the fire. For, as they are bold in forging fables, they pretend that he, with his brother Abram, were thrown by the Chaldeans into the fire, because they shunned idolatry; but that Abram escaped by the constancy of his faith. The twenty-fourth chapter of Joshua (Jos 24:1,) however, which I have cited above, openly declares, that this whole family was not less infected with superstition than the country itself. I confess, indeed, that the name Ur is derived from fire: names, however, are wont to be assigned to cities, either from their situation, or from some particular event. It is possible that they there cherished the sacred fire, or that the splendor of the sun was more conspicuous than in other places. Others will have it, that the city was so named, because it was situated in a valley, for the Hebrews call valleys ארוים ( Uraim ³³⁷) But there is no reason why we should be very anxious about such a matter: let it suffice, that Moses, speaking of the country of Abram immediately afterwards declares it to have been Ur of the Chaldeans.

Calvin: Gen 11:30

30.But Sarai was barren. Not only does he say that Abram was without children, but he states the reasons namely, the sterility of his wife; in order to show that it was by nothing short of an extraordinary miracle that she afterwards bare Isaac, as we shall declare more fully in its proper place. Thus was God pleased to humble his servant; and we cannot doubt that Abram would suffer severe pain through this privation. He sees the wicked springing up everywhere, in great numbers, to cover the earth; he alone is deprived of children. And although hitherto he was ignorant of his own future vocation; yet God designed in his person, as in a mirror, to make it evident, whence and in what manner his Church should arise; for at that time it lay hid, as in a dry root under the earth.

Calvin: Gen 11:31

31.And Terah took Abram his son. Here the next chapter ought to commence; because Moses begins to treat of one of the principal subjects of his book; namely, the calling of Abram. For he not only relates that Terah changed his country, but he also explains the design and the end of his departure, that he left his native soils and entered on his journey, in order to come to the land of Canaan. Whence the inference is easily drawn, that he was not so much the leader or author of the journey, as the companion of his son.

And it is no obstacle to this inference, that Moses assigns the priority to Terah, as if Abram had departed under his auspices and direction, rather than by the command of God: for this is an honor conferred upon the father’s name. Nor do I doubt that Abram, when he saw his father willingly obeying the calling of God, became in return the more obedient to him. Therefore, it is ascribed to the authority of the father, that he took his son with him. For, that Abram had been called of God before he moved a foot from his native soil, will presently appear too plain to be denied. We do not read that his father had been called. It may therefore be conjectured, that the oracle of God had been made known to Terah by the relation of his son. For the divine command to Abram respecting his departure, did not prohibit him from informing his father, that his only reason for leaving him was, that he preferred the command of God to all human obligations. These two things, indeed without controversy, we gather from the words of Moses; that Abram was divinely called, before Terah left his own country: and that Terah had no other design than that of coming into the land of Canaan; that is, of joining his son as a voluntary companion. Therefore, I conclude, that he had left his country a short time before his death. For it is absurd to suppose, that when he departed from his own country, to go directly to the land of Canaan, he should have remained sixty years a stranger in a foreign land. It is more probable, that being an old man worn out with years he was carried off by disease and weariness. And yet it may be, that God held them a little while in suspense, because Moses says he dwelt in Charran; but from what follows, it appears that the delay was not long: since, in the seventy-fifth year of his age, Abram departed thence; and he had gone thither already advanced in age, and knowing that his wife was barren. Moreover, the town which by the Hebrews is called Charran, is declared by all writers, with one consent, to be Charran, situated in Mesopotamia; although Lucas, poetically rather than truly, places it in Assyria. The place was celebrated for the destruction of Crassus, and the overthrow of the Roman army. ³³⁸

Defender: Gen 11:1

Literally, "of one lip and one set of words" - that is, one phonology and one vocabulary, the same language as spoken by the antediluvians. This may well have been the Hebrew language, or some similar Semitic language since the primitive records were transmitted through Noah and Shem and since it is very unlikely that either Noah or Shem were participants in the rebellion and judgment at Babel."

Defender: Gen 11:2

The phrase may mean "eastward." It is also possible that, as the people migrated from Ararat, they first went farther to the east, and then turned back westward until they came to the plain of Shinar (Sumer). This fertile valley so reminded them of Eden that they named its two rivers (Tigris and Euphrates) after two of the Edenic rivers.

Defender: Gen 11:2

The reference to Shinar ties back in to Gen 10:10, reminding us that the leader of the population by this time was Nimrod, "the mighty tyrant in the face of the Lord" (Gen 10:9).

Defender: Gen 11:2

Their decision to "dwell" here in one location was in defiance of God's command to "fill the earth" (Gen 9:1, Gen 9:7). God's design was to have a multiplicity of local governmental units (Gen 9:5, Gen 9:6; Act 17:26, Act 17:27), but Nimrod purposed to establish a one-government dictatorship under himself. When Shem's son Asshur settled in a separate location, Nimrod quickly took it over (Gen 10:11)."

Defender: Gen 11:3

Literally, "give" - indicating a council had reached a decision concerning various possible courses of action and was now pronouncing its decision.

Defender: Gen 11:3

The first decision was to develop a brick-making industry with kiln-baked clay bricks and asphalt from the nearby pits as mortar. This would enable them to plan and develop strong, permanent buildings."

Defender: Gen 11:4

A second council, no doubt soon after the first, reached the firm decision to stay permanently in the Babel metroplex, erecting a strong capital city with a great central tower symbolizing its unity and centralizing its culture. This tower became the prototype of all the great ziggurats (stepped towers) and pyramids of the world.

Defender: Gen 11:4

The words "may reach" are not in the original. The tower was undoubtedly promoted as a great religious monument, dedicated "unto heaven." Its top would be used for worship and sacrifice, and the rank and file probably felt at first that its beauty and grandeur would honor God. Almost certainly the walls and ceiling of the shrine were emblazoned with the painted representations of "man, and ... birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things" (Rom 1:23), which depicted the universal signs of the zodiac. This remarkable system was probably originally formulated by the antediluvian patriarchs to depict the primeval prophecies of the coming Seed of the woman and God's ultimate victory over Satan in a permanent record in the stars themselves (see note on Gen 1:14). Under Nimrod's subtle corruption of God's truth, however, this "gospel in the stars" was soon distorted into astrology and evolutionary pantheism, then into spiritism and polytheism, as people gradually ceased worshipping the true God of heaven and turned to "the host of heaven," the fallen angels.

Defender: Gen 11:4

The intent of the leaders of this rebellion was flagrant rejection of God's command."

Defender: Gen 11:5

God was well aware of all that was transpiring, but was long-suffering, allowing ample time for repentance. The expression "came down" is figurative, indicating the rebellion had now gone too far and required divine intervention."

Defender: Gen 11:6

In God's judgment, the main problem was the unity of the people; the one most effective way of thwarting unity would be to prevent communication.

Defender: Gen 11:6

Nimrod, with direct access to demonic intelligence and Satanic power, would be invincible without divine intervention. No doubt there was a faithful remnant (Noah, Shem), but they were helpless without God's action."

Defender: Gen 11:7

A council in heaven (perhaps mocking Nimrod's councils - Psa 2:1-4) decrees the confusion of tongues. This act is clearly supernatural, involving the divine creative power which Satan could neither duplicate nor reverse.

Defender: Gen 11:7

In some inexplicable manner, God altered the brain/nerve/speech apparati of the Babylonian rebels to give each family unit (possibly the seventy families of Genesis 10) its own distinctive vocabulary/phonology complex. With all this, however, they all remained truly human, unchanged in basic thought processes or moral character. Further, their distinctive languages were still sufficiently alike that they could, with time and much effort, learn to speak each other's languages. For some time, however, they could no longer communicate between families and, therefore, they could no longer cooperate. They were thus forced to obey God's earlier command to scatter abroad and to fill the earth with different nations and governmental units."

Defender: Gen 11:8

The tower had been completed and was actively in use, but the city was still unfinished. Probably all families except that of Nimrod himself departed from Babel, leaving him the burden of developing his own tribe at Babel as best they could. These probably became the Sumerians. The others scattered into various regions already described in Genesis 10, some eventually developing great civilizations. This account, originally written by Shem (Gen 11:10), is reflected in a somewhat distorted form in the legends of other nations, including a tablet excavated at Ur. There is no better scientific theory for the origin of the various families of languages. All such theories seem to point to an origin in the Middle East."

Defender: Gen 11:9

The Hebrew word babel means "mixed" or "confusion." It was associated by the writer with the "babble" of sounds which was the last memory held by all who scattered from the city. The word "babble" is an example of onomatopoeia, a word which imitates an actual sound, and thus is essentially the same in all languages. The name Babel, therefore, does not really mean "gate of God," as later apologists claimed, but "confusion."

Defender: Gen 11:9

As the people scattered, each family gradually became a tribal unit, and each had to develop its own distinctive culture as best it could. Each for a time would have to live by hunting and gathering, residing in caves or temporary shelters. The stronger families would occupy the best nearby sites (for example, the Nile valley), while others would be forced farther away. Although they were all familiar with the arts of agriculture, animal husbandry, ceramics, metallurgy, construction, navigation, etc. each family would require time, population growth, and discovery of sources of metals and building materials. They all had known how to write, but now, with a completely new speech, each tribe would need to invent an entirely new written language, and this would require still more time and ingenuity. Within a few generations, however, all these attributes of "civilization" had surfaced all over the world, even on distant continents. As populations grew, some tribes eventually reached into every part of the world. In some instances they traveled by land bridges (Bering Strait, Malaysian Strait) which existed for perhaps a millennium during the Ice Age which followed the Flood. In other cases, they established colonies through sea exploration (the Phoenicians for example). All carried essentially the same Babylonian culture and pagan religion with them, unfortunately, so that Babylon is called in the New Testament "the mother of harlots and abominations (that is, "idolatries") of the earth" (Rev 17:5). At the same time, they also carried a faint remembrance of the true God and His promises, especially remembering the divine judgment of the great Flood in their traditions. Each retained knowledge of God and could see evidence of Him in both the creation and their own natures (Joh 1:9; Rom 1:20; Rom 2:13-15) so they were inexcusable in their almost universal descent into the religious morass of evolutionary pantheism, astrology, spiritism, polytheism and, finally, atheistic materialism."

Defender: Gen 11:10

This marks the termination of Shem's tablet. Apparently Terah (Gen 11:27) acquired the ancient records at this point, and continued them.

Defender: Gen 11:10

Evidently Shem, Ham and Japheth were born 100 years before the Flood (compare Gen 5:32 and Gen 7:6). Shem was evidently a few years younger than Japeth (called "the elder" in Gen 10:21). Ham was still younger. He was called Noah's "younger son" in Gen 9:24.

Defender: Gen 11:10

Apparently none of Noah's sons had children before the Flood, possibly because of the universal violence and their concentration on building the ark."

Defender: Gen 11:13

It is obvious, by comparison of the genealogies and chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11, that the longevity of mankind began a steady decline after the Flood. Undoubtedly the vast climatological and physiographical changes caused by the Flood were the main natural causes of this. The protective vapor canopy was gone (see Gen 1:6, note; Gen 7:4, note), the rich soils were gone, mutations were increasing in the inbreeding populations, and the general environment was much more rigorous. No doubt it was also providentially ordered that, in the post-Flood world, life-spans should settle at around seventy years of age (Psa 90:10)."

Defender: Gen 11:14

Luk 3:36 inserts the name "Cainan" between those of Arphaxad and Salah. This name is also found in some of the Septuagint manuscripts (though not the earliest), but it is not found in either Gen 10:24 or 1Ch 1:18, or any of the Masoretic manuscripts. The weight of evidence favors the Hebrew text with Cainan's name having accidentally been later inserted by careless scribal copying from Gen 5:10 and/or Luk 3:37. The inclusion of essentially the same genealogy, with no suggestion of any omitted generations in Gen 10:21-25; 11:10-26; 1Ch 1:17-28; and Luk 3:34-38, including chronological data in the second, at least places the burden of proof on any who (for archaeological reasons) would maintain there are significant gaps involved."

Defender: Gen 11:16

If there are no genealogical gaps in Gen 11:10-17, then the numbers add to 101 years from the Flood to the birth of Peleg right after the Dispersion. In view of the longevity of the times, as well as God's command to multiply rapidly, a quite reasonable population growth model will indicate at least 1000 mature adults on the earth at the time of the Dispersion, and possibly many times this amount."

Defender: Gen 11:19

There is a sudden drop in longevity here, from 464 years for Eber to 239 years for Peleg. This is the most likely spot, therefore, for a genealogical gap in the record. However, this sharp decline may also be explained by the traumatic changes in living conditions caused by the confusion of tongues and the resultant migrations and struggles. The close inbreeding since the Flood, aggravated further by the Dispersion, would also contribute to an increased mutational load carried by the population, and this would tend to further reduce the life-span. In any case, even if genealogical gaps do exist (in either Genesis 5 or Genesis 11) they could only involve a few generations at most; in no case could they be stretched sufficiently to accommodate the evolutionist's imagined million-year history of man."

Defender: Gen 11:26

Abram presumably was the oldest of Terah's three sons. However, when the same type of notation had been used for Noah's three sons (Gen 5:32), the first-named son was not the oldest, so Abram could possibly have been younger than one or both of his brothers."

Defender: Gen 11:27

This statement seems to conclude Terah's tablet, which thus consisted solely of the genealogical records from Shem to himself (Genesis 11:10-27). If there are no gaps in the genealogies, Shem lived until after Terah's death, so Terah could easily have gotten the earlier tablets from Shem. Likewise, he could easily have transmitted them later to Abraham, or even to Isaac, since he lived until Isaac was thirty-five years old (Gen 11:26, Gen 11:32; Gen 21:5), assuming Abram was his oldest son.

Defender: Gen 11:27

Isaac is apparently the author of the next toledoth, and he seems to have keyed his record back into Terah's simply by repeating the conclusion of the latter.

Defender: Gen 11:27

The names of both Nahor (named after his grandfather) and Haran are associated with cities in Mesopotamia (Gen 24:10; Gen 28:10). Haran died when relatively young, evidently while visiting his father back in Ur (Gen 11:26, Gen 11:28, Gen 11:32). His son, Lot, soon became attached to his Uncle Abram."

Defender: Gen 11:28

Ur was an old and prosperous city in the days of Abram. Archaeological excavation has revealed the existence of a great library which has yielded thousands of clay tablets. Contrary to outmoded theories of cultural evolution, practically everyone knew how to read and write long before Abram's day."

Defender: Gen 11:29

Nahor married his niece, and Sarai was Abram's half-sister (Gen 20:12), a daughter of Terah by another of his wives. Close marriages were not yet genetically dangerous and so were not prohibited until the Mosaic law was established. Perhaps they were even desirable in those families who still worshipped the true God in order to maintain a pure faith."

Defender: Gen 11:31

Evidently Terah, as well as Abram, had received God's call to go to Canaan, but Terah went north to Haran instead, perhaps intending to go on to Canaan after settling his deceased son's affairs in Haran. Abram also had received God's call while still in Mesopotamia (Act 7:2, Act 7:3), and so he and his wife set out with Terah. However, Terah never left Haran, eventually even joining its idolatrous practices (Jos 24:2, Jos 24:14, Jos 24:15)."

TSK: Gen 11:1

am 1757, bc 2247

was : Isa 19:18; Zep 3:9; Act 2:6

language : Heb. lip

speech : Heb. words

TSK: Gen 11:2

from the east : or, eastward, Gen 13:11

Shinar : Gen 11:9, Gen 10:10, Gen 14:1; Isa 11:11; Dan 1:2; Zec 5:11

TSK: Gen 11:3

they said one to another : Heb. a man said to his neighbour, Go to. Gen 11:4, Gen 11:7; Psa 64:5; Pro 1:11; Ecc 2:1; Isa 5:5, Isa 41:6, Isa 41:7; Jam 4:13, Jam 5:1, not as, Heb 3:13, Heb 10:24

burn thoroughly : Heb. burn to a burning

brick : Exo 1:14, Exo 5:7-18; 2Sa 12:31; Isa 9:10, Isa 65:3; Nah 3:14

slime : Gen 14:10; Exo 2:3

TSK: Gen 11:4

whose : Deu 1:28, Deu 9:1; Dan 4:11, Dan 4:22

and let : 2Sa 8:13; Psa 49:11-13; Pro 10:7; Dan 4:30; Joh 5:44

lest : Gen 11:8, Gen 11:9; Psa 92:9; Luk 1:51

TSK: Gen 11:5

Gen 18:21; Exo 19:11; Psa 11:4, Psa 33:13, Psa 33:14; Jer 23:23, Jer 23:24; Joh 3:13; Heb 4:13

TSK: Gen 11:6

Behold : Gen 3:22; Jdg 10:14; 1Ki 18:27; Ecc 11:9

the people : Gen 11:1, Gen 9:19; Act 17:26

imagined : Gen 6:5, Gen 8:21; Psa 2:1-4; Luk 1:51

TSK: Gen 11:7

Go to : The Hebrew word signifies, ""Come,""or, ""make preparation,""as for a journey or the execution of a purpose.

let : Gen 11:5, Gen 1:26, Gen 3:22; Isa 6:8

confound : Job 5:12, Job 5:13, Job 12:20; Psa 2:4, Psa 33:10; Act 2:4-11

may : Gen 10:5, Gen 10:20, Gen 10:32, Gen 42:23; Deu 28:49; Psa 55:9; Jer 5:15; 1Co 14:2-11, 1Co 14:23

TSK: Gen 11:8

Lord : Gen 11:4, Gen 11:9, Gen 49:7; Deu 32:8; Luk 1:51

upon : Gen 10:25, Gen 10:32

TSK: Gen 11:9

Babel : that is, Confusion, The tower of Babel, Herodotus informs us, was a furlong or 660 feet, in length and breadth; and, according to Strabo, it rose to the same altitude. It was of a pyramidical form, consisting of eight square towers, gradually decreasing in breadth, with a winding ascent on the outside, so very broad as to allow horses and carriages to pass each other, and even to turn. This magnificent structure is so completely destroyed that its very site is doubtful; and when supposed to be discovered, in all cases exhibiting a heap of rubbish. Gen 10:5, Gen 10:10, Gen 10:20, Gen 10:31; Isa. 13:1-14:32; Jer. 50:1-51:64; 1Co 14:23

the face : Gen 10:25, Gen 10:32; Act 17:26

TSK: Gen 11:10

am 1658, bc 2346, Gen 11:27, Gen 10:21, Gen 10:22; 1Ch 1:17-27; Luk 3:34-36

TSK: Gen 11:11

am 2158, bc 1846

Shem : Gen. 5:4-32

begat sons : Gen 1:28, Gen 5:4, Gen 9:7; Psa 127:3, Psa 127:4, Psa 128:3, Psa 128:4, Psa 144:12

TSK: Gen 11:12

am 1693, bc 2311

begat : Luk 3:36

TSK: Gen 11:13

am 2096, bc 1908, Gen 11:13

TSK: Gen 11:14

am 1723, bc 2281, Gen 11:14

TSK: Gen 11:15

am 2126, bc 1878, Gen 11:15

TSK: Gen 11:16

am 1757, bc 2247

Eber : Gen 10:21, Gen 10:25; Num 24:24; 1Ch 1:19

Peleg : Luk 3:35, Phalec

TSK: Gen 11:17

am 2187, bc 1817, Gen 11:17

TSK: Gen 11:18

am 1787, bc 2217

Reu : Luk 3:35, Ragau

TSK: Gen 11:19

am 1996, bc 2008, Gen 11:19

TSK: Gen 11:20

am 1819, bc 2185

Serug : Luk 3:35, Saruch.

TSK: Gen 11:21

am 2026, bc 1978, Gen 11:21

TSK: Gen 11:22

am 1849, bc 2155

Nahor : Jos 24:2, Nachor

TSK: Gen 11:23

am 2049, bc 1955, Gen 11:23

TSK: Gen 11:24

am 1878, bc 2126

Terah : Luk 3:34, Thara

TSK: Gen 11:25

am 1997, bc 2007, Gen 11:25

TSK: Gen 11:26

am 1948, bc 2056

Abram : Gen 12:4, Gen 12:5, Gen 22:20-24, Gen 29:4, Gen 29:5; Jos 24:2; 1Ch 1:26, 1Ch 1:27

TSK: Gen 11:27

am 2008, bc 1996

Lot : Gen 11:31, Gen 12:4, Gen 13:1-11, Gen 14:12, 19:1-29; 2Pe 2:7

TSK: Gen 11:28

Ur : Gen 15:7; Neh 9:7; Act 7:2-4

TSK: Gen 11:29

Sarai : Gen 17:15, Gen 20:12

Milcah : Gen 22:20, Gen 24:15

Iscah : Iscah is called the daughter-in-law of Terah (Gen 11:31), as being Abram’ s wife; yet Abram afterwards said, ""she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother""(Gen 20:12). Probably Haran was the eldest son of Terah, and Abram his youngest by another wife; and thus Sarai was the daughter, or grand-daughter of Terah, Abram’ s father, but not of his mother.

TSK: Gen 11:30

barren : Gen 15:2, Gen 15:3, Gen 16:1, Gen 16:2, Gen 18:11, Gen 18:12, Gen 21:1, Gen 21:2, Gen 25:21, Gen 29:31, Gen 30:1, Gen 30:2; Jdg 13:2; 1Sa 1:2; Psa 113:9; Luk 1:7, Luk 1:36

TSK: Gen 11:31

am 2078, bc 1926

took : Gen 11:26, Gen 11:27, Gen 12:1

they went : Gen 11:28, Gen 12:1; Jos 24:2, Jos 24:3; Heb 11:8

Ur : Ur was probably the place called Ouri, in Mesopotamia, two days’ journey from Nisibis, in the way to the river Tigris. Jos 24:2; Neh 9:7; Act 7:2-4

the land : Gen 10:19, Gen 24:10, bc cir, 1923, am cir, 2081

Haran : Gen 11:32, Gen 12:4, Gen 24:10, Gen 24:15, Gen 27:43, Gen 29:4, Gen 29:5; Act 7:2-4, Charran

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Gen 11:1-9

- The Confusion of Tongues

1. נסע nāsa‛ "pluck out, break up, journey." מקדם mı̂qedem "eastward, or on the east side"as in Gen 2:14; Gen 13:11; Isa 9:11 (12).

6. החלם hachı̂lām "their beginning", for החלם hăchı̂lām , the regular form of this infinitive with a suffix. יזמוּ yāzmû as if from יזם yāzam = זמם zāmam .

7. נבלה nāb^e lâh usually said to be for נבלה nābolâh from בלל bālal ; but evidently designed by the punctuator to be the third singular feminine perfect of נבל nābal "to be confounded,"having for its subject שׂפה śāpâh , "and there let their lip be confounded."The two verbs have the same root.

9. בבל bābel Babel, "confusion,"derived from בל bl the common root of בלל bālal and נבל nābel , by doubling the first radical.

Having completed the table of nations, the sacred writer, according to his wont, goes back to record an event of great moment, both for the explanation of this table and for the future history of the human race. The point to which he reverts is the birth of Peleg. The present singular passage explains the nature of that unprecedented change by which mankind passed from one family with a mutually intelligible speech, into many nations of diverse tongues and lands.

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.

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 mı̂qedem by Gen 13:11, where Lot is said to journey ( מקדם mı̂qedem ) 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.

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.

Gen 11:4

The purpose of their hearts is now more fully expressed. "Let us build us a city, and a tower whose top may be in the skies."A city is a fortified enclosure or keep for defense against the violence of the brute creation. A tower whose top may be in the skies for escape from the possibility of a periodical deluge. This is the language of pride in man, who wishes to know nothing above himself, and to rise beyond the reach of an over-ruling Providence. "And let us make us a name."A name indicates distinction and pre-eminence. To make us a name, then, is not so much the cry of the multitude as of the few, with Nimrod at their head, who alone could expect what is not common, but distinctive. It is here artfully inserted, however, in the popular exclamation, as the people are prone to imagine the glory even of the despot to be reflected on themselves. This gives the character of a lurking desire for empire and self-aggrandizement to the design of the leaders - a new form of the same selfish spirit which animated the antediluvian men of name Gen 6:4. But despotism for the few or the one, implies slavery and all its unnumbered ills for the many. "Lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole land."The varied instincts of their common nature here speak forth. The social bond, the tie of kinsmanship, the wish for personal safety, the desire to be independent, perhaps even of God, the thirst for absolute power, all plead for union; but it is union for selfish ends.

Gen 11:5-7

These verses describe the nature of that change by which this form of human selfishness is to be checked. "The Lord came down."The interposing providence of God is here set forth in a sublime simplicity, suited to the early mind of man. Still there is something here characteristic of the times after the deluge. The presence of the Lord seems not to have been withdrawn from the earth before that event. He walked in the garden when Adam and Eve were there. He placed the ministers and symbols of his presence before it when they were expelled. He expostulated with Cain before and after his awful crime. He said, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man."He saw the wickedness of man; and the land was corrupt before him. He communicated with Noah in various ways, and finally established his covenant with him. In all this he seems to have been present with man on earth. He lingered in the garden as long as his forbearance could be expected to influence man for good. He at length appointed the limit of a hundred and twenty years. And after watching over Noah during the deluge, he seems to have withdrawn his visible and gracious presence from the earth. Hence, the propriety of the phrase, "the Lord came down."He still deals in mercy with a remnant of the human race, and has visited the earth and manifested His presence in a wondrous way. But He has not yet taken up His abode among people as He did in the garden, and as He intimates that He will sometime do on the renovated earth.

Gen 11:6

In like simplicity is depicted the self-willed, God-defying spirit of combination and ambition which had now budded in the imagination of man. "The People is one"- one race, with one purpose. "And they have all one lip."They understand one another’ s mind. No misunderstanding has arisen from diversity of language. "This is their beginning."The beginning of sin, like that of strife, is as when one letteth out water. The Lord sees in this commencement the seed of growing evil. All sin is dim and small in its first rise; but it swells by insensible degrees to the most glaring and gigantic proportions. "And now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."Now that they have made this notable beginning of concentration, ambition, and renown, there is nothing in this way which they will not imagine or attempt.

Gen 11:7

Here is announced the means by which the defiant spirit of concentration is to be defeated. From this and the previous verse we learn that the lip, and not the stock of words, is the part of language which is to be affected, and hence, perceive the propriety of distinguishing these two in the introductory statement. To confound, is to introduce several kinds, where before there was only one; and so in the present case to introduce several varieties of form, whereas language was before of one form. Hence, it appears that the one primitive tongue was made manifold by diversifying the law of structure, without interfering with the material of which it was composed. The bases or roots of words are furnished by instinctive and evanescent analogies between sounds and things, on which the etymological law then plays its part, and so vocables come into existence. Thus, from the root "fer,"we get "fer, ferre, ferens, fert, ferebat, feret, ferat, ferret;" φέρε phere , φέρειν pherein , φέρων pherōn , φέει pherei , ἔφερε ephere , φέρῃ pherē , φέροι pheroi , etc.; ברה p^e rēh , ברה pāroh , פרה o poreh , שפרה pārâh , יפרה yı̂preh , etc., according to the formative law of each language.

It is evident that some roots may become obsolete and so die out, while others, according to the exigencies of communication and the abilities of the speaker, may be called into existence in great abundance. But whatever new words come into the stock, are made to comply with the formative law which regulates the language of the speaker. This law has been fixed as the habitude of his mind, from which he only deviates on learning and imitating some of the formative processes of another tongue. In the absence of any other language, it is not conceivable that he should on any account alter this law. To do so would be to rebel against habit without reason, and to put himself out of relation with the other speakers of the only known tongue.

The sacred writer does not care to distinguish the ordinary from the extraordinary in the procedure of Divine Providence, inasmuch as he ascribes all events to the one creating, superintending, and administering power of God. Yet there is something beyond nature here. We can understand and observe the introduction of new words into the vocabulary of man as often as the necessity of designating a new object or process calls the naming faculty into exercise. But the new word, whether a root or not, if engrafted into the language, invariably obeys the formative law of the speech into which it is admitted. A nation adds new words to its vocabulary, but does not of itself, without external influence, alter the principle on which they are formed. Here, then, the divine interference was necessary, if the uniform was ever to become multiform. And accordingly this is the very point in which the historian marks the interposition of the Almighty.

Philologists have distinguished three or four great types or families of languages. The first of these was the Shemitic or Hebrew family. It is probable that most of the Shemites spoke dialects of this well-defined type of human speech. Aram (the Syrians), Arpakshad, (the Hebrews and Arabs), and Asshur (the Assyrians), certainly did so. Elam (Elymais), succumbed first to the Kushite race ( Κίσσιοι Kissioi , Κοσσαῖοι Kossaioi ) and afterward to the Persian, and so lost its language and its individuality among the nations. Lud (the Lydians) was also overrun by other nationalities. But this type of language was extended beyond the Shemites to the Kenaanites and perhaps some other Hamites. It includes the language of the Old Testament.

The second family of languages has been variously designated Japhetic, Indo-Germanic, Indo-European and Arian. It is spoken by the great bulk of the descendants of Japheth, and embraces a series of cognate modes of communication, extending from India to the various European colonies of America. It includes Greek, the tongue of the New Testament.

A third class, including the Kushite (Babylonian), Egyptian, and other African languages, has been termed Hamitic. Some of its stocks have affinities both with the Shemitic and Japhetic families.

It is probable that the congeries of unclassed languages (Allophylian, Sporadic, Turanian), including even the Chinese tongues, have relations more or less intimate with one or other of these three tolerably definite families. But the science of comparative philology is only approaching the solution of its final problem, the historical or natural relationship of all the languages of the world. It is evident, however, that the principle of classification is not so much the amount of roots in common, as the absence or presence of a given form. The diversity in the matter may be brought about by assignable natural causes; but the diversity in the form can only arise from a preternatural impulse. Forms may wear off; but they do not pass from one constituent law to another without foreign influence. The speech of a strong and numerous race may gradually overbear and annihilate that of a weak one; and in doing so may adopt many of its words, but by no means its form. So long as a national speech retains any of its forms, they continue to be part of that special type by which it is characterized.

Hence, we perceive that the interposition of Providence in confounding the lip of mankind, is the historical solution of the enigma of philology; the existence of diversity of language at the same time with the natural persistency of form and the historical unity of the human race. The data of philology, indicating that the form is the side of language needing to be touched in order to produce diversity, coincide also with the facts here narrated. The preternatural diversification of the form, moreover, marks the order amid variety which prevailed in this great revolution of mental habitude. It is not necessary to suppose that seventy languages were produced from one at the very crisis of this remarkable change, but only the few generic forms that sufficed to effect the divine purpose, and by their interaction to give origin to all subsequent varieties of language or dialect. Nor are we to imagine that the variant principles of formation went into practical development all at once, but only that they started a process which, in combination with other operative causes, issued in all the diversities of speech which are now exhibited in the human race.

That they may not understand one another’ s lip. - This is the immediate result of diversifying the formative law of human speech, even though the material elements were to remain much the same as before. Further results will soon appear.

Gen 11:8-9

The effect of the divine interposition is noted in Gen 11:8-9. "And the Lord scattered them abroad."Not understanding one another’ s mode of speech, they feel themselves practically separated from one another. Unity of counsel and of action becomes impossible. Misunderstanding naturally follows, and begets mistrust. Diversity of interest grows up, and separation ensues. Those who have a common speech retreat from the center of union to a sequestered spot, where they may form a separate community among themselves. The lack of pasture for their flocks and provision for themselves leads to a progressive migration. Thus, the divine purpose, that they should be fruitful and multiply and replenish the land Gen 9:1 is fulfilled. The dispersion of mankind at the same time put an end to the ambitious projects of the few. "They left off to build the city."It is probable that the people began to see through the plausible veil which the leaders had cast over their selfish ends. The city would henceforth be abandoned to the immediate party of Nimrod. This would interrupt for a time the building of the city. Its dwellings would probably be even too numerous for its remaining inhabitants. The city received the name of Babel (confusion), from the remarkable event which had interrupted its progress for a time.

This passage, then, explains the table of nations, in which they are said to be distinguished, not merely by birth and land, but "every one after his tongue."It is therefore attached to the table as a needful appendix, and thus completes the history of the nations so far as it is carried on by the Bible. At this point the line of history leaves the universal, and by a rapid contraction narrows itself into the individual, in the person of him who is to be ultimately the parent of a chosen seed, in which the knowledge of God and of his truth is to be preserved, amidst the degeneracy of the nations into the ignorance and error which are the natural offspring of sin.

Here, accordingly, ends the appendix to the second Bible, or the second volume of the revelation of God to man. As the first may have been due to Adam, the second may be ascribed in point of matter to Noah, with Shem as his continuator. The two joined together belong not to a special people, but to the universal race. If they had ever appeared in a written form before Moses, they might have descended to the Gentiles as well as to the Israelites. But the lack of interest in holy things would account for their disappearance among the former. The speakers of the primitive language, however, would alone retain the knowledge of such a book if extant. Some of its contents might be preserved in the memory, and handed down to the posterity of the founders of the primeval nations. Accordingly we find more or less distinct traces of the true God, the creation, the fall and the deluge, in the traditions of all nations that have an ancient history.

But even if this two-volumed Bible were not possessed by the nations in a written form, its presence here, at the head of the writings of divine truth, marks the catholic design of the Old Testament, and intimates the comprehension of the whole family of man within the merciful purposes of the Almighty. In the issues of Providence the nations appear now to be abandoned to their own devices. Such a judicial forsaking of a race, who had a second time heard the proclamation of his mercy, and a second time forsaken the God of their fathers, was naturally to be expected. But it is never to be forgotten that God twice revealed his mercy "to the whole human race"before they were left to their own ways. And even when they were given over to their own willful unrighteousness and ungodlincss, it was only to institute and develop the mystery by which they might be again fully and effectually brought back to reconciliation with God.

The new developments of sin during this period are chiefly three - drunkenness, dishonoring of a parent, and the ambitious attempt to be independent of God’ s power, and to thwart his purpose of peopling the land. These forms of human selfishness still linger about the primary commands of the two tables. Insubordination to the supreme authority of God is accompanied with disrespect to parental authority. Drunkenness itself is an abuse of the free grant of the fruit of the trees orignally made to man. These manifestations of sin do not advance to the grosser or more subtle depths of iniquity afterward explicitly forbidden in the ten commandments. They indicate a people still comparatively unsophisticated in their habits.

The additional motives brought to bear on the race of man during the interval from Noah to Abraham, are the preaching of Noah, the perdition of the unbelieving antediluvians, the preservation of Noah and his family, the distinction of clean and unclean animals, the permission to partake of animal food, the special prohibition of the shedding of man’ s blood, the institution thereupon of civil government, and the covenant with Noah and his seed that there should not be another deluge.

The preaching of Noah consisted in pressing the invitations and warnings of divine mercy on a wicked race. But it bore with new power on the succeeding generations, when it was verified by the drowning of the impenitent race and the saving of the godly household. This was an awful demonstration at the same time of the divine vengeance on those who persisted in sin, and of the divine mercy to the humble and the penitent. The distinction of the clean and the unclean was a special warning against that conformity with the world by which the sons of God had died out of the human race. The permission to partake of animal food was in harmony with the physical constitution of man, and seems to have been delayed until this epoch for moral as well as physical reasons. In the garden, and afterward in Eden, the vegetable products of the soil were adequate to the healthy sustenance of man. But in the universal diffusion of the human race, animal food becomes necessary.

In some regions where man has settled, this alone is available for a great portion of the year, if not for the whole. And a salutary dread of death, as the express penalty of disobedience, was a needful lesson in the infancy of the human race. But the overwhelming destruction of the doomed race was sufficient to impress this lesson indelibly on the minds of the survivors. Hence, the permission of animal food might now be safely given, especially when accompanied with the express prohibition of manslaying, under the penalty of death by the hands of the executioner. This prohibition was directly intended to counteract the bad example of Cain and Lamek, and to deter those who slew animals from slaying men; and provision was made for the enforcement of its penalty by the institution of civil government. The covenant with Noah was a recognition of the race being reconciled to God in its new head, and therefore suited to be treated as a party at peace with God, and to enter on terms of communion with him. Its promise of security from destruction by a flood was a pledge of all greater and after blessings which naturally flow from amity with God.

Thus, we perceive that the revelation of God to the antediluvian world was confirmed in many respects, and enlarged in others, by that made to the postdiluvians. The stupendous events of the deluge were a marvelous confirmation of the justice and mercy of God revealed to Adam. The preaching of Noah was a new mode of urging the truths of God on the minds of men, now somewhat exercised in reflective thought. The distinction of clean and unclean enforced the distinction that really exists between the godly and the ungodly. The prohibition of shedding human blood is the growth of a specific law out of the great principle of moral rectitude in the conscience, apace with the development of evil in the conduct of mankind. The covenant with Noah is the evolution into articulate utterance of that federal relation which was virtually formed with believing and repentant Adam. Adam himself was long silent in the depth of his self-abasement for the disobedience he had exhibited. In Noah the spirit of adoption had attained to liberty of speech, and accordingly, God, on the momentous occasion of his coming out of the ark and presenting his propitiatory and eucharistic offering, enters into a covenant of peace with him, assuring him of certain blessings.

There is something especially interesting in this covenant with Noah, as it embraces the whole human race, and is in force to this day. It is as truly a covenant of grace as that with Abraham. It is virtually the same covenant, only in an earlier and less developed form. Being made with Noah, who had found grace in the eyes of the Lord, and added to the former expression of the divine favor to man, it explicitly mentions a benefit which is merely the first and most palpable of the series of benefits, temporal and eternal, flowing from the grace of God, all of which are in due time made over to the heirs of salvation. We cannot tell how many of the Gentiles explicitly or implicitly consented to this general covenant and partook of its blessings. But it is only just to the God of Noah to be thankful that there was and is an offer of mercy to the whole family of man, all who accept of which are partakers of his grace, and that all subsequent covenants only help to the ultimate and universal acceptance of that fundamental covenant which, though violated by Adam and all his ordinary descendants, was yet in the fullness of time to be implemented by him who became the seed of the woman and the second Adam.

Barnes: Gen 11:10-26

- Section IX - The Line to Abram

- XXXV. The Line of Abram

18. רעוּ re‛û , Re‘ u, "friend;"verb: "feed, delight in, enjoy."

20. שׂרוּג śerûg , Serug, "vine-shoot."

22. נחור nāchôr , Nachor, "snorting."

24. תרה terach , Terach, "delay?"Aramaic.

26. אברם 'abrām , Abram, "high father." הרן hārān Haran, "mountaineer."

The usual phrase, "These are the generations,"marks the beginning of the fifth document. Accordingly, we now enter upon a new phase of human development. The nations have gradually departed from the living God. They have not, however, stopped at this negative stage of ungodliness. They have fallen into polytheism and idolatry. And the knowledge of the one true God, the Maker, Possessor, and Upholder of heaven and earth, is on the verge of being entirely lost. Nevertheless the promises, first to the race of Adam, that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’ s head, and next to the family of Noah, that the Lord should be the God of Shem, were still in force. It is obvious, from the latter promise, that the seed of the woman is to be expected in the line of Shem.

The present passage contains the pedigree of Abram from Shem. From this it appears that the sacred writer here reverts to the second year after the flood - a point of time long before the close of the preceding narrative. "Shem was the son of a hundred years,"or in his hundredth year, two years after the flood, and therefore in the six hundred and third year of Noah, and consequently three years after Japheth. Abram was the twentieth, inclusive, from Adam, the tenth from Shem, and the seventh from Heber. A second Kenan is inserted after Arpakshad in the Septuagint, and in the Gospel according to Luke. But this name does not occur even in the Septuagint in 1Ch 1:24, where the genealogy of Abram is given. It is not found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Targums, or the ancient versions. It does not appear in Josephus or Philo. Neither is it found in the Codex Bezae in the Gospel of Luke. It must therefore be regarded as an interpolation.

The following table is a continuation of that given at the fifth chapter, and will serve for the comparison of the different forms in which the numbers are presented:

Line of Abram
	Hebrew	Sam. Pent.	Septuagint	Josephus	Date
	Son's Birth	Own Death	Son's Birth	Own Death	Son's Birth	Own Death	Son's Birth	Own Death	Of Birth	Of Death
11. Shem	(97) 2	600	(97) 2	600	(97) 2	600	(97) 12		1559	2150
12. Arpakshad ( Καινᾶν )	35	438	135	438	135	535	135		1658	2096
13. Shelah	30	433	130	433	130	460	130		1693	2126
14. Heber	34	464	134	404	134	404	134		1723	2187
15. Peleg	30	239	130	239	130	339	130		1757	1996
16. Reu	32	239	132	239	132	339	130		1787	2096
17. Serug	30	230	130	230	130	330	132		1819	2049
18. Nahor	29	148	79	148	175	304	120		1849	1997
19. Terah (Haran)	70 60	205	70 60	145	70 60	205	\ul1 70\ul0 292	205	1878	2083
20. Abram cd. Enters Ken.	70	75	70	75	70	75	130\ul1	\ul0 75	2008	2078
Sum	422		1072		1302		422\ul1	\ul0
D. of Flood	1656		1307		2262		2256\ul1	\ul0
D. of Call	2078		2379		3564		2678

From this table it appears that in the total years of life the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint agree on Shem; the Hebrew and Septuagint on Terah; the Samaritan and Septuagint on Heber; and the Hebrew and Samaritan on all the rest. In regard, however, to the years of paternity, the Hebrew stands alone, against the Samaritan and Septuagint agreeing, except in Terah, where they all agree. The difference is not in units or tens, but in the addition to the Hebrew numbers of a hundred years, except in the case of Nahor, where the addition is fifty years, or a hundred and fifty according to the Codex Vaticanus (B) of the Septuagint. Here, again, it is remarkable that Josephus while agreeing with the Samaritan and Septuagint in most of the separate numbers before paternity, agrees with the Hebrew in the sum of years from the flood to the 70th year of Terah (292 years, Josephus I. 6, 5). In Reu and Serug the numbers are transposed, seemingly by a mistake arising from the inverted order in which he gives the numbers.

In Nahor he, or his transcriber, seems to have added one hundred years according to the uniform law, and neglected the nine. To make up for this omission, the inexact round number 10 has been apparently added to the number of years after the flood, when Arpakshad was born. We have already noticed that some MSS. of Josephus gave 1656 as the sum-total of years from the creation to the flood, in which case the sums of Josephus and the Hebrew exactly agree. We find him also stating (viii. 3, 1) that the world was created 3102 years before Solomon began to build the temple, and that the deluge took place 1440 before the same point of time. Hence, we obtain 1662 years between the creation and the deluge; and this, if we only deduct from it the six years added to Lamek, agrees with the Hebrew. In the same passage he states that the entrance of Abram into Kenaan was 1020 years before the building of the temple.

Hence, we infer that 420 years elapsed from the flood to the call of Abram, which, if we count from the birth of Arpakshad, allow sixty years to elapse between the births of Haran and Abram, and date the call of Abram at 70, will exactly tally with the Hebrew. These sums cannot in any probable way be reconciled with the details in his own text, or in the Septuagint, or Samaritan. Again, Josephus calculates (x. 8, 5) that the temple was burnt 3513 years from the creation, and 1957 from the flood. Hence, the interval from the creation to the deluge would be 1556 years, differing from the Hebrew by 100 years, and reconcilable with it, if we suppose the 500th year of Noah to be the terminating date. He also concludes that the burning of the temple took place 1062 years after the exodus, thus making the interval from the flood to the exodus 895 years, while the Hebrew makes it 852. If we reckon the 100 years from the 500th year of Noah to the flood, the 292 which Josephus gives from the flood to the birth of Abraham, the 75 years to the call of Abraham, and the 430 from that to the exodus, we have 897 years, which will be reduced to Josephus’ s number by omitting the 2 years from the flood to the birth of Arpakshad; and to the Hebrew number by omitting the 100 years before the flood, adding the 60 between Haran and Abram, which Josephus here neglects, and dating the call of Abram at 70 years. But by no process that we are aware of can these calculated numbers of Josephus be reconciled with the details of his own text, or the Samaritan, or Septuagint. It seems perfectly clear that the Hebrew numbers lie at the basis of these calculations of our author.

The age of paternity in the Samaritan from Peleg down is beyond the middle age of life, which is contrary to all experience. The editor of the Septuagint seems to have observed this anomaly, and added 100 years to three of these lives, and 156 to that of Nahor, against the joint testimony of the Hebrew and Samaritan. If the year of paternity in the Vatican be the correct reading, a much greater number should have been here added. The Samaritan deducts 60 years from the age of Terah, against the joint testimony of the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Josephus, seemingly because the editor conceived that Abram was born in his seventieth year.

From the Targum of Onkelos and the Peshito it is evident that the Hebrew text was the same as now up to the Christian era. Before that time there was no conceivable reason for shortening the chronology, while national vanity and emulation might easily prompt men to lengthen it. It is acknowledged that the text of the Septuagint is inferior to that of the Hebrew.

The age of puberty in the Hebrew affords more scope for the increase of population than that in the other texts. For if a man begin to have a family at thirty, it is likely to be larger than if he began a hundred years later and only lived the same number of years altogether. Now the Hebrew and Samaritan agree generally, against the Septuagint, in the total years of life; and in two instances, Heber and Terah, the Samaritan has even a less number than the Hebrew. It is to be remembered, also, that the number of generations is the same in every case. Hence, in all human probability the Hebrew age of paternity will give the greater number of inhabitants to the world in the age of Abram. If we take the moderate average of five pairs for each family, we shall have for the estimated population 4 X 5(to the 9th power) pairs, or 15,625,000 souls. This number is amply sufficient for all the kingdoms that were in existence in the time of Abram. If we defer the time of becoming a father for a whole century, we shall certainly diminish, rather than increase, the chance of his having so large a family, and thereby the probability of such a population on the earth in the tenth generation from Noah.

In these circumstances we are disposed to abide by the Hebrew text, that has descended to us in an original form, at least until we see some more cogent reasons for abandoning any of its numbers than chronologers have yet been able to produce. And we content ourselves, meanwhile, with the fact that the same system of numbers manifestly lay at the basis of all our present texts, though it may be difficult in some cases to determine to the satisfaction of all what was the original figure. The determination of the chronology of ancient history is neither a question of vital importance, nor, to us now, a part of the primary or direct design of the Hebrew records.

Barnes: Gen 11:27-32

- Section X - Abraham

- XXXVI. The Father of Abram

27. לוט lôṭ , Lot, "veil;"verb: "cover."

28. אוּר 'ûr , Ur, "light, flame." כשׂדים kaśdı̂ym , Kasdim, Cardi, Kurds, Χαλδαῖοι Kaldaioi . כסד kesed , "gain?"Arabic. Ur Kasdim has been identified with Hur, now called Mugheir (the bitumened), a heap of ruins lying south of the Euphrates, nearly opposite its jucnction with the Shat el-Hie. Others place it at Edessa, now Orfa, a short way north of Carrhae.

29. שׂרי sāray , Sarai, "strife;" שׂרה śārâh "strive, rule." מלכה mı̂lkâh Milkah, "counsel, queen;"verb: "counsel, reign." יסכה yı̂s^e kâh , Jiskah, "one who spies, looks out."

31. הרן hārān , Haran, "burnt place." Χαῤῥαι Charran , Κάῤῥαι Karrai , a town on the Bilichus (Bililk), a tributary of the Frat, still called Harran. This has been identified by some with Harae, on the other side of the Frat, not far from Tadmor or Palmyra.

This passage forms the commencement of the sixth document, as is indicated by the customary phrase, "These are the generations."The sense also clearly accords with this distinction; and it accounts for the repetition of the statement, "Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran."Yet the scribe who finally arranged the text makes no account of this division; as he inserts neither the Hebrew letter פ ( p )nor even the Hebrew letter ס ( s )at its commencement, while he places the threefold פ ( p ), marking the end of a Sabbath lesson, at its close. We learn from this that the Jewish rabbis did not regard the opening phrase as a decided mark of a new beginning, or any indication of a new author. Nevertheless, this passage and the preceding one form the meet prelude to the history of Abram - the one tracing his genealogy from Shem and Heber, and the other detailing his relations with the family out of which he was called.

God has not forsaken the fallen race. On the contrary, he has once and again held out to them a general invitation to return, with a promise of pardon and acceptance. Many of the descendants of Noah have already forsaken him, and he foresees that all, if left to themselves, will sink into ungodliness. Notwithstanding all this, he calmly and resolutely proceeds with his purpose of mercy. In the accomplishment of this eternal purpose he moves with all the solemn grandeur of longsuffering patience. One day is with him as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Out of Adam’ s three sons he selects one to be the progenitor of the seed of the woman; out of Noah’ s three sons he again selects one; and now out of Terah’ s three is one to be selected. Among the children of this one he will choose a second one, and among his a third one before he reaches the holy family. Doubtless this gradual mode of proceeding is in keeping with the hereditary training of the holy nation, and the due adjustment of all the divine measures for at length bringing the fullness of the Gentiles into the covenant of everlasting peace.

The history here given of the postdiluvians has a striking resemblance in structure to that of the antediluvians. The preservation of Noah from the waters of the flood, is the counterpart of the creation of Adam after the land had risen out of the roaring deep. The intoxication of Noah by the fruit of a tree corresponds with the fall of Adam by eating the fruit of a forbidden tree. The worldly policy of Nimrod and his builders is parallel with the city-building and many inventions of the Cainites. The pedigree of Abram the tenth from Shem, stands over against the pedigree of Noah the tenth from Adam; and the paragraph now before us bears some resemblance to what precedes the personal history of Noah. All this tends to strengthen the impression made by some other phenomena, already noticed, that the book of Genesis is the work of one author, and not a mere file of documents by different writers.

The present paragraph is of special interest for the coming history. Its opening word and intimates its close connection with the preceding document; and accordingly we observe that the one is merely introductory to the other. The various characters brought forward are all of moment. Terah is the patriarch and leader of the migration for part of the way. Abram is the subject of the following narrative. Nahor is the grandfathcr of Rebekah. Haran is the father of Lot the companion of Abram, of Milcah the wife of Nahor and grandmother of Rebekah, and of Iskah. Iskah alone seems to have no connection with the subsequent narrative. Josephus says Sarai and Milkah were the daughters of Haran, taking no notice of Iskah. He seems, therefore, to identify Sarai and Iskah. Jerome, after his Jewish teachers, does the same. Abram says of Sarai, "She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother"Gen 20:12.

In Hebrew phrase the granddaughter is termed a daughter; and therefore this statement might be satisfied by her being the daughter of Haran. Lot is called the brother’ s son and the brother of Abram Gen 14:12, Gen 14:16. If Sarai be Haran’ s daughter, Lot is Abram’ s brother-in-law. This identification would also explain the introduction of Iskah into the present passage. Still it must be admitted, on the other hand, that persons are sometimes incidentally introduced in a history of facts, without any express connection with the course of the narrative, as Naamah in the history of the Cainites. The studied silence of the sacred writer in regard to the parentage of Sarai, in the present connection, tells rather in favor of her being the actual daughter of Terah by another wife, and so strictly the half-sister of Abram. For the Mosaic law afterward expressly prohibited marriage with "the daughter of a father"Lev 18:9. And, lastly, the text does not state of Iskah, "This is Sarai,"which would accord with the manner of the sacred writer, and is actually done in the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan.

Gen 11:28

And Haran died in the presence of his father Terah. - There is reason to believe that Haran was the oldest son of Terah. Though mentioned in the third place, like Japheth the oldest son of Noah, yet, like Japheth, also, his descendants are recounted first. He is the father of Lot, Milkah, and Iskah. His brother Nahor marries his daughter Milkah. If Iskah be the same as Sarai, Haran her father must have been some years older than Abram, as Abram was only ten years older than Sarai; and hence her father, if younger than Abram, must have been only eight or nine when she was born, which is impossible. Hence, those who take Iskah to be Sarai, must regard Abram as younger than Haran.

In the land of his birth. - The migration of Terah, therefore, did not take place until after the death of Haran. At all events, his three grandchildren, Lot, Milkah, and Iskah, were born before he commenced his journey. Still further, Milkah was married to Nahor for some time before that event. Hence, allowing thirty years for a generation, we have a period of sixty years and upwards from the birth of Haran to the marriage of his daughter. But if we take seventy years for a generation, which is far below the average of the Samaritan or the Septuagint, we have one hundred and forty years, which will carry us beyond the death of Terah, whether we reckon his age at one hundred and forty-five with the Samaritan, or at two hundred and five with the other texts. This gives another presumption in favor of the Hebrew average for a generation.

In Ur of the Kasdim. - The Kasdim, Cardi, Kurds, or Chaldees are not to be found in the table of nations. They have been generally supposed to be Shemites. This is favored by the residence of Abram among them, by the name Kesed, being a family name among his kindred Gen 22:22, and by the language commonly called Chaldee, which is a species of Aramaic. But among the settlers of the country, the descendants of Ham probably prevailed in early times. Nimrod, the founder of the Babylonian Empire, was a Kushite. The ancient Babylonish language, Rawlinson (Chaldaea) finds to be a special dialect, having affinities with the Shemitic, Arian, Turanian, and Hamitic tongues. The Chaldees were spread over a great extent of surface; but their most celebrated seat was Chaldaea proper, or the land of Shinar. The inhabitants of this country seem to have been of mixed descent, being bound together by political rather than family ties.

Nimrod, their center of union, was a despot rather than a patriarch. The tongue of the Kaldees, whether pure or mixed, and whether Shemitic or not, is possibly distinct from the Aramaic, in which they addressed Nebuchadnezzar in the time of Daniel Dan 1:4; Dan 2:4. The Kaldin at length lost their nationality, and merged into the caste or class of learned men or astrologers, into which a man might be admitted, not merely by being a Kaldai by birth, but by acquiring the language and learning of the Kasdim Dan 1:4; Dan 5:11. The seats of Chaldee learning were Borsippa (Birs Nimrud), Ur, Babylon, and Sepharvaim (Sippara, Mosaib). Ur or Hur has been found by antiquarian research (see Rawlinson’ s Ancient Monarchies) in the heap of ruins called Mugheir, "the bitumened."This site lies now on the right side of the Frat; but the territory to which it belongs is mainly on the left. And Abram coming from it would naturally cross into Mesopotamia on his way to Haran. Orfa, the other supposed site of Ur, seems to be too near Haran. It is not above twenty or twenty-five miles distant, which would not be more than one day’ s journey.

Gen 11:29, Gen 11:30

But Sarai was barren. - From this statement it is evident that Abram had been married for some time before the migration took place. It is also probable that Milkah had begun to have a family; a circumstance which would render the barrenness of Sarai the more remarkable.

Gen 11:31, Gen 11:32

And Terah took Abram. - Terah takes the lead in this emigration, as the patriarch of the family. In the Samaritan Pentateuch Milkah is mentioned among the emigrants; and it is not improbable that Nahor and his family accompanied Terah, as we find them afterward at Haran, or the city of Nahor Gen 24:10. "And they went forth with them."Terah and Abram went forth with Lot and the other companions of their journey. "To go into the land of Kenaan. It was the design of Terah himself to settle in the land of Kenaan. The boundaries of this land are given in the table of nations Gen 10:19. The Kenaanites were therefore in possession of it when the table of nations was drawn up. It is certain, however, that there were other inhabitants, some of them Shemites probably, anterior to Kenaan, and subjected by his invading race. The prime motive to this change of abode was the call to Abram recorded in the next chapter. Moved by the call of God, Abram "obeyed; and he went out not knowing whither he went"Heb 11:8.

But Terah was influenced by other motives to put himself at the head of this movement. The death of Haran, his oldest son, loosened his attachment to the land of his birth. Besides, Abram and Sarai were no doubt especially dear to him, and he did not wish to lose their society. The inhabitants also of Ur had fallen into polytheism, or, if we may so speak, allotheism, the worship of other gods. Terah had himself been betrayed into compliance with this form of impiety. It is probable that the revelation Abram had received from heaven was the means of removing this cloud from his mind, and restoring in him the knowledge and worship of the true God. Hence, his desire to keep up his connection with Abram, who was called of God. Prayerful conversation with the true and living God, also, while it was fast waning in the land of the Kasdim, seems to have been still maintained in its ancient purity in some parts of the land of Kenaan and the adjacent countries. In the land of Uz, a Shemite, perhaps even at a later period, lived Job; and in the neighboring districts of Arabia were his several friends, all of whom acknowledged the true God. And in the land of Kenaan was Melkizedec, the king of Salem, and the priest of the Most High God. A priest implies a considerable body of true worshippers scattered over the country. Accordingly, the name of the true God was known and revered, at least in outward form, wherever Abram went, throughout the land. The report of this comparatively favorable state of things in the land of Kenaan would be an additional incentive to the newly enlightened family of Terah to accompany Abram in obedience to the divine call.

Terah set out on his journey, no doubt, as soon after the call of Abram as the preparatory arrangements could be made. Now the promise to Abram was four hundred and thirty years before the exodus of the children of Israel out of Egypt Exo 12:40. Of this long period his seed was to be a stranger in a land that was not theirs for four hundred years Gen 15:13. Hence, it follows that Isaac, his seed, was born thirty years after the call of Abram. Now Abram was one hundred years old when Isaac was born, and consequently the call was given when he was seventy years of age - about five years before he entered the land of Kenaan Gen 12:4. This whole calculation exactly agrees with the incidental statement of Paul to the Galatians Gal 3:17 that the law was four hundred and thirty years after the covenant of promise. Terah was accordingly two hundred years old when he undertook the long journey to the land of Kenaan; for he died at two hundred and five, when Abram was seventy-five. Though proceeding by easy stages, the aged patriarch seems to have been exhausted by the length and the difficulty of the way. "They came to Haran and dwelt there."Broken down with fatigue, he halts for a season at Haran to recruit his wasted powers. Filial piety, no doubt, kept Abram watching over the last days of his venerable parents, who probably still cling to the fond hope of reaching the land of his adoption. Hence, they all abode in Haran for the remainder of the five years from the date of Abram’ s call to leave his native land. "And Terah died in Haran."This intimates that he would have proceeded with the others to the land of Kenaan if his life had been prolonged, and likewise that they did not leave Haran until his death.

We have already seen that Abram was seventy-five years of age at the death of Terah. It follows that he was born when Terah was one hundred and thirty years old, and consequently sixty years after Haran. This is the reason why we have placed one hundred and thirty (seventy and sixty), in the genealogical table opposite Terah, because the line of descent is not traced through Haran, who was born when he was seventy, but through Abram, who by plain inference was born when he was one hundred and thirty years old. It will be observed, also, that we have set down seventy opposite Abram as the date of his call, from which is counted the definite period of four hundred and thirty years to the exodus. And as all our texts agree in the numbers here involved, it is obvious that the same adjustment of years has in this case to be made, whatever system of chronology is adopted. Hence, Abram is placed first in the list of Terah’ s sons, simply on account of his personal pre-eminence as the father of the faithful and the ancestor of the promised seed; he and his brother Nahor are both much younger than Haran, are married only after his death, and one of them to his grown-up daughter Milkah; and he and his nephew Lot are meet companions in age as well as in spirit.

Hence, also, Abram lingers in Haran, waiting to take his father with him to the land of promise, if he should revive so far as to be fit for the journey. But it was not the lot of Terah to enter the land, where he would only have been a stranger. He is removed to the better country, and by his departure contributes no doubt to deepen the faith of his son Abram, of his grandson Lot, and of his daughter-in-law Sarai. This explanation of the order of events is confirmed by the statement of Stephen: "The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Charran; and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell"Act 7:2-4.

Poole: Gen 11:1

Earth is oft put for its inhabitants, as Gen 6:21 1Ch 16:23 Psa 33:8 .

Of one speech which even heathen writers acknowledge; and that probably was the Hebrew tongue.

Poole: Gen 11:2

As they journeyed from the east i.e. Nimrod and the rest of his confederates of Ham’ s posterity; not from Armenia, where the ark rested, which was north from Babel, and is called north in Scripture, as Jer 25:9,26 , &c.; but from Assyria, into which they had before come from the mountains of Ararat for more convenient habitation. It may be rendered to the east; but that manner of translation is neither usual nor necessary here.

The land of Shinar where Babel was, Gen 10:10 .

Poole: Gen 11:3

Let us make brick for in that low and fat soil they had no quarries of stones. The heathen writers agree that Babylon’ s walls were made of brick.

The slime was a kind of clay called bitumen, which, as Pliny testifieth, is liquid and glutinous, and fit to be used in brick buildings, as Strabo, Dion, and others note. And that Babylon was built with this, as is here said, we have the joint and express testimony of Berosus, Ctesias, Dion, Curtius, and many others.

Poole: Gen 11:4

Whose top may reach unto heaven i.e. a very high tower; a usual hyperbole, both in Scripture, as Deu 1:28 9:1 , and in other authors. This tower and its vast height is noted by Herodotus, Diodorus, and others.

Let us make us a name i.e. a great name, as the phrase is elsewhere used. Compare also 2Sa 7:9 , with 1Ch 17:8 . See also Isa 63:12,14 Da 9:15 . They take no care for God’ s name, and the defence and propagation of the true religion, as duty bound them, but merely out of pride and vain-glory labour to erect an everlasting monument of their wit, and wealth, and magnificence to all posterity.

Their design was not to secure themselves against a flood, which they well knew brick buildings were no fence against; nor would they then have built this tower in a plain, but upon some high mountain; but rather to prevent a total and irrecoverable dispersion. They sought therefore to bind themselves together in one glorious empire, and to make this glorious city the capital seat of it, and the place of refuge and resort upon any considerable occasion.

Poole: Gen 11:5

Not by local descent, for he is every where; but by the manifestation of his presence and the effects of his power in that place.

To see the city and the tower i.e. to know the truth of the fact, thereby setting a pattern for judges to examine causes before they pass sentence; otherwise God saw this in heaven; but in these expressions he condescends to the capacity of men.

The children of men so called emphatically,

1. For distinction of them from the sons of God, or the race of Shem, who were not guilty of the sin, and therefore did not partake in the curse, the confusion of their language, but retained their ancient tongue uncorrupted for a good while.

2. To note their rashness and folly, who being but weak and silly men, durst oppose themselves to the infinitely wise and powerful God, who did (as they might easily gather both from his words and works) intend to disperse and separate them, that so by degrees they might possess the whole earth, which God had made for that purpose.

Poole: Gen 11:6

The Lord said this in way of holy scorn and derision. Compare Gen 3:22 .

Poole: Gen 11:7

Let us i.e. the blessed Trinity. See Gen 1:26 .

Confound their language by making them forget their former language, and by putting into their minds several languages; not a distinct language into each person, but into each family, or rather into each nation; that thereby they may be disenabled from that mutual commerce which was altogether necessary for the carrying on of that work.

Poole: Gen 11:8

Thus they brought upon themselves the very thing they feared, and that more speedily and more mischievously to themselves; for now they were not only divided in place, but in language too, and so were unfitted for those confederacies and correspondences which they mainly designed, and for the mutual comfort and help of one another, which otherwise they might in good measure have enjoyed.

Poole: Gen 11:10

Not all the generations of Shem, as appears both from Gen 11:11 , and from the former chapter; but of those who were the seminary of the church, and the progenitors of Christ.

Poole: Gen 11:11

2346

So that he lived almost all the time of Abraham; which was a singular blessing, both to himself, who hereby saw his children of the tenth generation; and to the church of God, which by this means enjoyed the counsel and conduct of so great a patriarch.

Poole: Gen 11:17

So that he was the longest lived of all the patriarchs which were born after the flood.

Poole: Gen 11:24

Nahor was the first patriarch who fell to idolatry.

2126

Poole: Gen 11:26

2056 i.e. Began to beget, as Gen 5:32 .

Abram who is first named in order of dignity, (for which cause Shem is put before Ham and Japheth, and Moses before Aaron), not in order of time, which seems to be this: Haran probably was the eldest, because Nahor married his daughter; Nahor the second; and Abram certainly was the youngest, because Terah, Abram’ s father, lived two hundred and five years, Gen 11:32 , and Abram after his father’ s death, Act 7:4 , went out of Haran, when he was seventy-five years old, Gen 12:4,5 ; therefore he was not begotten in Terah’ s seventieth year, when Terah began to beget his sons, as here is said, but in his one hundred and thirtieth year, and so there remains seventy-five years precisely to Abram’ s departure. And Sarai, Haran’ s daughter, was but ten years younger than Abram, Gen 17:17 ; and therefore Haran was Abram’ s elder brother.

Poole: Gen 11:28

i.e. In the presence and during the life of his father.

Poole: Gen 11:29

Such marriages of uncles and nieces being permitted then, Exo 6:20 , (as in the beginning of the world the marriages of brethren and sisters were), though afterwards, the church being very much enlarged, they were severely forbidden, Lev 18:12,14 .

Iscah is either Sarai, as the Jews and many others think, or rather another person. For,

1. Why should Moses express Sarai thus darkly and doubtfully? Had he meant her, he would have added after Iscah, this is Sarai, according to his manner in like cases, Gen 14:2,7 35:6 .

2. He elsewhere calleth her, the daughter, not of his brother, as he should have done, had she been Iscah, but of his father, by another mother.

Poole: Gen 11:30

See Gen 16:1,2 18:11,12 .

Poole: Gen 11:31

See Jos 24:2 Neh 9:7 1Ch 1:26 . Being informed by his son of the command of God,

Terah did not despise it, because it came to him by the hands of his inferior, but cheerfully obeyeth it; and therefore he is so honourably mentioned as the head and governor of the action. Terah and Abram went with Lot and Sarai, as their heads and guides.

Haran is called Charran, Act 7:4 , and by the Romans Carrae , a place in in Mesopotamia strictly so called, in the way to Canaan, and near to it, well known by Crassus’ defeat there: see Gen 24:10 28:10 29:4 .

Dwelt there or, rested or abode, being detained there for a season; peradventure by Terah’ s disease, which begun there, for Gen 11:32 tells us of his death.

Haydock: Gen 11:1

Speech. Probably Hebrew; in which language we have the most ancient book in the world, the work of Moses. This language has been preserved ever since, though with some alterations. Most of the oriental languages are but like dialects from it, as French, Italian, &c. are from Latin. The arguments which are brought to prove that other languages are more ancient, because the names of men, &c. have a proper significance in them as well as in Hebrew, do not invalidate the right of the latter. The most respectable authors have, therefore, always declared for it (Haydock)

Haydock: Gen 11:2

The East: Armenia, which lies to the eastward of Babylonia, whither they directed their course in quest of provisions for themselves and cattle, being now grown pretty numerous. (Menochius)

Haydock: Gen 11:3

Each one: not that every individual joined in this undertaking, considered, at least, as a rash and presumptuous attempt to save themselves from a second deluge. Some might innocently give in to it, meaning only to leave a monument to their common origin and friendship, before they separated into distant countries. Slime: literally bitumen. (Haydock) ---

The Hebrew, chomer, means also slime, or mortar. Stone is very scarce in that country, but the earth is fat, and very proper to make brick; it also abounds in naphtha, bitumen, &c.: hence the ancients notice the brick walls of Babylon. (Calmet)

Haydock: Gen 11:4

Famous before; Hebrew lest, &c.; as if they intended to prevent that event. (Haydock) ---

Their motive appears to have been pride, which raised the indignation of God. Nemrod, the chief instigator, might have designed the tower for a retreat, whence he might sally out and maintain his tyranny. (Menochius)

Haydock: Gen 11:6

In deed. This seems to be spoken ironically; though the effects of weak mortals, the sons of Adam, when pursued with vigour and unanimity, will produce great effects. These builders had conceived an idea of raising the tower as high as possible, hyperbolically, to touch heaven. (Haydock)

Haydock: Gen 11:7

Come ye, &c. As men seemed bent on taking heaven by storm, like the ancient giants, God turns their expressions, as it were, against themselves, and shews them an example of humility, let us go down. He acts the part of a judge, and therefore will examine all with the utmost diligence, as he denotes by these expressions; being really incapable of moving from place to place, on account of his immensity. (Haydock) ---

He seems nearer to men, by the effects or punishments which he inflicted. The address which he here makes is directed, not to the angels, but to the other co-equal powers of the Blessed Trinity. (Menochius)

Haydock: Gen 11:9

Babel, that is, confusion. This is one of the greatest miracles recorded in the Old Testament; men forgot, in a moment, the language which they had hitherto spoken, and found themselves enabled to speak another, known only to a few of the same family (Calmet); for we must not suppose that there were as many new languages as there were men at Babel. (Menochius) ---

The precise number of languages which were then heard, cannot be determined. The learned commonly acknowledge the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Teutonic, Sclavonian, Tartarian, and Chinese languages, to be original. The rest are only dialects from these. English is chiefly taken from the Teutonic, (Calmet) with many words borrowed from the Greek and other languages. (Haydock)

Haydock: Gen 11:12

Sale, or Cainan. See Chap. x. 24; Chronicles i. 18, in the Septuagint. (Haydock)

Haydock: Gen 11:20

Sarug: in whose days St. Epiphanius places the origin of idolatry; but Eusebius (Præp. i. v. & 9.) thinks it began in Egypt, among the posterity of Cham. (Calmet)

Haydock: Gen 11:27

Abram, the youngest of the three, being born only in the 130th year of Thare, ver. 32, and chap. xii. 4. He is placed first, on account of his superior dignity in the church of God, in like manner as Sem, Moses, &c. In his youth, he is supposed to have followed the idolatrous worship of his fathers. (St. Augustine, City of God x. chap. ultra[last chap.]; Genebrard, A.M. 1949 [in the year of the world 1949].) (Calmet) ---

But being soon enlightened by God, he becomes a glorious witness of the truth, and, according to many, is preserved miraculously, when thrown into the fire by the Chaldees, ver. 31. (Haydock)

Haydock: Gen 11:29

Jescha, whom many confound with Sarai, as if both Nacher and Abram had married the daughters of their brother Aran. But why then does Moses mention Sarai before, and then call her Jescha in the same verse? It seems as if he intended to designate two different women. (Haydock) ---

In effect, Abram himself says, Sarai was truly his sister, born of the same father, chap. xii. 13. See chap. xx. 12, where we shall give the reasons that seem to prove that she was the daughter of Thare, and not Aran. (Calmet) ---

Jescha does not accompany her grandfather, preferring, perhaps, to stay with Nachor, or to marry in her own country; if she were not already dead when Thare departed from Ur, a city of the Chaldees. (Haydock) ---

This city is probably Ura, in Mesopotamia, not far from Nisibis, which the Scripture often mentions is a part of Chaldea. (Acts. vii. 2, &c.) (Calmet) ---

It is not, however certain that the rest of Thare's family remained behind; if they did, they removed soon after into the country about Haran, or Charræ, on the Charboras. (chap. xxix. 4; Josephus, Antiquities 1. 6.) (Haydock)

Gill: Gen 11:1

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.''

Gill: Gen 11:2

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.

Gill: Gen 11:3

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; and he afterwards speaks of the walls, towers, and houses, being built of brick, and cemented with it; and so Diodorus Siculus says ⁿ from Ctesias, that the walls of Babylon were built of bricks, cemented with bitumen; and not only these, but all Heathen authors that write of Babylon, confirm this; and not only historians, but poets, of which Bochart ^o has made a large collection; as well as Josephus ^p speaks of it, and this sort of pitch still remains. Rauwolff says ^q near the bridge over the Euphrates, where Babylon stood, are several heaps of Babylonian pitch, which is in some places grown so hard, that you may walk over it; but in others, that which hath been lately brought over thither is so soft, that you may see every step you make in it.

Gill: Gen 11:4

And they said, go to, let us build us a city and a tower,.... Some Jewish writers ^r say, these are the words of Nimrod to his people; but it is a question whether he was now born, or if he was, must be too young to be at the head of such a body of people; but they are spoken to one another, or by the principal men among them to the common people, advising and encouraging to such an undertaking. It is generally thought what led them to it was to secure them from another flood, they might be in fear of; but this seems not likely, since they had the covenant and oath of God, that the earth should never be destroyed by water any more; and besides, had this been the thing in view, they would not have chosen a plain to build on, a plain that lay between two of the greatest rivers, Tigris, and Euphrates, but rather one of the highest mountains and hills they could have found: nor could a building of brick be a sufficient defence against such a force of water, as the waters of the flood were; and besides, but few at most could be preserved at the top of the tower, to which, in such a case, they would have betook themselves. The reason of this building is given in a following clause, as will be observed. Some think by "a city and tower" is meant, by the figure "hendyadis", one and the same thing, a city with towers; and, according to Ctesias ^s, there were two hundred and fifty towers in Babylon: but no doubt the city and tower were two distinct things; or there was one particular tower proposed to be built besides the city, though it might stand in it, or near it, as an acropolis or citadel to it; as it is not unusual in cities to have such, to betake unto in case of danger:

whose top may reach unto heaven: not that they imagined such a thing could be literally and strictly done, but that it should be raised exceeding high, like the cities in Canaan, said to be walled up to heaven, Deu 1:28 hyperbolically speaking; and such was the tower of Babel, by all accounts, even of Heathens: the Sibyl in Josephus ^t calls it a most high tower; and so Abydenus ^u reports;"there are (says he) that say, that the first men that rose out of the earth, proud of their strength and largeness (of their bodies), and thinking themselves greater than the gods, erected a tower of a vast height, near to heaven, where Babylon now is.''And the temple of Belus, which some take to be the same with this tower, at least was that perfected, and put to such an use, was, according to Ctesias ^w, of an immense height, where the Chaldeans made their observations of the stars: however, the tower that was in the middle of it, and which seems plainly to be the same with this, was exceeding high: the account Herodotus ^x gives of it is,"in the midst of the temple a solid tower is built, of a furlong in length, and of as much in breadth; and upon this tower another tower is placed, and another upon that, and so on to eight towers.''μηκος, the word used by Herodotus, translated "length", signifies also "height", and so it is taken here by some; and if so, it looks as if every tower was a furlong high, which makes the whole a mile, which is too extravagant to suppose, though it may denote the height of them all, a furlong, which makes it a very high building. This agrees with Strabo's account of it, who calls it a pyramid, and says it was a furlong high ^y: according to Rauwolff ^z, the tower of Babel is still in being; this, says he, we saw still (in 1574), and it is half a league in diameter; but it is so mightily ruined, and low, and so full of vermin, that hath bored holes through it, that one may not come near it for half a mile, but only in two months in the winter, when they come not out of their holes. Another traveller ^a, that was in those parts at the beginning of the last century, says,"now at this day, that which remaineth is called the remnant of the tower of Babel; there standing as much as is a quarter of a mile in compass, and as high as the stone work of Paul's steeple in London--the bricks are three quarters of a yard in length, and a quarter in thickness, and between every course of bricks there lieth a course of mats, made of canes and palm tree leaves, so fresh as if they had been laid within one year.''Not to take notice of the extravagant account of the eastern writers, who say the tower was 5533 fathoms high ^b; and others, beyond all belief, make it 10,000 fathoms, or twelve miles high ^c; and they say the builders were forty years in building it: their design in it follows:

and let us make us a name; which some render "a sign" ^d, and suppose it to be a signal set upon the top of the tower, which served as a beacon, by the sight of which they might be preserved from straying in the open plains with their flocks, or return again when they had strayed. Others take it to be an idol proposed to be set upon the top of the tower; and the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem intimate as if the tower was built for religious worship, paraphrasing the words,"let us build in the midst of it a temple of worship on the top of it, and let us put a sword into his (the idol's) hand.''And it is the conjecture of Dr. Tennison, in his book of idolatry, that this tower was consecrated by the builders of it to the sun, as the cause of drying up the waters of the deluge: but the sense is, that they proposed by erecting such an edifice to spread their fame, and perpetuate their name to the latest posterity, that hereby it might be known, that at such a time, and in such a place, were such a body of people, even all the inhabitants of the world; and all of them the sons of one man, as Ben Gersom observes; so that as long as this tower stood, they would be had in remembrance, it being called after their names; just as the Egyptian kings afterwards built their pyramids, perhaps for a like reason; and in which the end of neither have been answered, it not being known who were by name concerned therein, see Psa 49:11 though a late learned writer ^e thinks, that by making a name is meant choosing a chief or captain, which was proposed by them; and that the person they pitched upon was Nimrod, in which sense the word he supposes is used, 2Sa 23:17 but what has been observed at the beginning of this note may be objected to it; though Berosus ^f says, that Nimrod came with his people into the plain of Sannaar, where be marked out a city, and founded the largest tower, in the year of deliverance from the waters of the flood one hundred and thirty one, and reigned fifty six years; and carried the tower to the height and size of mountains, "for a sign" and "monument", that the people of Babylon were the first in the world, and ought to be called the kingdom of kingdoms; which last clause agrees with the sense given:

lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth: which they seemed to have some notion of, and feared would be their case, liking better to be together than to separate, and therefore were careful to avoid a dispersion; it being some way or other signified to them, that it was the will of God they should divide into colonies, and settle in different parts, that so the whole earth might be inhabited; or Noah, or some others, had proposed a division of the earth among them, each to take his part, which they did not care to hearken to; and therefore, to prevent such a separation, proposed the above scheme, and pursued it.

Gill: Gen 11:5

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower,.... Not locally or visibly, being immense, omnipresent, and invisible; nor in order to see and take notice of what he otherwise could not see from heaven, for he is omniscient; but this is spoken after the manner of men, and is to be understood of some effects and displays of his power, which were manifest, and showed him to be present: the Targum is,"and the Lord was revealed to take vengeance on them on account of the business of the city and tower the children of men built.''This shows the patience and longsuffering of God, that he did not immediately proceed against them, and his wisdom and justice in taking cognizance of the affair, and inquiring into it; examining the truth and reality of things before he passed judgment and took measures to hinder them in the execution of their design; all which must be understood agreeably to the divine Majesty, and as accommodated to the capacities of men, and as an instruction to them in judging matters they have a concern in:

which the children of men builded; or were building, for they had not finished their building, at least not the city, as appears from Gen 11:8. These were either the whole body of the people, under the general appellation of "the children of men": or else a part of them, distinguished by this character from the "sons of God", who were truly religious; by which it seems that Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Salah, and others, were not concerned in this affair, who though they might come with the rest unto Shinar, yet when they understood their design, refused to join with them in it; so that it was only the carnal and irreligious part of them, who very probably were by far the majority, and therefore there was no overruling their debates, and stopping them in their works, that were the builders; and these might be the posterity of Ham in general, with others of Shem and Japheth mixed with them. Josephus ^g makes Nimrod to be the head of them, which is not likely, as before observed.

Gill: Gen 11:6

And the Lord said,.... Not to the angels, as Aben Ezra, but rather to the Son and Spirit, or within himself:

behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; which some think is spoken ironically; but I see no reason why it may not be understood seriously, that the people who were concerned in this building were unanimous, not only in their religious principles, such as they were, as Aben Ezra, but in their counsel, purpose, and design in building; they went on with great concord, harmony, and vigour, and being of one language, they understood one another, and so could carry on their work with the greater expedition:

and this they begin to do; to build the city and the tower, and had made considerable progress in it:

and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do; they had prepared bricks, and slime or bitumen, a sufficient quantity for their use, or could easily come at more if they wanted; and they were not to be prevailed upon to desist from their work, by any advice that the sons of God could give them; they were obstinate and self-willed, and not to be argued with and persuaded to leave off; and there was no power on earth superior to them, to oblige them to it; they could only be restrained from their enterprise, and hindered from executing it, by divine power; and which was judged necessary to exert, as appears by what follows: and the words may be rendered, "shall they not be restrained? &c." they shall.

Gill: Gen 11:7

Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language,.... These words are not spoken to the angels, as the Targum and Aben Ezra; for, as Philo the Jew observes ^h, they are said to some as co-workers with God, which angels could not be in this work of confounding the language of men; it being above the power of creatures so to work upon the mind, and on the faculty of speech, as to make such an alteration as was at the confusion of tongues, when men were made to forget their former language, and had another put into their minds, and a faculty of speaking it given; or, however, the first language was so differently inflected and pronounced, that it seemed another, and various; all which could not be done but by him who is almighty, even that Jehovah, Father, Son, and Spirit, said Gen 11:8 to confound man's language; and the first of these speaks to the other two, with whom he consulted about doing it, and with whom he did it. Not that every man had a new and distinct language given him, for then there could have been no society and converse in the world, but one was given to each family; or rather to as many families as constituted a nation or colony, designed for the same place of habitation; how many there were, cannot be said with any certainty. Euphorus, and many other historians ⁱ, say they were seventy five, according to the number of Jacob's posterity that went down into Egypt; others say seventy two: the Jewish writers generally agree with the Targum of Jonathan in making them seventy, according to the number of the posterity of Noah's sons, recorded in the preceding chapter; but several of them spoke the same language, as Ashur, Arphaxad, and Aram, spoke the Chaldee or Syriac language; the sons of Canaan one and the same language; and the thirteen sons of Joktan the Arabic language; Javari and Elisha the Greek language; so that, as Bochart ^k observes, scarce thirty of the seventy will remain distinct: and it is an observation of Dr. Lightfoot ^l not to be despised, that"the fifteen named in Act 2:5 were enough to confound the work (at Babel), and they may very well be supposed to have been the whole number.''The end to be answered it was:

that they may not understand one another's speech; or "hear" ^m, that is, so as to understand; the words were so changed, and so differently pronounced from what they had used to hear, that though they heard the sound, they could not tell the meaning of them: hence, as Jarchi observes, when one asked for a brick, another brought him clay or slime, on which he rose up against him, and dashed his brains out.

Gill: Gen 11:8

So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence, upon the face of all the earth,.... Hence that which they feared came upon them, and what they were so careful to guard against befell them, occasioned by those measures they took to secure themselves from it; for not being able to understand one another, they left off their design, and as many as spoke the same language joined together, and so parted in bodies; some went one way, and some another, and settled in different places, until at length, by degrees, the whole world was peopled by them, which was the will of God should be done, and was brought about in this way. The Heathen writers themselves ascribe this dispersion to a divine Being, as well as speaking different tongues. Eupolemus ⁿ says, that first the city of Babylon was built by those that were saved from the flood, who were giants; and then they built tower, so much spoken of in history, which falling by the power of God, the giants were "scattered throughout the whole earth". One would think this writer, by his language, must have read this account of Moses: some of them say the fall of the tower was by storms and tempests raised by the gods. So the Sybil in Josephus ^o says,"the gods sending winds overthrew the tower, and gave to every one his own speech, and hence the city came to be called Babylon.''Agreeably to which Abydenus ^p, an Assyrian writer, relates, that"the winds being raised by the gods overthrew the mechanism (the tower) upon them (the builders of it), and out of the ruins of it was the city called Babylon, when those who were of the same language, from the gods spoke a different one, and of various sounds.''And so Hestiaeus ^q, a Phoenician writer, speaking of those who came to Sennaar or Shinar of Babylon, says, from thence they were scattered; and, because of the diversity of language, formed colonies everywhere, and everyone seized on that land which offered to him. These writers indeed seem to be mistaken as to the destruction of the tower, and that by tempestuous winds; otherwise they agree with Moses in the confusion of languages, and scattering of the people at the tower of Babel: in what year this was done is not certain; it was in the days of Peleg, who was born in the year one hundred and one after the flood; and if it was at the time of his birth, as many are of opinion, both Jews ^r and Christians, it must be in the above year; but the phrase used does not determine that: the eastern writers ^s say, that it was in the fortieth year of the life of Peleg, and then it must be in the year after the flood one hundred and forty one; but others, and which is the common opinion of the Jewish chronologers ^t, say it was at the end of Peleg's days; and whereas he lived two hundred and thirty nine years, this must happen in the year three hundred and forty after the flood, and so it was ten years, as they observe, before the death of Noah, and when Abraham was forty eight years of age. But of this see more in Buxtorf's dissertation concerning the confusion of the Hebrew language. It follows here:

and they left off to build the city; it seems they had finished the tower, but not the city, and therefore are only said to leave off building that; though the Samaritan and Septuagint versions add, "and the tower"; for not understanding one another, they were not able to go on with their work, for when they asked for one thing, as before observed out of Jarchi, they had another brought them; which so enraged them, that the Targum of Jonathan says they killed one another; and, say some Jewish writers ^u, they fought one with another upon this occasion, until half the world fell by the sword. (Unlike traditions of the Flood, legends of the Tower of Babel and confusion of speech are not common. (12) That said, noteworthy support for the biblical account comes from Babylonia itself, where a damaged inscription reads:"Babylon corruptly proceeded to sin, and both small and great mingled on the mound. ...All day they founded their stronghold, but in the night he put a complete stop to it. In his anger he also poured out his secret counsel to scatter them abroad, he set his face, he gave a command to make foreign their speech.'' (13-15)This appears to have some basis in an historical event and is very close to the biblical account. Likewise, the Roman mythographer Hyginus (floruit 10 BC) writes:"Men for many generations led their lives without towns or laws, speaking one tongue under the rule of Jove. But after Mercury interpreted the language of men--whence an interpreter is called hermeneutes, for Mercury in Greek is called Hermes; he, too, distributed the nations--then discord began amoug the mortals.'' (16)Taken from p. 47, "Creation Technical Journey". Volumn Nine, Part 1, 1995, published by "Creation Science Foundation Ltd.", Brisbane, Australia. (12) Strickling, J. E., 1974. "Legendary evidence for the confusion of tongues." Creation Research Society Quarterly, 11:97-101. (13) Sayce, A. H. (ed.), "Records of the Past" (old Series), Vol. VII, p. 131f. (14) "Journey of American Oriental Society", 88:108-111 (1968) (15) Smith, J., 1876. "Chaldean Account of Genesis", Scribners, New York. (16) Hyginus, C. Julius, Fabulae 143. Editor)

Gill: Gen 11:9

Therefore is the name of it called Babel,.... The name of the city mentioned, and the tower also, which signifies "confusion", as the Septuagint version renders it; and so Josephus ^w says the Hebrews call confusion "Babel": perhaps this name was given it by the sons of Eber, or it might be a common name preserved in all languages, as some are; and though the first builders desisted from going on with building it, yet it seems that afterwards Nimrod went on with it, and completed it, and made it the beginning of his kingdom, or his capital city; and perhaps he and his family might continue after the confusion and dispersion somewhere near unto it, see Gen 10:10. The reason of its name is given:

because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth; and therefore it is false what is said by some, that the above city had its name from Babylon, the son of Belus:

and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth; which is repeated for the confirmation of it, and that it might be taken notice of and observed as a very wonderful and important event. These Babel builders were an emblem of self-righteous persons, who, as those were, are the greater part of the world, and, under different forms of religion, are all upon the same foot of a covenant of works; they all speak the same language; and indeed all men naturally do, declaring and seeking for justification by their own works; and journey from the east, depart from Christ, one of whose names is the east, or rising sun; they turn their backs on him and his righteousness; build on a plain, not on a rock or mountain, but on the sandy bottom of their own works, in a land of Shinar, or shaking, on a tottering foundation; their view is to get themselves a name, to be seen of men, and be applauded for their work sake, and that they might reach heaven, and get to it this way; but the issue of all is confusion and scattering abroad; for upon the foot of their own righteousness they can never enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Gill: Gen 11:10

These are the generations of Shem,.... Or a genealogy of the posterity of Shem; not of all of them, only of those of the line which led to Abraham, by which might appear the true line in which the Messiah from Adam through Abraham sprung:

Shem was one hundred years old, and begat Arphexad two years after the flood; by which it is pretty plain that he was younger than Japheth; See Gill on Gen 10:21 of Arphaxad his son; see Gill on Gen 10:22.

Gill: Gen 11:11

And Shem lived, after he begat Arphaxad, five hundred years,.... So that his whole age was six hundred years, and therefore must live to the times of Abraham, and even throughout the life of that patriarch, or near the end of it; and if he was the same with Melchizedek, as is the general opinion of the Jews, and is embraced by many Christians, they had an interview with each other:

and begat sons and daughters; of whom we have no account, because the Messiah did not spring from them; the design of this genealogy being to carry down his direct line from Shem to Abraham: it is to be observed, that in the account of the patriarchs, and their children after the flood, it is not added as before the flood, "and he died", their lives being long, that remark is made; but the lives of these being shorter, and gradually decreasing, it is omitted. An Arabic writer ^x says, that Shem died in the month Elul, on a Friday, at the close of the year of the world 2758. A Jewish writer ^y says, he died in the fifteenth year of Jacob, and that he saw twelve generations; according to Bishop Usher, he died A. M. 2158.

Gill: Gen 11:12

And Arphaxad lived thirty five years, and begat Salah. Arphaxad is the first on record that had a son born to him so early; of Salah; see Gill on Gen 10:24.

Gill: Gen 11:13

And Arphaxad lived, after he begat Salah, four hundred and three years,.... In all four hundred and thirty eight; the Vulgate Latin wrongly reads, three hundred and three:

and begat sons and daughters; not mentioned by name: he died, as the above Arabic writer ^z says, in the month Nisan, A. M. 2696; and a Jewish writer ^a says he died in the forty eighth year of Isaac, and who also says ^b, that in his days they began to build the city of Babel.

Gill: Gen 11:14

And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber. He had a son born to him five years sooner than his father had; of Eber; see Gill on Gen 10:25.

Gill: Gen 11:15

And Salah lived, after he begat Eber, four hundred and three years,.... In all four hundred and thirty three:

and begat sons and daughters; of whom also there is no other account: the same Arabic writer ^c says, he died in the month, Adar, which is called Barhamath, at the close of A. M. 2950; and the Jewish chronologer ^d says, he died in the fourteenth year of Jacob.

Gill: Gen 11:16

And Eber lived thirty four years, and begat Peleg. Of Peleg, see Gill on Gen 10:25.

Gill: Gen 11:17

And Eber lived, after he begat Peleg, four hundred and thirty

years,.... All the years of his life were four hundred and sixty four:

and he begat sons and daughters; one of which is elsewhere mentioned, whose name is Joktan, Gen 10:25 according to the above Jewish writer ^e, he died in the seventy ninth year of Jacob.

Gill: Gen 11:18

And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu. Or Ragau, as he is called in the Septuagint version, the letter ע being pronounced as a "G", as in Gaza and Gomorrah: he is supposed to give name to a large plain called Ragau, near Assyria, about Tigris and Euphrates,"Even in those days king Nabuchodonosor made war with king Arphaxad in the great plain, which is the plain in the borders of Ragau.'' (Judith 1:5)and to Ragis in Media,"In that day Tobit remembered the money which he had committed to Gabael in Rages of Media,'' (Tobit 4:1)where Strabo ^f makes mention of a city of the same name.

Gill: Gen 11:19

And Peleg lived, after he begat Reu, two hundred and nine years,.... In all two hundred and thirty nine, little more than half the age of his father:

and begat sons and daughters; but not named the Arabic writers ^g say he begat Melchizedek the priest, and that he died in the month Elul, A. M. 3126; and a Jewish writer ^h says he died in the forty eighth year of Abraham.

Gill: Gen 11:20

And Reu lived thirty two years, and begat Serug. He is thought to give name to a city called Sarug, which, according to the Arabic geographer ⁱ, was near Charrae, or Haran, in Chaldea; and another Arabic writer ^j speaks of a city called to this day "Sarug", which he places in Mesopotamia.

Gill: Gen 11:21

And Reu lived, after he begat Sarug, two hundred and seven years,.... So that the whole of his life was two hundred and thirty nine years, the exact age of his father: in his days various kingdoms arose; according to the Arabic writer ^k, in the one hundred and thirtieth year of his life began Nimrod to reign at Babylon, the first king that reigned on earth: and according to the Jewish writers ^l, in his days began the kingdom of Egypt, which continued to the times of Octavian; and the kingdom of the Bohemians, the metropolis of which was Prague, and the kingdom of the Amazons, which continued to the times of Alexander: in his time also, the Arabic writers ^m say, idolatry prevailed, the worship of the sun, moon, and stars, and other things; and images of men and women were made by the Babylonians and Egyptians, and worshipped by them:

and he begat sons and daughters of whom no account is given; according to a Jewish writer ⁿ, he died in the seventy fifth year of Abraham.

Gill: Gen 11:22

And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor. The grandfather of Abraham, one of the same name was Abraham's brother, Gen 11:26.

Gill: Gen 11:23

And Serug lived, after he begat Nahor, two hundred years,.... The years of his life were two hundred and thirty:

and he begat sons and daughters; nowhere else mentioned: he died, according to the above Jewish writer ^o, in the one hundredth year of Abraham, and in his days, according to the eastern writers ^p, idolatry began, and the kingdom of Damascus was set up ^q; and Samirus, king of the Chaldeans, invented weights and measures, weaving silk, and the art of dying ^s.

Gill: Gen 11:24

And Nahor lived twenty nine years, and begat Terah. The father of Abraham, and the first of the patriarchs of this line of Shem that fell off from the true religion to idolatry.

Gill: Gen 11:25

And Nahor lived, after he begat Terah, one hundred and ninteen years,.... In all one hundred and forty eight years; so sensibly did the lives of the patriarchs decrease: in the days of Nahor, the Arabic writers ^t say, was a great earthquake, which had never been observed before; idolaters increasing and offering their children to demons, God raised a tempest like a deluge, which broke their images and destroyed their temples in Arabia, and covered them in heaps of sand, which remained to the days of those writers, as they affirm: in his days it is also said Spain, Portugal, and Arragon were founded ^u:

and begat sons and daughters; of whom no other account is given: he died, as a Jewish chronologer says ^w, in the one hundred and tenth year of Abraham.

Gill: Gen 11:26

And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Abram, though named first, does not appear to be the eldest, but rather Haran; nay, it seems pretty plain that Abram was not born until the one hundred and thirtieth year of his father's life, for Terah was two hundred and five years old when he died, Gen 11:32 and Abram was but seventy five years of age when he went out of Haran to Canaan, Gen 12:4 and that was as soon as his father died there; and so that if seventy five are taken out two hundred and five, there will remain one hundred and thirty, in which year and not before Abram must be born: the wife of Terah, of whom Abram was born, according to the Jewish writers ^x, her name was Chamtelaah, the daughter of Carnebo, or as others ^y call her, Amthalai; but by the Arabic writers ^z she is called Juna: the Jews say ^a Terah was the first that found out the way of coining money, and that in his days men began to worship images, and that he was the chief of their priests, but afterwards repented; and that he was an idolater appears from Jos 24:2.

Gill: Gen 11:27

Now these are the generations of Terah,.... Or the genealogy of his posterity, which is a very short one; for it only gives an account of his three sons as before:

Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran: and of three grand children, Lot, Milcah, and Iscah, the children of Haran; and chiefly for the sake of Abram it is given, and indeed the above genealogy of Shem, which ends with him; and of whom and whose posterity the remaining part of this book of Genesis treats:

and Haran begat Lot: of whom we have some further account in Gen 13:1.

Gill: Gen 11:28

And Haran died before his father Terah,.... In his father's presence, before his face, in his life time, as Jarchi; he seeing him, as Aben Ezra: it does not so much respect the time of his death, that it was before his father, though that is true, as the place where he died, his father being present there at the time this was:

in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees; Ur, which Ben Melech renders a valley, was the place of his birth, as it was of Abram's; it was in Mesopotamia, that part of it next to Assyria being called the land of the Chaldeans; hence these are spoken of as the same by Stephen, Act 7:2 mention is made by Pliny ^b, of a place in those parts called Ura, which seems to be the same with this: Eupolemus ^c says,"that Abram was born at Camarine, a city of Babylon, some call Urie, and is interpreted a city of the Chaldeans;''now Camarine is from כמר, "Camar", to heat or burn, and Ur signifies fire, so that both words are of the same signification: Josephus ^d says, that Haran died among the Chaldeans, in a city called Ur of the Chaldees, where, he adds, his grave is shown to this day: the Jews ^e have a fable concerning the death of Haran; they say that Terah was not only an idolater, but a maker and seller of images; and that one day going abroad, he left his son Abraham in the shop to sell them, who, during his father's absence, broke them all to pieces, except one; upon which, when Terah returned and found what was done, he had him before Nimrod, who ordered him to be cast into a burning furnace, and he should see whether the God he worshipped would come and save him; and while he was in it, they asked his brother Haran in whom he believed? he answered, if Abraham overcomes, he would believe in his God, but if not, in Nimrod; wherefore they cast him into the furnace, and he was burnt; and with respect to this it is said, "and Haran died before the face of Terah his father"; but Abraham came out safe before the eyes of them all.

Gill: Gen 11:29

And Abram and Nahor took them wives,.... Very probably after the death of their elder brother Haran, whose daughters they married, at least one of them did, and some think both:

the name of Abraham's wife was Sarai: it is not said whose daughter she was, unless she is the same with Iscah, the daughter of Haran, and so had two names, Iscah her name before marriage, Sarai after it, Abram calling her "my mistress", as "Sarai" signifies, as she called him my lord: so the Targum of Jonathan, Iscah, this is Sarai; in like manner Jarchi, Baal Hatturim, and other Jewish writers ^f, take them to be the same; but according to Gen 20:12 Sarai should be the daughter of Terah, the father of Abraham, by another woman; and so the Arabic writers ^g say,"the mother of Abraham died, whose name was Juna; and Terah married another wife, whose name was Lahazib; she bore him Sarah, whom Abraham afterwards married:"

and the name of Nahor's wife Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah: so that Nahor married his brother's daughter, which sort of marriage was then allowed of, as formerly that of own brothers and sisters, but afterwards was strictly forbidden in the Levitical law: this account is given of Nahor's wife, as Aben Ezra observes, to show the pedigree of Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah: some think, as before observed, that Abram married the other daughter of his brother Haran, Iscah, and that she is the same with Sarai; and indeed, without supposing that, it is difficult to conceive for what reason this should be observed, that Haran, the father of Milcah, was also the father of Iscah; and if Sarai is not Iscah, no account is given by Moses of her descent, which may seem strange; and it can hardly be thought he would omit it, when it must be so agreeable to his people to know from whom they descended, both by the father's and mother's side.

Gill: Gen 11:30

But Sarai was barren; she had no child. Aben Ezra observes, there are some that say that Abraham was impotent, and not Sarai barren; the very reverse of the Scriptures; but as he rightly adds, his son Ishmael and his sons by Keturah show the contrary, see Gen 15:2.

Gill: Gen 11:31

And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife,.... Many words are made use of in describing Lot and Sarai, and yet still we are left pretty much in the dark who Sarai was; for, as Aben Ezra observes, if she was the sister of Abram and daughter of Terah, the Scripture would have said, Terah took Abram his son and Sarai his daughter, and wife of Abram; and if she was the sister of Lot, it would have said, and Sarai the daughter of his son, as it does of Lot:

and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; that is, as Jarchi interprets it, Terah and Abram went forth with Lot and Sarai, or "with them" may mean with Nahor and Milcah: for Josephus ^h says, that all went into Charan of Mesopotamia, the whole family of Terah; and the Arabic historian ⁱ is express for it,"Terah went out from Chorasan, and with him Abram, Nahor, Lot, his children, and their wives, and he went to Charan, where he dwelt:''and it is certain, if Nahor and his wife did not set out with them, they followed them afterwards, for Haran was the city of Nahor, where his family in later times dwelt, see Gen 14:10 what moved Terah to depart from Ur of the Chaldees seems to be the call of God to Abram, which, though after related, was previous to this; and he acquainting his father Terah with it, he listened to it, being now convinced of his idolatry and converted from it, and readily obeyed the divine will; and being the father of Abram, is represented as the head of the family, as he was, and their leader in this transaction; who encouraged their departure from the idolatrous country in which they were, and set out with them to seek another, where they might more freely and safely worship the true God. Though Josephus ^j represents it in this light, that Terah hating the country of Chaldea, because of the mourning of Haran, he and all his went out from thence:

and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there; which Josephus ^k calls Charan of Mesopotamia, and yet Stephen speaks of Abraham being in Mesopotamia before he dwelt in Charan; but then Mesopotamia is to be taken both in a more general and a more limited sense; in general, it took in Mesopotamia and Chaldea, and in the eastern part of it was Ur of the Chaldees, and when Abram came from thence to Haran, he came into Mesopotamia, strictly so called. Stephen calls it Charran it is by Herodian ^l called καρραι, by Ptolemy ^m Carrae, by Pliny ⁿ Carra, a city famous in Lucan ^o for the slaughter of Crassus, by whom it is called an Assyrian city. Benjamin of Tudela ^p speaks of it as in being in his time, and as two days journey from the entrance into the land of Shinar or Mesopotamia; and says, that in that place where was the house of Abraham, there is no building on it, but the Ishmaelites (the Mahometans) honour the place, and come thither to pray. Rauwolff, who was in this town A. D. 1575, calls it Orpha; his account of it is this ^q, that it is a costly city, with a castle situated on the hill very pleasantly; that the town is very pleasant, pretty big, with fortifications well provided; and that some say it was anciently called Haran and Charras: a later traveller ^r says, who also calls it Orpha,"the air of this city is very healthful, and the country fruitful; that it is built four square, the west part standing on the side of a rocky mountain, and the east part tendeth into a spacious valley, replenished with vineyards, orchards, and gardens: the walls are very strong, furnished with great store of artillery, and contain in circuit three English miles, and, for the gallantness of its sight, it was once reckoned the metropolitical seat of Mesopotamia.''What detained Terah and his family here, when they intended to go further, is not said. Aben Ezra suggests, that the agreeableness of the place to Terah caused him to continue there; but it is very probable he was seized with a disease which obliged them to stay here, and of which he died.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Gen 11:1

¹ sn The whole earth. Here “earth” is a metonymy of subject, referring to the people who lived in the earth. Genesis 11 begins with everyone speaking a common language, but chap. 10 has the nations arranged by languages. It is part of the narrative art of Genesis to give the explanation of the event after the narration of the event. On this passage see A. P. Ross, “The Dispersion of the Nations in Genesis 11:1-9,” BSac 138 (1981): 119-38.

² tn Heb “one lip and one [set of] words.” The term “lip” is a metonymy of cause, putting the instrument for the intended effect. They had one language. The term “words” refers to the content of their speech. They had the same vocabulary.

NET Notes: Gen 11:2

¹ tn Heb “they”; the referent (the people) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Or perhaps “from the east” (NRSV) or “in the east.”

³ tn Heb “in the land of Shinar.”

sn Shinar is the region of Babylonia.

NET Notes: Gen 11:3

¹ tn Heb “a man to his neighbor.” The Hebrew idiom may be translated “to each other” or “one to another.”

² tn The speech contains two cohortatives of exhortation followed by their respective cognate accusatives: “let us brick bricks” (נִלְבְּנָה לְבֵנִים, nilbbÿnah lÿvenim) and “burn for burning” (נִשְׂרְפָה לִשְׂרֵפָה, nisrÿfah lisrefah). This stresses the intensity of the undertaking; it also reflects the Akkadian text which uses similar constructions (see E. A. Speiser, Genesis [AB], 75-76).

³ tn Or “bitumen” (cf. NEB, NRSV).

⁴ tn The disjunctive clause gives information parenthetical to the narrative.

NET Notes: Gen 11:4

¹ tn A translation of “heavens” for שָׁמַיִם (shamayim) fits this context because the Babylonian ziggurats had temples at the top, suggesting they reached to the heavens, the dwelling place of the gods.

² tn The form וְנַעֲשֶׂה (vÿna’aseh, from the verb עשׂה, “do, make”) could be either the imperfect or the cohortative with a vav (ו) conjunction (“and let us make…”). Coming after the previous cohortative, this form expresses purpose.

³ tn The Hebrew particle פֶּן (pen) expresses a negative purpose; it means “that we be not scattered.”

⁴ sn The Hebrew verb פָּוָץ (pavats, translated “scatter”) is a key term in this passage. The focal point of the account is the dispersion (“scattering”) of the nations rather than the Tower of Babel. But the passage also forms a polemic against Babylon, the pride of the east and a cosmopolitan center with a huge ziggurat. To the Hebrews it was a monument to the judgment of God on pride.

NET Notes: Gen 11:5

¹ tn Heb “the sons of man.” The phrase is intended in this polemic to portray the builders as mere mortals, not the lesser deities that the Babylonians claimed built the city.

² tn The Hebrew text simply has בָּנוּ (banu), but since v. 8 says they left off building the city, an ingressive idea (“had started building”) should be understood here.

NET Notes: Gen 11:6

¹ tn Heb “and one lip to all of them.”

² tn Heb “and now.” The foundational clause beginning with הֵן (hen) expresses the condition, and the second clause the result. It could be rendered “If this…then now.”

³ tn Heb “all that they purpose to do will not be withheld from them.”

NET Notes: Gen 11:7

¹ tn The cohortatives mirror the cohortatives of the people. They build to ascend the heavens; God comes down to destroy their language. God speaks here to his angelic assembly. See the notes on the word “make” in 1:26 and “know” in 3:5, as well as Jub. 10:22-23, where an angel recounts this incident and says “And the Lord our God said to us…. And the Lord went down and we went down with him. And we saw the city and the tower which the sons of men built.” On the chiastic structure of the story, see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:235.

² tn Heb “they will not hear, a man the lip of his neighbor.”

NET Notes: Gen 11:8

¹ tn The infinitive construct לִבְנֹת (livnot, “building”) here serves as the object of the verb “they ceased, stopped,” answering the question of what they stopped doing.

NET Notes: Gen 11:9

¹ tn The verb has no expressed subject and so can be rendered as a passive in the translation.

² sn Babel. Here is the climax of the account, a parody on the pride of Babylon. In the Babylonian literature the name bab-ili meant “the gate of God,” but in Hebrew it sounds like the word for “confusion,” and so retained that connotation. The name “Babel” (בָּבֶל, bavel) and the verb translated “confused” (בָּלַל, balal) form a paronomasia (sound play). For the many wordplays and other rhetorical devices in Genesis, see J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis (SSN).

NET Notes: Gen 11:11

¹ tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.

NET Notes: Gen 11:13

¹ tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.

² tc The reading of the MT is followed in vv. 11-12; the LXX reads, “And [= when] Arphaxad had lived thirty-five years, [and] he fathered [= became the father of] Cainan. And after he fathered [= became the father of] Cainan, Arphaxad lived four hundred and thirty years and fathered [= had] [other] sons and daughters, and [then] he died. And [= when] Cainan had lived one hundred and thirty years, [and] he fathered [= became the father of] Sala [= Shelah]. And after he fathered [= became the father of] Sala [= Shelah], Cainan lived three hundred and thirty years and fathered [= had] [other] sons and daughters, and [then] he died.” See also the note on “Shelah” in Gen 10:24; the LXX reading also appears to lie behind Luke 3:35-36.

NET Notes: Gen 11:15

¹ tn Here and in vv. 16, 19, 21, 23, 25 the word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.

NET Notes: Gen 11:28

¹ sn The phrase of the Chaldeans is a later editorial clarification for the readers, designating the location of Ur. From all evidence there would have been no Chaldeans in existence at this early date; they are known in the time of the neo-Babylonian empire in the first millennium b.c.

² tn Heb “upon the face of Terah his father.”

NET Notes: Gen 11:29

¹ sn The name Sarai (a variant spelling of “Sarah”) means “princess” (or “lady”). Sharratu was the name of the wife of the moon god Sin. The original name may reflect the culture out of which the patriarch was called, for the family did worship other gods in Mesopotamia.

² sn The name Milcah means “Queen.” But more to the point here is the fact that Malkatu was a title for Ishtar, the daughter of the moon god. If the women were named after such titles (and there is no evidence that this was the motivation for naming the girls “Princess” or “Queen”), that would not necessarily imply anything about the faith of the two women themselves.

Geneva Bible: Gen 11:2

And it came to pass, ^{( a )} as ^{( b )} they journeyed from the ^{( c )} east, that they found a plain in the land of ^{( d )} Shinar; and they dwelt there.

^{( a )} One hundred and thirty years after the flood.

^{( b )} That is, Nimrod and his company.

^{( c )} That is, from Armenia where the ark stayed.

^{( d )} Which was afterward called Chaldea.

Geneva Bible: Gen 11:4

And they said, Go to, let us ^{( e )} build us a city and a tower, whose top [may reach] unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

^{( e )} They were moved with pride and ambition, preferring their own glory to God's honour.

Geneva Bible: Gen 11:5

And the LORD ^{( f )} came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

^{( f )} Meaning, that he declared by effect, that he knew their wicked enterprise; for God's power is everywhere, and neither ascends nor descends.

Geneva Bible: Gen 11:6

And the LORD said, ^{( g )} Behold, the people [is] one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

^{( g )} God speaks this in derision, because of their foolish persuasion and enterprise.

Geneva Bible: Gen 11:7

Go to, ^{( h )} let us go down, and ^{( i )} there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

^{( h )} He speaks as though he took counsel with his own wisdom and power: that is, with the Son and holy Spirit: signifying the greatness and certainty of the punishment.

^{( i )} By this great plague of the confusion of tongues appears God's horrible judgment against man's pride and vain glory.

Geneva Bible: Gen 11:10

These [are] the generations ^{( k )} of Shem: Shem [was] an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:

^{( k )} He returns to the genealogy of Shem, to come to the history of Abram, in which the Church of God is described, which is Moses' principle purpose.

Geneva Bible: Gen 11:27

Now these [are] the generations of Terah: Terah begat ^{( 1 )} Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.

^{( 1 )} He makes mention first of Abram, not because he was the first born, but for the history which properly belongs to him. Also Abram at the confusion of tongues was 43 years old, for in the destruction of Sodom he was 99 and it was destroyed 52 years after the confusion of tongues.

Geneva Bible: Gen 11:29

And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife [was] Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of ^{( m )} Iscah.

^{( m )} Some think that this Iscah was Sarai.

Geneva Bible: Gen 11:31

And ^{( n )} Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto ^{( o )} Haran, and dwelt there.

^{( n )} Though the oracle of God came to Abram, yet the honour is given to Terah, because he was the father.

^{( o )} Which was a city of Mesopotamia.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Gen 11:1-32

1 One language in the world.

2 The building of Babel.

5 It is interrupted by the confusion of tongues, and the builders dispersed.

10 The generations of Shem.

27 The generations of Terah, the father of Abram.

31 Terah, with Abram and Lot, remove from Ur to Haran.

MHCC: Gen 11:1-4

How soon men forget the most tremendous judgments, and go back to their former crimes! Though the desolations of the deluge were before their eyes, though they sprang from the stock of righteous Noah, yet even during his life-time, wickedness increases exceedingly. Nothing but the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit can remove the sinful lusts of the human will, and the depravity of the human heart. God's purpose was, that mankind should form many nations, and people all lands. In contempt of the Divine will, and against the counsel of Noah, the bulk of mankind united to build a city and a tower to prevent their separating. Idolatry was begun, and Babel became one of its chief seats. They made one another more daring and resolute. Let us learn to provoke one another to love and to good works, as sinners stir up and encourage one another to wicked works.

MHCC: Gen 11:5-9

Here is an expression after the manner of men; The Lord came down to see the city. God is just and fair in all he does against sin and sinners, and condemns none unheard. Pious Eber is not found among this ungodly crew; for he and his are called the children of God; their souls joined not themselves to the assembly of these children of men. God suffered them to go on some way, that the works of their hands, from which they promised themselves lasting honour, might turn to their lasting reproach. God has wise and holy ends, in allowing the enemies of his glory to carry on their wicked projects a great way, and to prosper long. Observe the wisdom and mercy of God, in the methods taken for defeating this undertaking. And the mercy of God in not making the penalty equal to the offence; for he deals not with us according to our sins. The wisdom of God, in fixing upon a sure way to stop these proceedings. If they could not understand one another, they could not help one another; this would take them off from their building. God has various means, and effectual ones, to baffle and defeat the projects of proud men that set themselves against him, and particularly he divides them among themselves. Notwithstanding their union and obstinacy God was above them; for who ever hardened his heart against him, and prospered? Their language was confounded. We all suffer by it to this day: in all the pains and trouble used to learn the languages we have occasion for, we suffer for the rebellion of our ancestors at Babel. Nay, and those unhappy disputes, which are strifes of words, and arise from misunderstanding one another's words, for ought we know, are owing to this confusion of tongues. They left off to build the city. The confusion of their tongues not only unfitted them for helping one another, but they saw the hand of the Lord gone out against them. It is wisdom to leave off that which we see God fights against. God is able to blast and bring to nought all the devices and designs of Babel-builders: there is no wisdom nor counsel against the Lord. The builders departed according to their families, and the tongue they spake, to the countries and places allotted to them. The children of men never did, nor ever will, come all together again, till the great day, when the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of his glory, and all nations shall be gathered before him.

MHCC: Gen 11:10-26

Here is a genealogy, or list of names, ending in Abram, the friend of God, and thus leading towards Christ, the promised Seed, who was the son of Abram. Nothing is left upon record but their names and ages; the Holy Ghost seeming to hasten through them to the history of Abram. How little do we know of those that are gone before us in this world, even of those that lived in the same places where we live, as we likewise know little of those who now live in distant places! We have enough to do to mind our own work. When the earth began to be peopled, men's lives began to shorten; this was the wise disposal of Providence.

MHCC: Gen 11:27-32

Here begins the story of Abram, whose name is famous in both Testaments. Even the children of Eber had become worshippers of false gods. Those who are through grace, heirs of the land of promise, ought to remember what was the land of their birth; what was their corrupt and sinful state by nature. Abram's brethren were, Nahor, out of whose family both Isaac and Jacob had their wives; and Haran, the father of Lot, who died before his father. Children cannot be sure that they shall outlive their parents. Haran died in Ur, before the happy removal of the family out of that idolatrous country. It concerns us to hasten out of our natural state, lest death surprise us in it. We here read of Abram's departure out of Ur of the Chaldees, with his father Terah, his nephew Lot, and the rest of his family, in obedience to the call of God. This chapter leaves them about mid-way between Ur and Canaan, where they dwelt till Terah's death. Many reach to Charran, and yet fall short of Canaan; they are not far from the kingdom of God, and yet never come thither.

Matthew Henry: Gen 11:1-4

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,

1. How they excited and encouraged one another to set about this work. They said, Go to, let us make brick (Gen 11:3), and again, (Gen 11:4), Go to, let us build ourselves a city; by mutual excitements they made one another more daring and resolute. Note, Great things may be brought to pass when the undertakers are numerous and unanimous, and stir up one another. Let us learn to provoke one another to love and to good works, as sinners stir up and encourage one another to wicked works. See Psa 122:1; Isa 2:3, Isa 2:5; Jer 50:5.

2. What materials they used in their building. The country, being plain, yielded neither stone nor mortar, yet this did not discourage them from their undertaking, but they made brick to serve instead of stone, and slime or pitch instead of mortar. See here, (1.) What shift those will make that are resolute in their purposes: were we but zealously affected in a good thing, we should not stop our work so often as we do, under pretence that we want conveniences for carrying it on. (2.) What a difference there is between men's building and God's; when men build their Babel, brick and slime are their best materials; but, when God builds his Jerusalem, he lays even the foundations of it with sapphires, and all its borders with pleasant stones, Isa 54:11, Isa 54:12; Rev 21:19.

3. For what ends they built. Some think they intended hereby to secure themselves against the waters of another flood. God had told them indeed that he would not again drown the world; but they would trust to a tower of their own making, rather than to a promise of God's making or an ark of his appointing. If, however, they had had this in their eye, they would have chosen to build their tower upon a mountain rather than upon a plain, but three things, it seems, they aimed at in building this tower: -

(1.) It seems designed for an affront to God himself; for they would build a tower whose top might reach to heaven, which bespeaks a defiance of God, or at least a rivalship with him. They would be like the Most High, or would come as near him as they could, not in holiness but in height. They forgot their place, and, scorning to creep on the earth, resolved to climb to heaven, not by the door or ladder, but some other way.

(2.) They hoped hereby to make themselves a name; they would do something to be talked of now, and to give posterity to know that there had been such men as they in the world. Rather than die and leave no memorandum behind them, they would leave this monument of their pride, and ambition, and folly. Note, [1.] Affectation of honour and a name among men commonly inspires with a strange ardour for great and difficult undertakings, and often betrays to that which is evil and offensive to God. [2.] It is just with God to bury those names in the dust which are raised by sin. These Babel-builders put themselves to a great deal of foolish expense to make themselves a name; but they could not gain even this point, for we do not find in any history the name of so much as one of these Babel-builders. Philo Judaeus says, They engraved every one his name upon a brick, in perpetuam rei memoriam - as a perpetual memorial; yet neither did this serve their purpose.

(3.) They did it to prevent their dispersion: Lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth. "It was done"(says Josephus) "in disobedience to that command (Gen 9:1), Replenish the earth. "God orders them to disperse. "No,"say they, "we will not, we will live and die together."In order hereunto, they engage themselves and one another in this vast undertaking. That they might unite in one glorious empire, they resolve to build this city and tower, to be the metropolis of their kingdom and the centre of their unity. It is probable that the band of ambitious Nimrod was in all this. He could not content himself with the command of a particular colony, but aimed at universal monarchy, in order to which, under pretence of uniting for their common safety, he contrives to keep them in one body, that, having them all under his eye, he might not fail to have them under his power. See the daring presumption of these sinners. Here is, [1.] A bold opposition to God: "You shall be scattered,"says God. "But we will not,"say they. Woe unto him that thus strives with his maker. [2.] A bold competition with God. It is God's prerogative to be universal monarch, Lord of all, and King of kings; the man that aims at it offers to step into the throne of God, who will not give his glory to another.

Matthew Henry: Gen 11:5-9

We have here the quashing of the project of the Babel-builders, and the turning of the counsel of those froward men headlong, that God's counsel might stand in spite of them. Here is,

I. The cognizance God took of the design that was on foot: The Lord came down to see the city, Gen 11:5. It is an expression after the manner of men; he knew it as clearly and fully as men know that which they come to the place to view. Observe, 1. Before he gave judgment upon their cause, he enquired into it; for God is incontestably just and fair in all his proceedings against sin and sinners, and condemns none unheard. 2. It is spoken of an act of condescension in God to take notice even of this building, which the undertakers were so proud of ; for he humbles himself to behold the transactions, even the most considerable ones, of this lower world, Psa 113:6. 3. It is said to be the tower which the children of men built, which intimates, (1.) Their weakness and frailty as men. It was a very foolish thing for the children of men, worms of the earth, to defy Heaven, and to provoke the Lord to jealousy. Are they stronger than he? (2.) Their sinfulness and obnoxiousness. They were the sons of Adam, so it is in the Hebrew; nay, of that Adam, that sinful disobedient Adam, whose children are by nature children of disobedience, children that are corrupters. (3.) Their distinction from the children of God, the professors of religion, from whom these daring builders had separated themselves, and built this tower to support and perpetuate the separation. Pious Eber is not found among this ungodly crew; for he and his are called the children of God, and therefore their souls come not into the secret, nor unite themselves to the assembly, of these children of men.

II. The counsels and resolves of the Eternal God concerning this matter; he did not come down merely as a spectator, but as a judge, as a prince, to look upon these proud men, and abase them, Job 40:11-14. Observe,

1. He suffered them to proceed a good way in their enterprise before he put a stop to it, that they might have space to repent, and, if they had so much consideration left, might be ashamed of it and weary of it themselves; and if not that their disappointment might be the more shameful, and every one that passed by might laugh at them, saying, These men began to build, and were not able to finish, that so the works of their hands, from which they promised themselves immortal honour, might turn to their perpetual reproach. Note, God has wise and holy ends in permitting the enemies of his glory to carry on their impious projects a great way, and to prosper long in their enterprises.

2. When they had, with much care and toil, made some considerable progress in their building, then God determined to break their measures and disperse them. Observe,

(1.) The righteousness of God, which appears in the considerations upon which he proceeded in this resolution, Gen 11:6. Two things he considered: - [1.] Their oneness, as a reason why they must be scattered: " Behold, the people are one, and they have all one language. If they continue one, much of the earth will be left uninhabited; the power of their prince will soon be exorbitant; wickedness and profaneness will be insufferably rampant, for they will strengthen one another's hands in it; and, which is worst of all, there will be an overbalance to the church, and these children of men, if thus incorporated, will swallow up the little remnant of God's children."Therefore it is decreed that they must not be one. Note, Unity is a policy but it is not the infallible mark of a true church; yet, while the builders of Babel, though of different families, dispositions, and interests, were thus unanimous in opposing God, what a pity is it, and what a shame, that the builders of Sion, though united in one common head and Spirit, should be divided, as they are, in serving God! But marvel not at the matter. Christ came not to send peace. [2.] Their obstinacy: Now nothing will be restrained from them; and this is a reason why they must be crossed and thwarted in their design. God had tried, by his commands and admonitions, to bring them off from this project, but in vain; therefore he must take another course with them. See here, First, The sinfulness of sin, and the wilfulness of sinners; ever since Adam would not be restrained from the forbidden tree, his unsanctified seed have been impatient of restraint and ready to rebel against it. Secondly, See the necessity of God's judgments upon earth, to keep the world in some order and to tie the hands of those that will not be checked by law.

(2.) The wisdom and mercy of God in the methods that were taken for the defeating of this enterprise (Gen 11:7): Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language. This was not spoken to the angels, as if God needed either their advice or their assistance, but God speaks it to himself, or the Father to the Son and Holy Ghost. They said, Go to, let us make brick, and Go to, let us build a tower, animating one another to the attempt; and now God says, Go to, let us confound their language; for, if men stir up themselves to sin, God will stir up himself to take vengeance, Isa 59:17, Isa 59:18. Now observe here, [1.] The mercy of God, in moderating the penalty, and not making it proportionable to the offence; for he deals not with us according to our sins. He does not say, " Let us go down now in thunder and lightning, and consume those rebels in a moment;"or, "Let the earth open, and swallow up them and their building, and let those go down quickly into hell who are climbing to heaven the wrong way."No; only, " Let us go down, and scatter them."They deserved death, but are only banished or transported; for the patience of God is very great towards a provoking world. Punishments are chiefly reserved for the future state. God's judgments on sinners in this life, compared with those which are reserved, are little more than restraints. [2.] The wisdom of God, in pitching upon an effectual expedient to stay proceedings, which was the confounding of their language, that they might not understand one another's speech, nor could they well join hands when their tongues were divided; so that this would be a very proper method both for taking them off from their building (for, if they could not understand one another, they could not help one another) and also for disposing them to scatter; for, when they could not understand one another, they could not take pleasure in one another. Note, God has various means, and effectual ones, to baffle and defeat the projects of proud men that set themselves against him, and particularly to divide them among themselves, either by dividing their spirits (Jdg 9:23), or by dividing their tongues, as David prays, Psa 55:9.

III. The execution of these counsels of God, to the blasting and defeating of the counsels of men, Gen 11:8, Gen 11:9. God made them know whose word should stand, his or theirs, as the expression is, Jer 44:28. Notwithstanding their oneness and obstinacy, God was too hard for them, and wherein they dealt proudly he was above them; for who ever hardened his heart against him and prospered? Three things were done: -

1. Their language was confounded. God, who, when he made man, taught him to speak, and put words into his mouth fit to express the conceptions of his mind by, now caused these builders to forget their former language, and to speak and understand a new one, which yet was common to those of the same tribe or family, but not to others: those of one colony could converse together, but not with those of another. Now, (1.) This was a great miracle, and a proof of the power which God has upon the minds and tongues of men, which he turns as the rivers of water. (2.) This was a great judgment upon these builders; for, being thus deprived of the knowledge of the ancient and holy tongue, they had become incapable of communicating with the true church, in which it was retained, and probably it contributed much to their loss of the knowledge of the true God. (3.) We all suffer by it, to this day. In all the inconveniences we sustain by the diversity of languages, and all the pains and trouble we are at to learn the languages we have occasion for, we smart for the rebellion of our ancestors at Babel. Nay, and those unhappy controversies which are strifes of words, and arise from our misunderstanding one another's language, for aught I know are owing to this confusion of tongues. (4.) The project of some to frame a universal character, in order to a universal language, how desirable soever it may seem, is yet, I think, but a vain thing to attempt; for it is to strive against a divine sentence, by which the languages of the nations will be divided while the world stands. (5.) We may here lament the loss of the universal use of the Hebrew tongue, which from this time was the vulgar language of the Hebrews only, and continued so till the captivity in Babylon, where, even among them, it was exchanged for the Syriac. (6.) As the confounding of tongues divided the children of men and scattered them abroad, so the gift of tongues, bestowed upon the apostles (Acts 2), contributed greatly to the gathering together of the children of God, who were scattered abroad, and the uniting of them in Christ, that with one mind and one mouth they might glorify God, Rom 15:6.

2. Their building was stopped: They left off to build the city. This was the effect of the confusion of their tongues; for it not only incapacitated them for helping one another, but probably struck such a damp upon their spirits that they could not proceed, since they saw, in this, the hand of the Lord gone out against them. Note, (1.) It is wisdom to leave off that which we see God fights against. (2.) God is ale to blast and bring to nought all the devices and designs of Babel-builders. He sits in heaven, and laughs at the counsels of the kings of the earth against him and his anointed; and will force them to confess that there is no wisdom nor counsel against the Lord, Pro 21:30; Isa 8:9, Isa 8:10.

3. The builders were scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth, Gen 11:8, Gen 11:9. They departed in companies, after their families, and after their tongues (Gen 10:5, Gen 10:30, Gen 10:31), to the several countries and places allotted to them in the division that had been made, which they knew before, but would not go to take possession of till now that they were forced to it. Observe here, (1.) The very thing which they feared came upon them. That dispersion which sought to evade by an act of rebellion they by this act brought upon themselves; for we are most likely to fall into that trouble which we seek to evade by indirect and sinful methods. (2.) It was God's work: The Lord scattered them. God's hand is to be acknowledged in all scattering providences; if the family be scattered, relations scattered, churches scattered, it is the Lord's doing. (3.) Though they were as firmly in league with one another as could be, yet the Lord scattered them; for no man can keep together what God will put asunder. (4.) Thus God justly took vengeance on them for their oneness in that presumptuous attempt to build their tower. Shameful dispersions are the just punishment of sinful unions. Simeon and Levi, who had been brethren in iniquity, were divided in Jacob, Gen 49:5, Gen 49:7; Psa 83:3-13. (5.) They left behind them a perpetual memorandum of their reproach, in the name given to the place. It was called Babel, confusion. Those that aim at a great name commonly come off with a bad name. (6.) The children of men were now finally scattered, and never did, nor ever will, come all together again, till the great day, when the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of his glory, and all nations shall be gathered before him, Mat 25:31, Mat 25:32.

Matthew Henry: Gen 11:10-26

We have here a genealogy, not an endless genealogy, for here it ends in Abram, the friend of God, and leads further to Christ, the promised seed, who was the son of Abram, and from Abram the genealogy of Christ is reckoned (Mat 1:1, etc.); so that put ch. 5, ch. 11, and Mt. 1, together, and you have such an entire genealogy of Jesus Christ as cannot be produced, for aught I know, concerning any person in the world, out of his line, and at such a distance from the fountain-head. And, laying these three genealogies together, we shall find that twice ten, and thrice fourteen, generations or descents, passed between the first and second Adam, making it clear concerning Christ that he was not only the Son of Abraham, but the Son of man, and the seed of woman. Observe here, 1. Nothing is left upon record concerning those of this line but their names and ages, the Holy Ghost seeming to hasten through them to the story of Abram. How little do we know of those that have gone before us in this world, even those that lived in the same places where we live, as we likewise know little of those that are our contemporaries in distant places! we have enough to do to mind the work of our own day, and let God alone to require that which is past, Ecc 3:15. 2. There was an observable gradual decrease in the years of their lives. Shem reached to 600 years, which yet fell short of the age of the patriarchs before the flood; the next three came short of 500; the next three did not reach to 300; after them we read not of any that attained to 200, except Terah; and, not many ages after this, Moses reckoned seventy, or eighty, to be the utmost men ordinarily arrive at. When the earth began to be replenished, men's lives began to shorten; so that the decrease is to be imputed to the wise disposal of Providence, rather than to any decay of nature. For the elect's sake, men's days are shortened; and, being evil, it is well they are few, and attain not to the years of the lives of our fathers, Gen 47:9. 3. Eber, from whom the Hebrews were denominated, was the longest-lived of any that was born after the flood, which perhaps was the reward of his singular piety and strict adherence to the ways of God.

Matthew Henry: Gen 11:27-32

Here begins the story of Abram, whose name is famous, henceforward, in both Testaments. We have here,

I. His country: Ur of the Chaldees. This was the land of his nativity, an idolatrous country, where even the children of Eber themselves had degenerated. Note, Those who are, through grace, heirs of the land of promise, ought to remember what was the land of their nativity, what was their corrupt and sinful state by nature, the rock out of which they were hewn.

II. His relations, mentioned for his sake, and because of their interest in the following story. 1. His father was Terah, of whom it is said (Jos 24:2) that he served other gods, on the other side of the flood, so early did idolatry gain footing in the world, and so hard is it even for those that have some good principles to swim against the stream. Though it is said (Gen 11:26) that when Terah was seventy years old he begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran (which seems to tell us that Abram was the eldest son of Terah, and was born in his seventieth year), yet, by comparing Gen 11:32, which makes Terah to die in his 205 th year, with Act 7:4 (where it is said that he was but seventy-five years old when he removed from Haran), it appears that he was born in the 130 th year of Terah, and probably was his youngest son; for, in God's choices, the last are often first and the first last. We have, 2. Some account of his brethren. (1.) Nahor, out of whose family both Isaac and Jacob had their wives. (2.) Haran, the father of Lot, of whom it is here said (Gen 11:28) that he died before his father Terah. Note, Children cannot be sure that they shall survive their parents; for death does not go by seniority, taking the eldest first. The shadow of death is without any order, Job 10:22. It is likewise said that he died in Ur of the Chaldees, before the happy removal of the family out of that idolatrous country. Note, It concerns us to hasten out of our natural state, lest death surprise us in it. 3. His wife was Sarai, who some think, was the same with Iscah, the daughter of Haran. Abram himself says of her that she was the daughter of his father, but not the daughter of his mother, Gen 20:12. She was ten years younger than Abram.

III. His departure out of Ur of the Chaldees, with his father Terah, his nephew Lot, and the rest of his family, in obedience to the call of God, of which we shall read more, Gen 12:1, etc. This chapter leaves them in Haran, or Charran, a place about mid-way between Ur and Canaan, where they dwelt till Terah's head was laid, probably because the old man was unable, through the infirmities of age, to proceed in his journey. Many reach to Charran, and yet fall short of Canaan; they are not far from the kingdom of God, and yet never come thither.

Keil-Delitzsch: Gen 11:1

" 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.

Keil-Delitzsch: Gen 11:2-4

As men multiplied they moved from the land of Ararat "eastward," or more strictly to the south-east , and settled in a plain. בּקעה 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 ( לשׂרפה "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. שׁם לו עשׂה 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.

Keil-Delitzsch: Gen 11:5-9

" Jehovah came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men had built "(the perfect בּנוּ refers to the building as one finished up to a certain point). Jehovah 's "coming down"is not the same here as in Exo 19:20; Exo 34:5; Num 11:25; Num 12:5, viz., the descent from heaven of some visible symbol of His presence, but is an anthropomorphic description of God's interposition in the actions of men, primarily a "judicial cognizance of the actual fact,"and then, Gen 11:7, a judicial infliction of punishment. The reason for the judgment is given in the word, i.e., the sentence, which Jehovah pronounces upon the undertaking (Gen 11:6): " Behold one people ( עם lit., union, connected whole, from עמם to bind) and one language have they all, and this (the building of this city and tower) is (only) the beginning of their deeds; and now (sc., when they have finished this) nothing will be impossible to them ( מהם יבּצר לא lit., cut off from them, prevented) which they purpose to do "( יזמוּ for יזמּוּ from זמם , see Gen 9:19). By the firm establishment of an ungodly unity, the wickedness and audacity of men would have led to fearful enterprises. But God determined, by confusing their language, to prevent the heightening of sin through ungodly association, and to frustrate their design. " Up "( הבה "go to,"an ironical imitation of the same expression in Gen 11:3 and Gen 11:4), " We will go down, and there confound their language (on the plural, see Gen 1:26; נבלה for נבלּה , Kal from בּלל , like יזמו in Gen 1:6), that they may not understand one another's speech ."The execution of this divine purpose is given in Gen 11:8, in a description of its consequences: "Jehovah scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city." We must not conclude from this, however, that the differences in language were simply the result of the separation of the various tribes, and that the latter arose from discord and strife; in which case the confusion of tongues would be nothing more than " dissensio animorum, per quam factum sit, ut qui turrem struebant distracti sint in contraria studia et consilia "( Bitringa ). Such a view not only does violence to the words " that one may not discern (understand) the lip (language) of the other, "but is also at variance with the object of the narrative. When it is stated, first of all, that God resolved to destroy the unity of lips and words by a confusion of the lips, and then that He scattered the men abroad, this act of divine judgment cannot be understood in any other way, than that God deprived them of the ability to comprehend one another, and thus effected their dispersion. The event itself cannot have consisted merely in a change of the organs of speech, produced by the omnipotence of God, whereby speakers were turned into stammerers who were unintelligible to one another. This opinion, which is held by Bitringa and Hoffmann , is neither reconcilable with the text, nor tenable as a matter of fact. The differences, to which this event gave rise, consisted not merely in variations of sound, such as might be attributed to differences in the formation in the organs of speech (the lip or tongue), but had a much deeper foundation in the human mind. If language is the audible expression of emotions, conceptions, and thoughts of the mind, the cause of the confusion or division of the one human language into different national dialects must be sought in an effect produced upon the human mind, by which the original unity of emotion, conception, thought, and will was broken up. This inward unity had no doubt been already disturbed by sin, but the disturbance had not yet amounted to a perfect breach. This happened first of all in the event recorded here, through a direct manifestation of divine power, which caused the disturbance produced by sin in the unity of emotion, thought, and will to issue in a diversity of language, and thus by a miraculous suspension of mutual understanding frustrated the enterprise by which men hoped to render dispersion and estrangement impossible. More we cannot say in explanation of this miracle, which lies before us in the great multiplicity and variety of tongues, since even those languages which are genealogically related - for example, the Semitic and Indo-Germanic - were no longer intelligible to the same people even in the dim primeval age, whilst others are so fundamentally different from one another, that hardly a trace remains of their original unity. With the disappearance of unity the one original language was also lost, so that neither in the Hebrew nor in any other language of history has enough been preserved to enable us to form the least conception of its character.

(Note: The opinion of the Rabbins and earlier theologians, that the Hebrew was the primitive language, has been generally abandoned in consequence of modern philological researches. The fact that the biblical names handed down from the earliest times are of Hebrew extraction proves nothing. With the gradual development and change of language, the traditions with their names were cast into the mould of existing dialects, without thereby affecting the truth of the tradition. For as Drechster has said, "it makes no difference whether I say that Adam's eldest son had a name corresponding to the name Cain from קנה, or to the name Ctesias from κτᾶσθαι ; the truth of the Thorah, which presents us with the tradition handed down from the sons of Noah through Shem to Abraham and Israel, is not a verbal, but a living tradition - is not in the letter, but in the spirit.")

The primitive language is extinct, buried in the materials of the languages of the nations, to rise again one day to eternal life in the glorified form of the καιναὶ γλῶσσαι intelligible to all the redeemed, when sin with its consequences is overcome and extinguished by the power of grace. A type of pledge of this hope was given in the gift of tongues on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Church on the first Christian day of Pentecost, when the apostles, filled with the Holy Ghost, spoke with other or new tongues of "the wonderful works of God,"so that the people of every nation under heaven understood in their own language (Act 2:1-11).

From the confusion of tongues the city received the name Babel ( בּבל i.e., confusion, contracted from בּלבּל from בּלל to confuse), according to divine direction, though without any such intention on the part of those who first gave the name, as a standing memorial of the judgment of God which follows all the ungodly enterprises of the power of the world.

(Note: Such explanations of the name as "gate, or house, or fortress of Bel,"are all the less worthy of notice, because the derivation ἀπὸ τοῦ Βήλου in the Etymol. magn. , and in Persian and Nabatean works, is founded upon the myth, that Bel was the founder of the city. And as this myth is destitute of historical worth, so is also the legend that the city was built by Semiramis, which may possibly have so much of history as its basis, that this half-mythical queen extended and beautified the city, just as Nebuchadnezzar added a new quarter, and a second fortress, and strongly fortified it.)

Of this city considerable ruins still remain, including the remains of an enormous tower, Birs Nimrud, which is regarded by the Arabs as the tower of Babel that was destroyed by fire from heaven. Whether these ruins have any historical connection with the tower of the confusion of tongues, must remain, at least for the present, a matter of uncertainty. With regard to the date of the event, we find from Gen 11:10 that the division of the human race occurred in the days of Peleg, who was born 100 years after the flood. In 150 or 180 years, with a rapid succession of births, the descendants of the three sons of Noah, who were already 100 years old and married at the time of the flood, might have become quite numerous enough to proceed to the erection of such a building. If we reckon, for example, only four male and four female births as the average number to each marriage, since it is evident from Gen 11:12. that children were born as early as the 30th or 35th year of their parent's age, the sixth generation would be born by 150 years after the flood, and the human race would number 12,288 males and as many females. Consequently there would be at least about 30,000 people in the world at this time.

Keil-Delitzsch: Gen 11:10-26

After describing the division of the one family which sprang from the three sons of Noah, into many nations scattered over the earth and speaking different languages, the narrative returns to Shem, and traces his descendants in a direct line to Terah the father of Abraham. The first five members of this pedigree have already been given in the genealogy of the Shemites; and in that case the object was to point out the connection in which all the descendants of Eber stood to one another. They are repeated here to show the direct descent of the Terahites through Peleg from Shem, but more especially to follow the chronological thread of the family line, which could not be given in the genealogical tree without disturbing the uniformity of its plan. By the statement in Gen 11:10, that " Shem, a hundred years old, begat Arphaxad two years after the flood, "the chronological date already given of Noah's age at the birth of his sons (Gen 5:32) and at the commencement of the flood (Gen 7:11) are made still more definite. As the expression "after the flood"refers to the commencement of the flood (Gen 9:28), and according to Gen 7:11 the flood began in the second month, or near the beginning of the six hundredth year of Noah's life, though the year 600 is given in Gen 7:6 in round numbers, it is not necessary to assume, as some do, in order to reconcile the difference between our verse and Gen 5:32, that the number 500 in Gen 5:32 stands as a round number for 502. On the other hand, there can be no objection to such an assumption. The different statements may be easily reconciled by placing the birth of Shem at the end of the five hundredth year of Noah's life, and the birth of Arphaxad at the end of the hundredth year of that of Shem; in which case Shem would be just 99 years old when the flood began, and would be fully 100 years old "two years after the flood,"that is to say, in the second year from the commencement of the flood, when he begat Arphaxad. In this case the "two years after the flood"are not to be added to the sum-total of the chronological data , but are included in it. The table given here forms in a chronological and material respect the direct continuation of the one in Gen 5, and differs from it only in form, viz., by giving merely the length of life of the different fathers before and after the birth of their sons, without also summing up the whole number of their years as is the case there, since this is superfluous for chronological purposes. But on comparing the chronological data of the two tables, we find this very important difference in the duration of life before and after the flood, that the patriarchs after the flood lived upon an average only half the number of years of those before it, and that with Peleg the average duration of life was again reduced by one half. Whilst Noah with his 950 years belonged entirely to the old world, and Shem, who was born before the flood, reached the age of 600, Arphaxad lived only 438 years, Salah 433, and Eber 464; and again, with Peleg the duration of life fell to 239 years, Reu also lived only 239 years, Serug 230, and Nahor not more than 148. Here, then, we see that the two catastrophes, the flood and the separation of the human race into nations, exerted a powerful influence in shortening the duration of life; the former by altering the climate of the earth, the latter by changing the habits of men. But while the length of life diminished, the children were born proportionally earlier. Shem begat his first-born in his hundredth year, Arphaxad in the thirty-fifth, Salah in the thirtieth, and so on to Terah, who had no children till his seventieth year; consequently the human race, notwithstanding the shortening of life, increased with sufficient rapidity to people the earth very soon after their dispersion. There is nothing astonishing, therefore, in the circumstance, that wherever Abraham went he found tribes, towns, and kingdoms, though only 365 years had elapsed since the flood, when we consider that eleven generations would have followed one another in that time, and that, supposing every marriage to have been blessed with eight children on an average (four male and four female), the eleventh generation would contain 12,582,912 couples, or 25,165,824 individuals. And is we reckon ten children as the average number, the eleventh generation would contain 146,484,375 pairs, or 292,968,750 individuals. In neither of these cases have we included such of the earlier generations as would be still living, although their number would be by no means inconsiderable, since nearly all the patriarchs from Shem to Terah were alive at the time of Abram's migration. In Gen 11:26 the genealogy closes, like that in Gen 5:32, with the names of three sons of Terah, all of whom sustained an important relation to the subsequent history, viz., Abram as the father of the chosen family, Nahor as the ancestor of Rebekah (cf. Gen 11:29 with Gen 22:20-23), and Haran as the father of Lot (Gen 11:27).

Keil-Delitzsch: Gen 11:27-32

The genealogical data in Gen 11:27-32 prepare the way for the history of the patriarchs. The heading, " These are the generations of Terah, "belongs not merely to Gen 11:27-32, but to the whole of the following account of Abram, since it corresponds to "the generations"of Ishmael and of Isaac in Gen 25:12 and Gen 25:19. Of the three sons of Terah, who are mentioned again in Gen 11:27 to complete the plan of the different Toledoth , such genealogical notices are given as are of importance to the history of Abram and his family. According to the regular plan of Genesis, the fact that Haran the youngest son of Terah begat Lot, is mentioned first of all, because the latter went with Abram to Canaan; and then the fact that he died before his father Terah, because the link which would have connected Lot with his native land was broken in consequence. "Before his father," פּני על lit., upon the face of his father, so that he saw and survived his death. Ur of the Chaldees is to be sought either in the " Ur nomine persicum castellum "of Ammian (25, 8), between Hatra and Nisibis, near Arrapachitis, or in Orhoi , Armenian Urrhai , the old name for Edessa , the modern Urfa . - Gen 11:29. Abram and Nahor took wives from their kindred. Abram married Sarai, his half-sister (Gen 20:12), of whom it is already related, in anticipation of what follows, that she was barren. Nahor married Milcah, the daughter of his brother Haran, who bore to him Bethuel, the father of Rebekah (Gen 22:22-23). The reason why Iscah is mentioned is doubtful. For the rabbinical notion, that Iscah is another name for Sarai, is irreconcilable with Gen 20:12, where Abram calls Sarai his sister, daughter of his father, though not of his mother; on the other hand, the circumstance that Sarai is introduced in Gen 11:31 merely as the daughter-in-law of Terah, may be explained on the ground that she left Ur, not as his daughter, but as the wife of his son Abram. A better hypothesis is that of Ewald , that Iscah is mentioned because she was the wife of Lot; but this is pure conjecture. According to Gen 11:31, Terah already prepared to leave Ur of the Chaldees with Abram and Lot, and to remove to Canaan. In the phrase " they went forth with them, "the subject cannot be the unmentioned members of the family, such as Nahor and his children; though Nahor must also have gone to Haran, since it is called in Gen 24:10 the city of Nahor. For if he accompanied them at this time, there is no perceptible reason why he should not have been mentioned along with the rest. The nominative to the verb must be Lot and Sarai, who went with Terah and Abram; so that although Terah is placed at the head, Abram must have taken an active part in the removal, or the resolution to remove. This does not, however, necessitate the conclusion, that he had already been called by God in Ur. Nor does Gen 15:7 require any such assumption. For it is not stated there that God called Abram in Ur, but only that He brought him out . But the simple fact of removing from Ur might also be called a leading out, as a work of divine superintendence and guidance, without a special call from God. It was in Haran that Abram first received the divine call to go to Canaan (Gen 12:1-4), when he left not only his country and kindred, but also his father's house. Terah did not carry out his intention to proceed to Canaan, but remained in Haran, in his native country Mesopotamia, probably because he found there what he was going to look for in the land of Canaan. Haran, more properly Charan , חרן , is a place in north-western Mesopotamia, the ruins of which may still be seen, a full day's journey to the south of Edessa (Gr. Κάῤῥαι , Lat. Carrae ), where Crassus fell when defeated by the Parthians. It was a leading settlement of the Ssabians, who had a temple there dedicated to the moon, which they traced back to Abraham. There Terah died at the age of 205, or sixty years after the departure of Abram for Canaan; for, according to Gen 11:26, Terah was seventy years old when Abram was born, and Abram was seventy-five years old when he arrived in Canaan. When Stephen, therefore, placed the removal of Abram from Haran to Canaan after the death of his father, he merely inferred this from the fact, that the call of Abram (Gen 12) was not mentioned till after the death of Terah had been noticed, taking the order of the narrative as the order of events; whereas, according to the plan of Genesis, the death of Terah is introduced here, because Abram never met with his father again after leaving Haran, and there was consequently nothing more to be related concerning him.

Character of the Patriarchal History

The dispersion of the descendants of the sons of Noah, who had now grown into numerous families, was necessarily followed on the one hand by the rise of a variety of nations, differing in language, manners, and customs, and more and more estranged from one another; and on the other by the expansion of the germs of idolatry, contained in the different attitudes of these nations towards God, into the polytheistic religions of heathenism, in which the glory of the immortal God was changed into an image made like to mortal man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things (Rom 1:23 cf. Wis. 13-15). If God therefore would fulfil His promise, no more to smite the earth with the curse of the destruction of every living thing because of the sin of man (Gen 8:21-22), and yet would prevent the moral corruption which worketh death from sweeping all before it; it was necessary that by the side of these self-formed nations He should form a nation for Himself, to be the recipient and preserver of His salvation, and that in opposition to the rising kingdoms of the world He should establish a kingdom for the living, saving fellowship of man with Himself. The foundation for this was laid by God in the call and separation of Abram from his people and his country, to make him, by special guidance, the father of a nation from which the salvation of the world should come. With the choice of Abram and revelation of God to man assumed a select character, inasmuch as God manifested Himself henceforth to Abram and his posterity alone as the author of salvation and the guide to true life; whilst other nations were left to follow their own course according to the powers conferred upon them, in order that they might learn that in their way, and without fellowship with the living God, it was impossible to find peace to the soul, and the true blessedness of life (cf. Act 17:27). But this exclusiveness contained from the very first the germ of universalism. Abram was called, that through him all the families of the earth might be blessed (Gen 12:1-3). Hence the new form which the divine guidance of the human race assumed in the call of Abram was connected with the general development of the world, - in the one hand, by the fact that Abram belonged to the family of Shem, which Jehovah had blessed, and on the other, by his not being called alone, but as a married man with his wife. But whilst, regarded in this light, the continuity of the divine revelation was guaranteed, as well as the plan of human development established in the creation itself, the call of Abram introduced so far the commencement of a new period, that to carry out the designs of God their very foundations required to be renewed. Although, for example, the knowledge and worship of the true God had been preserved in the families of Shem in a purer form than among the remaining descendants of Noah, even in the house of Terah and worship of God was corrupted by idolatry (Jos 24:2-3); and although Abram was to become the father of the nation which God was about to form, yet his wife was barren, and therefore, in the way of nature, a new family could not be expected to spring from him.

As a perfectly new beginning, therefore, the patriarchal history assumed the form of a family history, in which the grace of God prepared the ground for the coming Israel. For the nation was to grow out of the family, and in the lives of the patriarchs its character was to be determined and its development foreshadowed. The early history consists of three stages, which are indicated by the three patriarchs, peculiarly so called, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and in the sons of Jacob the unity of the chosen family was expanded into the twelve immediate fathers of the nation. In the triple number of the patriarchs, the divine election of the nation on the one hand, and the entire formation of the character and guidance of the life of Israel on the other, were to attain to their fullest typical manifestation. These two were the pivots, upon which all the divine revelations made to the patriarchs, and all the guidance they received, were made to turn. The revelations consisted almost exclusively of promises; and so far as these promises were fulfilled in the lives of the patriarchs, the fulfilments themselves were predictions and pledges of the ultimate and complete fulfilment, reserved for a distant, or for the most remote futurity. And the guidance vouchsafed had for its object the calling forth of faith in response to the promise, which should maintain itself amidst all the changes of this earthly life. "A faith, which laid hold of the word of promise, and on the strength of that word gave up the visible and present for the invisible and future, was the fundamental characteristic of the patriarchs"( Delitzsch ). This faith Abram manifested and sustained by great sacrifices, by enduring patience, and by self-denying by great sacrifices, by enduring patience, and by self-denying obedience of such a kind, that he thereby became the father of believers ( πατὴρ πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων , Rom 4:11). Isaac also was strong in patience and hope; and Jacob wrestled in faith amidst painful circumstances of various kinds, until he had secured the blessing of the promise. "Abraham was a man of faith that works; Isaac, of faith that endures; Jacob, of faith that wrestles"( Baumgarten ). - Thus, walking in faith, the patriarchs were types of faith for all the families that should spring from them, and be blessed through them, and ancestors of a nation which God had resolved to form according to the election of His grace. For the election of God was not restricted to the separation of Abram from the family of Shem, to be the father of the nation which was destined to be the vehicle of salvation; it was also manifest in the exclusion of Ishmael, whom Abram had begotten by the will of man, through Hagar the handmaid of his wife, for the purpose of securing the promised seed, and in the new life imparted to the womb of the barren Sarai, and her consequent conception and birth of Isaac, the son of promise. And lastly, it appeared still more manifestly in the twin sons born by Rebekah to Isaac, of whom the first-born, Esau, was rejected, and the younger, Jacob, chosen to be the heir of the promise; and this choice, which was announced before their birth, was maintained in spite of Isaac's plans, or that Jacob, and not Esau, received the blessing of the promise. - All this occurred as a type for the future, that Israel might know and lay to heart the fact, that bodily descent from Abraham did not make a man a child of God, but that they alone were children of God who laid hold of the divine promise in faith, and walked in the steps of their forefather's faith (cf. Rom 9:6-13).

If we fix our eyes upon the method of the divine revelation, we find a new beginning in this respect, that as soon as Abram is called, we read of the appearing of God. It is true that from the very beginning God had manifested Himself visibly to men; but in the olden time we read nothing of appearances, because before the flood God had not withdrawn His presence from the earth. Even to Noah He revealed Himself before the flood as one who was present on the earth. But when He had established a covenant with him after the flood, and thereby had assured the continuance of the earth and of the human race, the direct manifestations ceased, for God withdrew His visible presence from the world; so that it was from heaven that the judgment fell upon the tower of Babel, and even the call to Abram in his home in Haran was issued through His word, that is to say, no doubt, through an inward monition. But as soon as Abram had gone to Canaan, in obedience to the call of God, Jehovah appeared to him there (Gen 12:7). These appearances, which were constantly repeated from that time forward, must have taken place from heaven; for we read that Jehovah , after speaking with Abram and the other patriarchs, "went away"(Gen 18:33), or "went up"(Gen 17:22; Gen 35:13); and the patriarchs saw them, sometimes while in a waking condition, in a form discernible to the bodily senses, sometimes in visions, in a state of mental ecstasy, and at other times in the form of a dream (Gen 28:12.). On the form in which God appeared, in most instances, nothing is related. But in Gen 18:1. it is stated that three men came to Abram, one of whom is introduced as Jehovah , whilst the other two are called angels (Gen 19:1). Beside this, we frequently read of appearances of the "angel of Jehovah "(Gen 16:7; Gen 22:11, etc.), or of "Elohim," and the "angel of Elohim "(Gen 21:17; Gen 31:11, etc.), which were repeated throughout the whole of the Old Testament, and even occurred, though only in vision, in the case of the prophet Zechariah. The appearances of the angel of Jehovah (or Elohim ) cannot have been essentially different from those of Jehovah (or Elohim ) Himself; for Jacob describes the appearances of Jehovah at Bethel (Gen 28:13.) as an appearance of "the angel of Elohim ,"and of "the God of Bethel"(Gen 31:11, Gen 31:13); and in his blessing on the sons of Joseph (Gen 48:15-16), "The God ( Elohim ) before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God ( Elohim ) which fed me all my life long unto this day, the angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads,"he places the angel of God on a perfect equality with God, not only regarding Him as the Being to whom he has been indebted for protection all his life long, but entreating from Him a blessing upon his descendants.

The question arises, therefore, whether the angel of Jehovah , or of God , was God Himself in one particular phase of His self-manifestation, or a created angel of whom God made use as the organ of His self-revelation.

(Note: In the old Jewish synagogue the Angel of Jehovah was regarded as the Shechinah , the indwelling of God in the world, i.e., the only Mediator between God and the world, who bears in the Jewish theology the name Metatron . The early Church regarded Him as the Logos , the second person of the Deity; and only a few of the fathers, such as Augustine and Jerome , thought of a created angel (vid., Hengstenberg, Christol. vol. 3, app.). This view was adopted by many Romish theologians, by the Socinians, Arminians, and others, and has been defended recently by Hoffmann , whom Delitzsch , Kurtz , and others follow. But the opinion of the early Church has been vindicated most thoroughly by Hengstenberg in his Christology.)

The former appears to us to be the only scriptural view. For the essential unity of the Angel of Jehovah with Jehovah Himself follows indisputably from the following facts. In the first place, the Angel of God identifies Himself with Jehovah and Elohim , by attributing to Himself divine attributes and performing divine works: e.g., Gen 22:12, "Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me "(i.e., hast been willing to offer him up as a burnt sacrifice to God); again (to Hagar) Gen 16:10, " I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude;"Gen 21, " I will make him a great nation,"-the very words used by Elohim in Gen 17:20 with reference to Ishmael, and by Jehovah in Gen 13:16; Gen 15:4-5, with regard to Isaac; also Exo 3:6., " I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: I have surely seen the affliction of My people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry, and I am come down to deliver them"(cf. Jdg 2:1). In addition to this, He performs miracles, consuming with fire the offering placed before Him by Gideon, and the sacrifice prepared by Manoah, and ascending to haven in the flame of the burnt-offering (Jdg 6:21; Jdg 13:19-20).

Secondly , the Angel of God was recognised as God by those to whom He appeared, on the one hand by their addressing Him as Adonai (i.e., the Lord God; Jdg 6:15), declaring that they had seen God, and fearing that they should die (Gen 16:13; Exo 3:6; Jdg 6:22-23; Jdg 13:22), and on the other hand by their paying Him divine honour, offering sacrifices which He accepted, and worshipping Him (Jdg 6:20; Jdg 13:19-20, cf. Gen 2:5). The force of these facts has been met by the assertion, that the ambassador perfectly represents the person of the sender; and evidence of this is adduced not only from Grecian literature, but from the Old Testament also, where the addresses of the prophets often glide imperceptibly into the words of Jehovah , whose instrument they are. But even if the address in Gen 22:16, where the oath of the Angel of Jehovah is accompanied by the words, "saith the Lord,"and the words and deeds of the Angel of God in certain other cases, might be explained in this way, a created angel sent by God could never say, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,"or by the acceptance of sacrifices and adoration, encourage the presentation of divine honours to himself. How utterly irreconcilable this fact is with the opinion that the Angel of Jehovah was a created angel, is conclusively proved by Rev 22:9, which is generally regarded as perfectly corresponding to the account of the "Angel of Jehovah "of the Old Testament. The angel of God, who shows the sacred seer the heavenly Jerusalem, and who is supposed to say, "Behold, I come quickly"(Rev 22:7), and "I am Alpha and Omega"(Rev 22:13), refuses in the most decided way the worship which John is about to present, and exclaims, "See I am thy fellow-servant: worship God."

Thirdly , the Angel of Jehovah is also identified with Jehovah by the sacred writers themselves, who call the Angel Jehovah without the least reserve (cf. Exo 3:2 and Exo 3:4, Jdg 6:12 and Jdg 6:14-16, but especially Exo 14:19, where the Angel of Jehovah goes before the host of the Israelites, just as Jehovah is said to do in Exo 13:21). - On the other hand, the objection is raised, that ἄγγελος κυρίου in the New Testament, which is confessedly the Greek rendering of יהוה מלאך , is always a created angel, and for that reason cannot be the uncreated Logos or Son of God, since the latter could not possibly have announced His own birth to the shepherds at Bethlehem. But this important difference has been overlooked, that according to Greek usage, ἄγγελος κυρίου denotes an (any) angel of the Lord, whereas according to the rules of the Hebrew language יהוה מלאך means the angel of the Lord; that in the New Testament the angel who appears is always described as ἄγγελος κυρίου without the article, and the definite article is only introduced in the further course of the narrative to denote the angel whose appearance has been already mentioned, whereas in the Old Testament it is always " the Angel of Jehovah "who appears, and whenever the appearance of a created angel is referred to, he is introduced first of all as "an angel"(vid., 1Ki 19:5 and 1Ki 19:7).

(Note: The force of this difference cannot be set aside by the objection that the New Testament writers follow the usage of the Septuagint, where יהוה מלאךis rendered ἄγγελος κυρίου . For neither in the New Testament nor in the Alex. version of the Old is ἄγγελος κυρίου used as a proper name; it is a simple appellative, as is apparent from the fact that in every instance, in which further reference is made to an angel who has appeared, he is called ὀ ἄγγελος , with or without κυρίου . All that the Septuagint rendering proves, is that the translators supposed "the angel of the Lord"to be a created angel; but it by no means follows that their supposition is correct.)

At the same time, it does not follow from this use of the expression Maleach Jehovah , that the (particular) angel of Jehovah was essentially one with God, or that Maleach Jehovah always has the same signification; for in Mal 2:7 the priest is called Maleach Jehovah , i.e., the messenger of the Lord. Who the messenger or angel of Jehovah was, must be determined in each particular instance from the connection of the passage; and where the context furnishes no criterion, it must remain undecided. Consequently such passages as Psa 34:7; Psa 35:5-6, etc., where the angel of Jehovah is not more particularly described, or Num 20:16, where the general term angel is intentionally employed, or Act 7:30; Gal 3:19, and Heb 2:2, where the words are general and indefinite, furnish no evidence that the Angel of Jehovah , who proclaimed Himself in His appearances as one with God, was not in reality equal with God, unless we are to adopt as the rule for interpreting Scripture the inverted principle, that clear and definite statements are to be explained by those that are indefinite and obscure.

In attempting now to determine the connection between the appearance of the Angel of Jehovah (or Elohim ) and the appearance of Jehovah or Elohim Himself, and to fix the precise meaning of the expression Maleach Jehovah , we cannot make use, as recent opponents of the old Church view have done, of the manifestation of God in Gen 18 and 19, and the allusion to the great prince Michael in Dan 10:13, Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1; just because neither the appearance of Jehovah in the former instance, nor that of the archangel Michael in the latter, is represented as an appearance of the Angel of Jehovah . We must confine ourselves to the passages in which "the Angel of Jehovah "is actually referred to. We will examine these, first of all, for the purpose of obtaining a clear conception of the form in which the Angel of Jehovah appeared. Gen 16, where He is mentioned for the first time, contains no distinct statement as to His shape, but produces on the whole the impression that He appeared to Hagar in a human form, or one resembling that of man; since it was not till after His departure that she drew the inference from His words, that Jehovah had spoken with her. He came in the same form to Gideon, and sat under the terebinth at Ophrah with a staff in His hand (Jdg 6:11 and Jdg 6:21); also to Manoah's wife, for she took Him to be a man of God, i.e., a prophet, whose appearance was like that of the Angel of Jehovah (Jdg 13:6); and lastly, to Manoah himself, who did not recognise Him at first, but discovered afterwards, from the miracle which He wrought before his eyes, and from His miraculous ascent in the flame of the altar, that He was the Angel of Jehovah (Jdg 13:9-20). In other cases He revealed Himself merely by calling and speaking from heaven, without those who heard His voice perceiving any form at all; e.g., to Hagar, in Gen 21:17., and to Abraham, Gen 22:11. On the other hand, He appeared to Moses (Exo 3:2) in a flame of fire, speaking to him from the burning bush, and to the people of Israel in a pillar of cloud and fire (Exo 14:19, cf. Exo 13:21.), without any angelic form being visible in either case. Balaam He met in a human or angelic form, with a drawn sword in His hand (Num 22:22-23). David saw Him by the threshing-floor of Araunah, standing between heaven and earth, with the sword drawn in His hand and stretched out over Jerusalem (1Ch 21:16); and He appeared to Zechariah in a vision as a rider upon a red horse (Zec 1:9.). - From these varying forms of appearance it is evident that the opinion that the Angel of the Lord was a real angel, a divine manifestation, "not in the disguise of angel, but through the actual appearance of an angel,"is not in harmony with all the statements of the Bible. The form of the Angel of Jehovah , which was discernible by the senses, varied according to the purpose of the appearance; and, apart from Gen 21:17 and Gen 22:11, we have a sufficient proof that it was not a real angelic appearance, or the appearance of a created angel, in the fact that in two instances it was not really an angel at all, but a flame of fire and a shining cloud which formed the earthly substratum of the revelation of God in the Angel of Jehovah (Exo 3:2; Exo 14:19), unless indeed we are to regard natural phenomena as angels, without any scriptural warrant for doing so.

(Note: The only passage that could be adduced in support of this, viz., Psa 104:4, does not prove that God makes natural objects, winds and flaming fire, into forms in which heavenly spirits appear, or that He creates spirits out of them. Even if we render this passage, with Delitzsch , "making His messengers of winds, His servants of flaming fire,"the allusion, as Delitzsch himself observes, is not to the creation of angels; nor can the meaning be, that God gives wind and fire to His angels as the material of their appearance, and as it were of their self-incorporation. For עה, materia ex qua , is never met with in this sense, not even in 2Ch 4:18-22. For the greater part of the temple furniture summed up in this passage, of which it is stated that Solomon made them of gold, was composed of pure gold; and if some of the things were merely covered with gold, the writer might easily apply the same expression to this, because he had already given a more minute account of their construction (e.g., Gen 3:7). But we neither regard this rendering of the psalm as in harmony with the context, nor assent to the assertion that עשׂהwith a double accusative, in the sense of making into anything, is ungrammatical.)

These earthly substrata of the manifestation of the "Angel of Jehovah "perfectly suffice to establish the conclusion, that the Angel of Jehovah was only a peculiar form in which Jehovah Himself appeared, and which differed from the manifestations of God described as appearances of Jehovah simply in this, that in "the Angel of Jehovah ,"God or Jehovah revealed Himself in a mode which was more easily discernible by human senses, and exhibited in a guise of symbolical significance the design of each particular manifestation. In the appearances of Jehovah no reference is made to any form visible to the bodily eye, unless they were through the medium of a vision or a dream, excepting in one instance (Gen 18), where Jehovah and two angels come to Abraham in the form of three men, and are entertained by him-a form of appearance perfectly resembling the appearances of the Angel of Jehovah , but which is not so described by the author, because in this case Jehovah does not appear alone, but in the company of two angels, that "the Angel of Jehovah "might not be regarded as a created angel.

But although there was no essential difference, but only a formal one, between the appearing of Jehovah and the appearing of the Angel of Jehovah , the distinction between Jehovah and the Angel of Jehovah points to a distinction in the divine nature, to which even the Old Testament contains several obvious allusions. The very name indicates such a difference. יהוה מלאך (from לאך to work, from which come מלאכה the work, opus , and מלאך , lit., he through whom a work is executed, but in ordinary usage restricted to the idea of a messenger) denotes the person through whom God works and appears. Beside these passages which represent "the Angel of Jehovah "as one with Jehovah , there are others in which the Angel distinguishes Himself from Jehovah ; e.g., when He gives emphasis to the oath by Himself as an oath by Jehovah , by adding "said Jehovah "(Gen 22:16); when He greets Gideon with the words, " Jehovah with thee, thou brave hero"(Jdg 6:12); when He says to Manoah, "Though thou constrainedst me, I would not eat of thy food; but if thou wilt offer a burnt-offering to Jehovah , thou mayest offer it"(Jdg 13:16); for when He prays, in Zec 1:12, " Jehovah Sabaoth, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem?"(Compare also Gen 19:24, where Jehovah is distinguished from Jehovah .) Just as in these passages the Angel of Jehovah distinguishes Himself personally from Jehovah , there are others in which a distinction is drawn between a self-revealing side of the divine nature, visible to men, and a hidden side, invisible to men, i.e., between the self-revealing and the hidden God. Thus, for example, not only does Jehovah say of the Angel, whom He sends before Israel in the pillar of cloud and fire, "My name is in Him,"i.e., he reveals My nature (Exo 23:21), but He also calls Him פּני , "My face"(Exo 33:14); and in reply to Moses' request to see His glory, He says "Thou canst not see My face, for there shall no man see Me and live,"and then causes His glory to pass by Moses in such a way that he only sees His back, but not His face (Exo 33:18-23). On the strength of these expression, He in whom Jehovah manifested Himself to His people as a Saviour is called in Isa 63:9, "the Angel of His face,"and all the guidance and protection of Israel are ascribed to Him. In accordance with this, Malachi, the last prophet of the Old Testament, proclaims to the people waiting for the manifestation of Jehovah , that is to say, for the appearance of the Messiah predicted by former prophets, that the Lord ( האדון , i.e., God), the Angel of the covenant, will come to His temple (Gen 3:1). This "Angel of the covenant,"or "Angel of the face,"has appeared in Christ. The Angel of Jehovah , therefore, was no other than the Logos, which not only "was with God,"but "was God,"and in Jesus Christ "was made flesh"and "came unto His own"(Joh 1:1-2, Joh 1:11); the only-begotten Son of God, who was sent by the Father into the world, who, though one with the Father, prayed to the Father (John 17), and who is even called "the Apostle," ὀ ἀπόστολος , in Heb 3:1. From all this it is sufficiently obvious, that neither the title Angel or Messenger of Jehovah , nor the fact that the Angel of Jehovah prayed to Jehovah Sabaoth, furnishes any evidence against His essential unity with Jehovah . That which is unfolded in perfect clearness in the New Testament through the incarnation of the Son of God, was still veiled in the Old Testament according to the wisdom apparent in the divine training. The difference between Jehovah and the Angel of Jehovah is generally hidden behind the unity of the two, and for the most part Jehovah is referred to as He who chose Israel as His nation and kingdom, and who would reveal Himself at some future time to His people in all His glory; so that in the New Testament nearly all the manifestations of Jehovah under the Old Covenant are referred to Christ, and regarded as fulfilled through Him.

(Note: This is not a mere accommodation of Scripture, but the correct interpretation of the obscure hints of the Old Testament by the light of the fulfilment of the New. For not only is the Maleach Jehovah the revealer of God, but Jehovah Himself is the revealed God and Saviour. Just as in the history of the Old Testament there are not only revelations of the Maleach Jehovah , but revelations of Jehovah also; so in the prophecies the announcement of the Messiah, the sprout of David and servant of Jehovah , is intermingled with the announcement of the coming of Jehovah to glorify His people and perfect His kingdom.)

Constable: Gen 1:1--11:27

I. PRIMEVAL EVENTS 1:1--11:26

Chapters 1-11 provide an introduction to the Book of Genesis, the Pentateuch, and the whole Bible.

"What we find in chaps. 1-11 is the divine initiation of blessing, which is compromised by human sin followed by gracious preservation of the promise: blessing-sin-grace."¹⁵

"His [Moses'] theological perspective can be summarized in two points. First, the author intends to draw a line connecting the God of the Fathers and the God of the Sinai covenant with the God who created the world. Second, the author intends to show that the call of the patriarchs and the Sinai covenant have as their ultimate goal the reestablishment of God's original purpose in Creation."¹⁶

"Evidently an interest in the way in which the world and humankind came into existence and in the history of the earliest times was characteristic of the ancient civilized world. At any rate, various origin stories' or creation myths' about the activities of a variety of creator-gods are still extant in what remains of the literatures of ancient Egypt and ancient Mesopotamia. But the combination of such accounts with narratives about more recent times testifies to an additional motivation. The aim of such works was to give their readers--or to strengthen--a sense of national or ethnic identity, particularly at a time when there was for some reason a degree of uncertainty or hesitation about this. . . .

"The placing of Gen. 1-11 as a prologue to the main body of the work also afforded the opportunity to express certain distinctively Israelite articles of faith which it would have been more difficult to introduce into the later narratives, particularly with regard to the doctrine of God."¹⁷

"Gen 1-11 as we read it is a commentary, often highly critical, on ideas current in the ancient world about the natural and supernatural world. Both individual stories as well as the final completed work seem to be a polemic against many of the commonly received notions about the gods and man. But the clear polemical thrust of Gen 1-11 must not obscure the fact that at certain points biblical and extrabiblical thought are in clear agreement. Indeed Genesis and the ancient Near East probably have more in common with each other than either has with modern secular thought."¹⁸

Constable: Gen 10:1--11:10

E. What became of Noah's sons 10:1-11:9

This chapter gives in some detail the distribution of Noah's descendants over the earth after the Flood (cf. 9:18-19).

This fourth toledot section (10:1-11:9) brings the inspired record of primeval events to a climax and provides a transition to the patriarchal narratives. All the nations of the world in their various lands with their different languages descended from Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Of special interest to the original Israelite readers were the Canaanites and the other ancient Near Eastern powers.

"From this section we learn that the blessing' is for all peoples because all nations have their source in the one man, Noah, whom God favored. Moreover, the disunity among Noah's offspring that resulted from the tower event [11:1-9] did not prevent the blessing God had envisioned for humanity."³⁴⁵

"The Tower of Babel incident (11:1-9), though following the table in the present literary arrangement, actually precedes chronologically the dispersal of the nations. This interspersal of narrative (11:1-9) separates the two genealogies of Shem (10:21-31; 11:10-26), paving the way for the particular linkage between the Terah (Abraham) clan and the Shemite lineage (11:27). The story of the tower also looks ahead by anticipating the role that Abram (12:1-3) will play in restoring the blessing to the dispersed nations."³⁴⁶

Constable: Gen 11:1-9

2. The dispersion at Babel 11:1-9

The main emphasis in this section is not the building of the tower of Babel but the dispersion of the peoples. We can see this in the literary structure of the passage.³⁶¹

A All the earth had one language (v. 1)

B there (v. 2)

C one to another (v. 3)

D Come, let's make bricks (v. 3)

E Let's make for ourselves (v. 4)

F a city and a tower

G And the Lord came down to see (v. 5; cf. 8:1)

F' the city and the tower (v. 5)

E' that the humans built (v. 5)

D' Come, let's confuse (v. 7)

C' everyone the language of his neighbor (v. 7)

B' from there (v. 8)

A' (confused) the language of the whole earth (v. 9)

When people attempted to preserve their unity and make a name for themselves by building a tower, Yahweh frustrated the plan and scattered everyone by confusing the language that bound them together.

"The tower of Babel story is the last great judgment that befell mankind in primeval times. Its place and function in Gen 1-11 may be compared to the fall in Gen 3 and the sons of God episode in Gen 6:1-4, both of which triggered divine judgments of great and enduring consequence."³⁶²

This story explains to God's people how God scattered the nations and why. Chronologically the Babel incident preceded the dispersal that Moses described with genealogies in chapter 10.

"By placing the Tower of Babel incident just prior to the patriarchal stories, the biblical writer is suggesting, in the first place, that post-Flood humanity is as iniquitous as pre-Flood humanity. Rather than sending something as devastating as a flood to annihilate mankind, however, God now places his hope in a covenant with Abraham as a powerful solution to humanity's sinfulness. Thus problem (ch. 11) and solution (ch. 12) are brought into immediate juxtaposition, and the forcefulness of this structural move would have been lost had ch. 10 intervened between the two."³⁶³

"As it is presently situated in the text, the account of the founding of Babylon falls at the end of the list of fourteen names from the line of Joktan (10:26-29). At the end of the list of the ten names of Peleg's line, however, is the account of the call of Abraham (11:27-12:10). So two great lines of the descendants of Shem divide in the two sons of Eber (10:25). One ends in Babylon, the other in the Promised Land."³⁶⁴

11:1-2 Some of the Hamites migrated "east" (specifically southeast) to the plain of Shinar (cf. 10:10). This was in the Mesopotamian basin (modern Iraq).

"In light of such intentional uses of the notion of eastward' within the Genesis narratives, we can see that here too the author intentionally draws the story of the founding of Babylon into the larger scheme at work throughout the book. It is a scheme that contrasts God's way of blessing (e.g., Eden and the Promised Land) with man's own attempt to find the good.' In the Genesis narratives, when man goes east,' he leaves the land of blessing (Eden and the Promised Land) and goes to a land where the greatest of his hopes will turn to ruin (Babylon and Sodom).³⁶⁵

"Following the Ararat departure, the people migrated southeast to the lower Euphrates valley. Genesis 1-11 then has come full circle from Eden' to Babel,' both remembered for the expulsion of their residents."³⁶⁶

11:3-4 The motivation for building a city was to make the builders a name (cf. Ps. 14:1).³⁶⁷ The object of this endeavor was to establish a center by which they might maintain their unity. God desired unity for humankind, but one that He created, not one founded on a social state.³⁶⁸ They wanted to "empower" themselves. Both motive and object were ungodly. God had instructed man to fill the earth (1:28), to spread over the whole planet.

The builders of the "tower" seem to have intended that it serve as a memorial or landmark among other things. It was probably a ziggurat used for religious purposes.

"Mesopotamian religion claimed that their cities were of divine parentage. A symbol of this obsession with divinity among the Mesopotamians was the ziggurat (Akk. ziqqurratu) that was erected as early as the third millennium B.C. The ziggurat was a step-ladder edifice, made up of mud bricks, whose bottom was square or rectangular. The precise meaning of the structure is unknown, though it is widely agreed that it formed a stairway between the gods and earth (cf. Gen 28:12). At the foot of the ziggurat as well as the pinnacle was a temple area serving as a habitation for the god. Ziggurats may have been considered an earthly imitation of the heavenly residence of the gods."³⁶⁹

11:5-6 Had God allowed this project to continue the results would have been even worse and more serious than they were at this time.

11:7 God's soliloquy in this verse mimics the language of the tower builders in verses 3 and 4. The confusion of language probably involved more than just the introduction of new words.

"If language is the audible expression of emotions, conceptions, and thoughts of the mind, the cause of the confusion or division of the one human language into different national dialects might be sought in an effect produced upon the human mind, by which the original unity of emotion, conception, thought, and will was broken up. This inward unity had no doubt been already disturbed by sin, but the disturbance had not yet amounted to a perfect breach."³⁷⁰

Some scholars believe that this judgment also involved the implantation of ethnic and racial distinctions in humankind. The Table of Nations in chapter 10 may imply this.³⁷¹

11:8 The resultant confusion led to a scattering of the people over the "whole earth" (cf. v. 9). God did not allow human rebellion to reach the level that it did before the Flood. God forced people to do what they refused to do voluntarily, namely, scatter over the face of the earth.

Some interpreters take the confusion of languages to have been a local phenomenon only.³⁷² Most, however, regard it as the source of the major language groups in the world today.

11:9 "Babel" means "confusion" in Hebrew, and "the gate of gods" in Babylonian.

". . . Gen 11:1-9, the tower of Babel story, is a satire on the claims of Babylon to be the center of civilization and its temple tower the gate of heaven (E[numa]E[lish] 6:50-80): Babel does not mean gate of God, but confusion' and folly.' Far from its temple's top reaching up to heaven, it is so low that God has to descend from heaven just to see it! (11:4-9)."³⁷³

This was the original Babylon that forever after was the city most consistently rebellious against God's government in human history. It stands as a symbol of organized rebellion against God elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Rev. 17 and 18).³⁷⁴

"Man certainly did not expect his project to take such a turn. He did not anticipate that the name he wanted to make for himself would refer to a place of noncommunication."³⁷⁵

The story of Babel is important for several reasons.

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

2. It probably explains the origin of the "races" within humankind.

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

"The concept of race is an evolutionary idea . . . (Acts 17:26). All humans possess the same color, just different amounts of it. We all descended from Noah and Adam."³⁷⁶

"The Bible doesn't tell us what skin color our first parents had, but, from a design point of view, the middle [color]' makes a great beginning. Starting with medium-skinned parents (Aa_Bb), it would take only one generation to produce all the variation we see in human skin color today. In fact, this is the normal situation in India today. Some Indians are as dark as the darkest Africans, and some--perhaps a brother or sister in the same family--as light as the lightest Europeans. I once know a family from India that included members with every major skin color you could see anywhere in the world.

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

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

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

"Evolutionists assume that all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with an extremely small gene pool. For evolutionists, enlargement of the gene pool by selection of random mutations is a slow, tedious process that burdens each type with a genetic load' of harmful mutations and evolutionary leftovers. Creationists assume each created kind began with a large gene pool, designed to multiply and fill the earth with all its tremendous ecologic and geographic variety. (See Genesis, chapter 1.)"³⁷⁷

"Many thinkers labor under the illusion that evolution is an empirical science when in fact it is a philosophy."³⁷⁸

3. It demonstrates the inclination of fallen man to rebel against God and to try to provide for his needs in his own way rather than by trusting and obeying God.

4. It illustrates that rebellion against God results in (a) broken fellowship with God and man, and (b) failure to realize God's intention for man in his creation, namely, that he rule the earth effectively.

5. It provides the historical background for what follows in Genesis. Abraham came from this area.

"Irony is seen in the beginning and the ending of this passage. The group at Babel began as the whole earth (11:1), but now they were spread over the whole earth (11:9). By this time the lesson is clarified: God's purpose will be accomplished in spite of the arrogance and defiance of man's own purposes. He brings down the proud, but exalts the faithful.

"The significance of this little story is great. It explains to God's people how the nations were scattered abroad. Yet the import goes much deeper. The fact that it was Babylon, the beginning of kingdoms under Nimrod from Cush, adds a rather ominous warning: Great nations cannot defy God and long survive. The new nation of Israel need only survey the many nations around her to perceive that God disperses and curses the rebellious, bringing utter confusion and antagonism among them. If Israel would obey and submit to God's will, then she would be the source of blessing to the world.

"Unfortunately, Israel also raised her head in pride and refused to obey the Lord God. Thus she too was scattered across the face of the earth."³⁷⁹

Constable: Gen 11:10-26

F. What became of Shem 11:10-26

"The Babel account (11:1-9) is not the end of early Genesis. If it were, the story would conclude on the sad note of human failure. But as with earlier events in Genesis 1-11, God's grace once again supersedes human sin, insuring the continued possibilities of the promissory blessings (1:28; 9:1). . . . The scaffolding of human pride would be dismantled by the erection of the Shemite line that culminates in obedient Abraham, who likewise is found in the region of Shinar. Abraham would prove to be the nations' deliverance."³⁸⁰

"Without the blessing of God the situation of humanity is without hope: that seems to be the chief thrust of the opening chapters of Genesis."³⁸¹

In contrast to the genealogy in chapter 5, this one emphasizes life and expansion rather than death, even though longevity was declining.³⁸² It starts with Noah's son Shem whom God blessed, and it concludes with Abram whom God purposed to bless. This is the line of Israel's ancestors. It is a vertical list of the type used in the ancient Near East to document legitimate claims to thrones or inheritances.³⁸³ This genealogy, as the one in chapter 5, appears to be complete. The purpose of the genealogy is to connect Abram to Noah and to give background information essential for understanding the story of Abram that follows.³⁸⁴

". . . the author's aim is to show that God's promise concerning the seed of the woman cannot be thwarted by the confusion and scattering of the nations at Babylon."³⁸⁵

"If the message of Genesis is essentially one of redemption, Gen 3-11 explains why man needs salvation and what he needs to be saved from. Chaps. 1-2, in describing the original state of the world, also describe the goal of redemption, to which ultimately the world and humanity will return when the patriarchal promises are completely fulfilled."³⁸⁶

"An extensive statistical analysis of the life-spans of the patriarchs, as given in Genesis Chapter 5 and 11, shows that statistically the life-span can be considered constant before the Flood, while after the Flood the data can be fitted by a asymptotic exponential decay curve. Also, it is concluded that as for the life-spans reported in Genesis Chapter 11, the data in the Masoretic text are the authentic ones; those in the Septuagint have been tampered with. Moreover, it is statistically unlikely that there are gaps in the genealogies in Genesis Chapter 11."³⁸⁷

Most scholars regard "Eber" (v. 14) as the individual from whom the Jews received the name "Hebrew." Adam, Noah, and Abram all fathered three named sons linking them as saviors of humanity. In Abram's case these sons (descendants) were Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph.

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

"With 11:26 the scene has finally been set for the patriarchal history to unfold. The opening chapters of Genesis have provided us the fundamental insights for interpreting these chapters properly. Gen 1 revealed the character of God and the nature of the world man finds himself in. Gen 2 and 3 portrayed the relationship between man and woman, and the effects man's disobedience has had on man-woman and divine-human relations. Chap. 5 sketched the long years that passed before the crisis of the great flood (chaps. 6-9), which almost destroyed all humanity for its sinfulness. The table of the nations (chap. 10) started the process of Israel's geographical and political self-definition with respect to the other nations in the world, but Gen 11:1-9 reminded us that the nations were in confusion and that mankind's proudest achievements were but folly in God's sight and under his judgment.

"However, according to 11:10-26, just five generations after Peleg, whose lifetime according to 10:25 saw the confusion of languages at Babel, Abram arrives. As 12:3 will declare, it is through him that all the families of the earth will be blessed. Man is not without hope. The brevity of this genealogy is a reminder that God's grace constantly exceeds his wrath. He may punish to the third or fourth generation but he shows mercy to thousands (Deut 5:9; 7:9)."³⁸⁸

The chronological framework for the patriarchal stories (Abraham through Joseph) rests on two important texts.

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

2. Exodus 12:40 records that "the sons of Israel lived in Egypt" 430 years before the Exodus, or about 1876 B.C. This is the probable date when Jacob's family moved to Egypt (ch. 46).

From these two texts we can calculate other dates in the patriarchal period.³⁸⁹

"It is . . . not because scholars of to-day begin with more conservative presuppositions than their predecessors that they have a much greater respect for the patriarchal stories than was formerly common, but because the evidence warrants it."³⁹⁰

"It is beyond question that traditional and conservative views of biblical history, especially of the patriarchal period, will continue to be favored by whatever results accrue from ongoing Ebla research."³⁹¹

Patriarchal Chronological Data392
2296	Birth of Terah	Gen. 11:24
2166	Birth of Abram	Gen. 11:27
2091	Abram's departure from Haran	Gen. 12:4
2081	Abram's marriage to Hagar	Gen. 16:3
2080	Birth of Ishmael	Gen. 16:16
2067	Reaffirmation of covenant	Gen. 17:1
2067-66	Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah	Gen. 19:24
2066	Birth of Isaac	Gen. 21:2; cf. 21:5
2029	Death of Sarah	Gen. 23:2
2026	Marriage of Isaac	Gen. 25:20
2006	Birth of Jacob and Esau	Gen. 25:26
1991	Death of Abram	Gen. 25:7
1966	Marriage of Esau	Gen. 26:34
1943	Death of Ishmael	Gen. 25:17
1930	Jacob's journey to Haran	Gen. 28:2
1923	Jacob's marriages	Gen. 29:23, 28
1918	Birth of Judah	Gen. 29:35
1916	End of Jacob's 14 year labor for his wives	Gen. 29:30
1916	Birth of Joseph	Gen. 30:23
1910	End of Jacob's stay with Laban	Gen. 31:41
1910	Jacob's arrival at Shechem	Gen. 33:18
1902	Rape of Dinah	Gen. 34:1-2
1900	Marriage of Judah	Gen. 38:1-2
1899	Selling of Joseph	Gen. 37:2
1888	Joseph imprisoned	Gen. 39:20; cf. 41:1
1886	Joseph released	Gen. 41:1, 46
1886	Death of Isaac	Gen. 35:28
1879	Beginning of famine	Gen. 41:54
1878	Brothers' first visit to Egypt	Gen. 42:1-2
1877	Judah's incest with Tamar	Gen. 38:18
1877	Brothers' second visit to Egypt	Gen. 43:1; 45:6, 11
1876	Jacob's descent to Egypt	Gen. 46:6; cf. 47:9
1859	Death of Jacob	Gen. 47:28
1806	Death of Joseph	Gen. 50:22

Constable: Gen 11:27--Exo 1:1

II. PATRIARCHAL NARRATIVES 11:27--50:26

One of the significant changes in the emphasis that occurs at this point in Genesis is from cursing in the primeval record to blessing in the patriarchal narratives. The Abrahamic Covenant is most important in this respect. How Abram's family gained these blessings unfolds. Israel could, and we can, identify with their experiences.

"Chapters 1-11 are set in Babylonia; chs. 12-36 are set in Palestine; chs. 37-50 are set in Egypt. (The same kind of tripartite geographical focus emerges from Exodus: [1] 1:1-12:36, in Egypt; [2] 12:37-18:27, to Sinai; [3] 19:1-40:38, at Sinai.) In other words, each part of the Mediterranean world is highlighted in some part of Genesis. The crucial center section of Genesis (chs. 12-36) is bracketed geographically by two sections of the Near Eastern world with whose history that of Israel would be constantly interlocked. . . .

"In chs. 1-11 we read of individuals who had land, but are either losing it or being expelled from it. In chs. 12-50 the emphasis is on individuals who do not have land, but are on the way toward it. One group is losing; another group is expecting.

"Genesis is moving us progressively from generation (chs. 1-2), to degeneration (chs. 3-11), to regeneration (chs. 12-50)."³⁹³

Chapters 1-11 present a structural pattern that carries over into the rest of the Pentateuch.

"The importance of Genesis 1-11 for the rest of the Pentateuch can be seen in the fact that its narrative structure provides a pattern by which the author often shapes subsequent pentateuchal narratives. Thus the order and arrangement of the Creation accounts in Genesis 1-2 exhibit the same pattern as the description of the building of the tabernacle (Ex 25-31); the tabernacle is portrayed as a return to the Garden of Eden. The instructions given to Noah for building the ark foreshadow those given to Moses for building the tabernacle. Furthermore, one can demonstrate that whole sections of laws in the Pentateuch have been grouped and arranged in patterns that parallel the narrative structure of Genesis 1-11."³⁹⁴

"The ancient oriental background to Gen 1-11 shows it to be concerned with rather different issues from those that tend to preoccupy modern readers. It is affirming the unity of God in the face of polytheism, his justice rather than his caprice, his power as opposed to his impotence, his concern for mankind rather than his exploitation. And whereas Mesopotamia clung to the wisdom of primeval man, Genesis records his sinful disobedience. Because as Christians we tend to assume these points in our theology, we often fail to recognize the striking originality of the message of Gen 1-11 and concentrate on subsidiary points that may well be of less moment."³⁹⁵

Some notable changes take place in the second part of Genesis. Instead of the genealogies being prominent and the stories secondary, as in chapters 1-11, the reverse becomes true now. God retreats farther into the background of the events recorded than was the case earlier, and there is corresponding emphasis on the personalities of the patriarchs. The promises to the patriarchs form the central theme of this section, especially those concerning descendants, land, and divine blessing. There also seems to be increasing depth in the moral awareness of the patriarchs as generation follows generation from Abram to Joseph.³⁹⁶

Constable: Gen 11:27--25:12

A. What became of Terah 11:27-25:11

A major theme of the Pentateuch is the partial fulfillment of the promises to the patriarchs. The promises in Genesis 12:1-3 and 7 are the fountainhead from which the rest of the Pentateuch flows.³⁹⁷ Walter Kaiser labeled the three things promised Abram as an heir, a heritage, and an inheritance.³⁹⁸ David Clines called them posterity, relationship with God, and land.³⁹⁹ J. Dwight Pentecost and Robert L. Saucy referred to them as seed, blessing, and land.⁴⁰⁰

God progressively revealed more information about each of these promises. He gave more information about the land promise in 13:15, 17; 15:7-8, 18; 17:8; 24:7; 26:3-4 (plural "lands"); 28:4, 13; 35:12; 48:4; and 50:24. Repetition of the seed promise occurs in 13:15-16; 15:5; 17:2, 5-10, 13, 16, 19-20; 18:18; 21:12; 22:17-18; 26:3-4, 24; 28:13-14; 32:12; 35:11-12; 46:3; and 48:4 and 16.

"A line of successive representative sons of the patriarchs who were regarded as one with the whole group they represented matched the seminal idea already advocated in Genesis 3:15. Furthermore, in the concept of seed' were the two aspects of the seed as a future benefit and the seed as the present beneficiaries of God's temporal and spiritual gifts. Consequently, seed' was always a collective singular noun; never did it appear as a plural noun (e.g., as in sons'). Thereby the seed' was marked as a unit, yet with a flexibility of reference: now to the one person, now to the many descendants of that family. This interchange of reference with its implied corporate solidarity was more than a cultural phenomena or an accident of careless editing; it was part and parcel of its doctrinal intention."⁴⁰¹

The promise of universal blessing recurs in 18:18; 22:18 9 (to Abraham); 26:4 (to Isaac); and 28:14 (to Jacob).⁴⁰²

"While this promissory triad of blessing, seed, and land is the thematic cord binding the Book of Genesis, we find that the counterthemes of fratricide, violence, uncreation, and expulsion are the literary-theological foil for the promissory blessing."⁴⁰³

Genesis 12-50 focuses on the promise of posterity (an heir, seed), though the other promises receive much attention. Exodus and Leviticus center on the promise of worldwide influence (relationship with God, heritage, blessing), and Numbers and Deuteronomy emphasize the promise of real estate (land, inheritance, rest).

In Genesis 12-25 the problems of possessing the land and obtaining an heir dominate the story of Abram's life. How will Abram obtain the land, and who will be Abram's heir? These are the great questions that the thoughtful reader continually asks himself as he reads the story of Abram. At least one of them is central in every incident in his life that God has chosen to record in Genesis. These questions form the unifying theme of the Abram narrative.⁴⁰⁴

One writer called the form in which Moses revealed the Abram cycle of stories an "obstacle story."

"Few literary techniques have enjoyed so universal and perennial a vogue as the obstacle story. It is found in ancient and modern literature from the Gilgamesh epic and the Odyssey to the Perils of Pauline and the latest novel. Its character is episodal in that it is not self-contained but finds its raison d'etre in its relation to the larger story or narrative of which it is a part. Its purpose is to arouse suspense and sustain interest by recounting episodes which threaten or retard the fulfillment of what the reader either suspects or hopes or knows to be the ending of the story."⁴⁰⁵

Twelve crises arise as the story of Abram's life unfolds. Each of these must be overcome and is overcome by God who eventually does provide Abram's descendants. Each of these problems constituted a challenge to Abram's faith. Is God faithful and powerful enough to provide what He has promised? In the end we can see that He is.

Each problem Abram encountered is typical of problems that every believer has to deal with in seeking to live by faith. Consequently each episode in Abram's life teaches us something about God's power and faithfulness and should enable us to live by faith more consistently. Moses originally recorded these lessons for Israel's benefit.

The problems Abram's faith encountered were these.

1. Sarai was barren (11:30).

2. Abram had to leave the Promised Land (12:10).

3. Abram's life was in danger in Egypt (12:11-20).

4. Abram's nephew, Lot, strove with him over the land (ch. 13).

5. Abram entered a war (14:1-16).

6. Abram's life was in danger in the Promised Land (15:1).

7. God ruled Eliezer out as Abram's heir (15:2-3).

8. Hagar, pregnant with Abram's son (heir?), departed (16:6).

9. Abimelech threatened Sarai's reputation and child (heir?) in Gerar (ch. 20).

10. Abram had two heirs (21:8-11).

11. God commanded Abram to slay his heir (ch. 22).

12. Abram could not find a proper wife for his heir (24:5).

". . . the narrator has skillfully woven this material together in such a way as to involve the reader/listener in a drama of increasing tension between, on the one hand, the promise of Yahweh that Abram would have an heir and, indeed, would become the father of many nations, and, on the other, the threat to the fulfillment of this promise by a series of crises."⁴⁰⁶

Constable: Gen 11:27--12:10

1. Terah and Abram's obedience 11:27-12:9

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

"Within the book of Genesis no section is more significant than 11:27-12:9."⁴⁰⁷

Constable: Gen 11:27-32

Abram's ancestors 11:27-32

"The function of this genealogy is not so much to connect Abraham with the preceding events, as the previous genealogies have done, but to provide the reader with the necessary background for understanding the events in the life of Abraham. The list includes eight names. All the individuals named are relevant for understanding the events of the following narrative except Iscah' (v. 29). The inclusion of this otherwise insignificant name in the list suggests that the author is seeking to achieve a specific number of names. Thus far in the Book of Genesis, the author has followed a pattern of listing ten names between important individuals in the narrative. In this short list only eight names are given, hence if we are expecting ten names, the number of individuals in this list appears to be short by two names. By listing only eight names, the author leaves the reader uncertain who the ninth and, more importantly, the tenth name will be. It is only as the narrative unfolds that the ninth and tenth names are shown to be the two sons of Abraham, Ishmael' (16:15) and Isaac' (21:3)."⁴⁰⁸

Abram evidently grew up in the city of Ur.

"Ur is well known as an important center in the land of Sumer; it reached its zenith under the kings of the third dynasty of Ur, who around 2060-1950 B.C. [Abram was born ca. 2166 B.C.] revived for the last time the ancient cultural traditions of the Sumerians. The names of several of Abram's relatives are also the names of known cities: . . . Terah . . . Nahor . . . Serug . . . Haran . . . and Laban the Aramean, Jacob's father-in-law, was from the city Haran in Paddan-aram. All these are places around the river Balih in northern Mesopotamia. Haran and Nahor are often mentioned in the Mari documents of the eighteenth century B.C., and cities named Tell-terah and Serug are known from later Assyrian sources."⁴⁰⁹

A later writer probably added the reference to the Chaldeans in verse 28 since the Chaldeans did not enter Babylonia until about 1, 000 B.C.⁴¹⁰

"The movement between Ur and Haran becomes easy to understand when we recall that Ur was the greatest commercial capital that the world had yet seen . . . ."⁴¹¹

God first called Abram to leave his home when the patriarch still lived in Ur (12:1-3). Abram's family members were polytheists (Josh. 24:2). Abram married his half-sister, Sarai, which was not contrary to God's will at this early date in history (cf. Lev. 18:9; 20:17; Deut. 27:22). God's call was pure grace; there is no evidence in the text that God chose Abram because he merited favor. God was beginning to form a family of faithful followers for Himself. He called them to leave this urban center in trust and obedience.

Abram's family stayed in Haran for some time (vv. 31-32). When the patriarch Terah died, Abram continued his trek toward Canaan in obedience to God's call.

"Like Nuzi, Haran was also part of the Hurrian Mitanni Empire whilst the Hurrians were at the height of their power, so that the tablets discovered at Nuzi would also reflect the way of life in Haran. In this manner, scholars have ascertained from a careful study of the Nuzi tablets that they are very helpful in explaining many of the Biblical episodes relating to the Patriarchs, which had hitherto been somewhat puzzling.

"Although the Bible indicates that Abram eventually left Haran (Genesis 12:4), the Patriarchs nevertheless kept in close contact with that city. Abram sent his servant back to Aram-naharaim, the region in which Haran was situated, in order to find a wife for his son Isaac (Genesis 24:2-10). Isaac later told his younger son Jacob to flee to his uncle Laban in Haran, in order to escape the wrath of his brother Esau, whom he had tricked out of his birthright blessing (Genesis 27:43). Jacob indeed fled to Haran, subsequently marrying there his cousins Leah and Rachel (Genesis 29:1-30).

"The influence of Hurrian society on the Patriarchs was undoubtedly very strong, not only because of the origins of Abram in Mesopotamia, but also because all the Patriarchs maintained contact with the area. This is borne out by the fact that many of the incidents in the Biblical narratives relating to the Patriarchs in reality reflect Hurrian social and legal customs, and prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Patriarchal way of life had its roots in Hurrian society."⁴¹²

"In the period (the first part of the Middle Bronze Age [ca. 2000-1750 B.C.]) Palestine was receiving an infusion of population as semi-nomadic groups infiltrated the land. . . .

"That these newcomers were Amorites,' of the same Northwest-Semitic stock as those whom we have met in Mesopotamia, can scarcely be doubted. Their names, so far as these are known, point unanimously in that direction. Their mode of life is splendidly illustrated by the Tale of Sinuhe, but especially by the stories of Genesis--for it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the migration of Israel's ancestors was a part of this very movement. These people brought to Palestine no fundamental ethnic change, for they were of the same general Northwest-Semitic stock as were the Canaanites."⁴¹³

Major Historical Periods of the Promised Land

Stone (Neolithic) Age to ca. 4000 BC (?)

Copper (Calcolithic) Age ca. 4000-3150 BC (?)

Early Bronze Age I 3150-2850 BC

Early Bronze Age II 2850-2650 BC

Early Bronze Age III 2650-2350 BC

Early Bronze Age IV 2350-2200 BC

Middle Bronze Age I 2200-2000 BC

Middle Bronze Age IIA 2000-1750 BC

Middle Bronze Age IIB 1750-1630 BC

Middle Bronze Age IIC 1630-1550 BC

Late Bronze Age I 1550-1400 BC

Late Bronze Age IIA 1400-1300 BC

Late Bronze Age IIB 1300-1200 BC

Iron Age I 1200-1000 BC

Iron Age II 1000-586 BC

Babylonian/Persian Period 586-332 BC

Hellenistic Period I (Ptolemaic and Seleucid) 332-152 BC

Hellenistic Period II (Hasmonean) 152-37 BC

Roman Period I (Herodian) 37 BC-AD 70

Roman Period II AD 70-180

Roman Period III AD 180-324

Byzantine Period (Christian) AD 324-640

Arab Period (Moslem) AD 640-1099

Crusader Period (Christian) AD 1099-1291

Mameluk Period (Moslem) AD 1291-1517

Turkish Period (Moslem) AD 1517-1917

British Mandate Period (Christian) AD 1917-1948

State of Israel Period (Jewish) 1948-today

Guzik: Gen 11:1-32

Genesis 11 - Mankind after the Flood; the Tower of Babel

A. The tower of Babel.

1. (1-4) A tower in the land of Shinar.

Now the whole earth had one language and one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there. Then they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar. And they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."

a. The land of Shinar: Shinar was a term used also of Babylon (Genesis 10:10). The multiplied descendants from the ark came together to build a great city and tower, in rebellion against God's command to spread out over the earth (Genesis 9:1).

b. "Let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly" . . . they had asphalt for mortar: Using baked bricks and asphalt for mortar, men built a tower that was both strong and waterproof, even as Noah used the same material in waterproofing the ark (Genesis 6:14). Later Moses' mother used the same material in waterproofing Moses' basket (Exodus 2:3).

i. "Archaeology has revealed that this type of kiln-fired brick and asphalt construction was common in ancient Babylon." (Morris)

c. Come, let us build ourselves a city: The heart and the materials relevant to the tower of Babel show that it was not only disobedient to God's command to fill the earth (Genesis 9:1), but it also shows man did not believe God's promise to never again flood the earth. A waterproof tower was made to "protect" man against a future deluge.

i. This was a strong statement of self against God. When they said let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens, they meant it.

d. A tower whose top is in the heavens: The top of the tower was intended to be in the heavens. It is doubtful they thought they could build a tower to heaven. It is more likely they built the tower as an observation point of the heavens; it was built "unto the heavens." Most astrological and occult practices have a history back to Babel.

i. If they really wanted to build a tower to reach heaven, it is unlikely they would start on the plain of Shinar, which is about Sea Level. Common sense says they would start on one of the a nearby mountains.

ii. This tower was real. The ancient Greek historian Herodotus said the tower of Babel still stood in his day and he had seen it.

2. (5-9) God scatters them over the whole earth.

But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the LORD said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

a. The LORD came down to see the city and the tower: The personal character of the language indicates this perhaps was a time when God came down in the form of a man, in the Person of Jesus Christ.

b. Let Us go down: This is another subtle reference to the Trinity.

c. Nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them: The potential of fallen man is terrible and powerful. When we think of the horrific accomplishments for evil of men in the 20 ^th century, the great ability of men and nations is a painful consideration.

d. So the LORD scattered them abroad: The forced separation of men from Babel was more God's mercy than His judgment. God, in dividing man both linguistically and geographically, put a check on the power of his fallen nature.

e. The LORD confused the language of all the earth: The division of the languages is a fascinating subject. Modern linguists know man did not invent language, any more than man invented his own circulatory or nervous system. Most modern linguists believe language is so unique that the only way they can explain it apart from God is to say that it was part of a unique evolutionary process.

i. Language can not be the product of man putting together sounds all by himself. For example, there are many universal human sounds (like the "raspberry" sound) that are not part of any human language. If man invented language on his own, it would make sense for some language to use that sound.

ii. Language is so complex because languages exist as whole systems, not as small parts put together. Most modern linguists believe all languages come from one original language.

f. From there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth: Think what it was like for a family to leave the area of Babel and go out on their own. They must look for a suitable place to live, and once they found it, they must exist by hunting and gathering, living in crude dwellings or caves until they could support themselves by agriculture and taking advantage of the natural resources. Families would multiply rapidly, develop their own culture, and their own distinctive biological and physical characteristics influenced by their environment. In the small population, genetic characteristics change very quickly, and as the population of the group grew bigger, the changes stabilized and became more or less permanent.

i. The whole account of what happened at Babel with its anti-God dictator, its organized rebellion against God, and its direct distrust of God's promise shows man hasn't gotten any better since the flood. Time, progress, government, and organization have made man better off, but not better.

ii. Now God will begin to make man better, and He will start as He always starts: with a man who will do His will, even if he does not do His will perfectly.

B. The line of Adam through Shem to Abram.

1. (10-25) From Shem to Terah, the father of Abram.

This is the genealogy of Shem: Shem was one hundred years old, and begot Arphaxad two years after the flood. After he begot Arphaxad, Shem lived five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Salah. After he begot Salah, Arphaxad lived four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters. Salah lived thirty years, and begot Eber. After he begot Eber, Salah lived four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters. Eber lived thirty-four years, and begot Peleg. After he begot Peleg, Eber lived four hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters. Peleg lived thirty years, and begot Reu. After he begot Reu, Peleg lived two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters. Reu lived thirty-two years, and begot Serug. After he begot Serug, Reu lived two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters. Serug lived thirty years, and begot Nahor. After he begot Nahor, Serug lived two hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. Nahor lived twenty-nine years, and begot Terah. After he begot Terah, Nahor lived one hundred and nineteen years, and begot sons and daughters.

2. (26-28) The family of Terah in Ur of the Chaldeans.

Now Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran. This is the genealogy of Terah: Terah begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Haran begot Lot. And Haran died before his father Terah in his native land, in Ur of the Chaldeans.

a. Now Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram: Genesis 11:26 is the first mention of Abram. Abram (later changed to "Abraham") is mentioned 312 times in 272 verses in the Bible. He is arguably the most famous man of the Old Testament, and certainly one of the most influential men of history.

i. The Book of Genesis covers more than 2,000 years and more than 20 generations. Yet, it spends almost a third of its text on the life of one man - Abram.

b. Terah begot Abram: Abram is unique in the way he is called the friend of God (James 2:23); Abraham, Your friend forever (2 Chronicles 20:7); Abraham, My friend (Isaiah 41:8).

i. We all know the value of having friends in high places. Abram had a Friend in the highest place! Once Abraham Lincoln received a request for pardon from a man who deserted the army. When he was told the man had no friends, Lincoln said "I will be his friend," and he pardoned him.

ii. Men and women in the Bible are famous for many different things, but Abram is great for his faith. Moses was the great lawgiver; Joshua a great general; David a great king, and Elijah a great prophet. Most of us know we can never be great in those things, but we can be great people of faith. We can be friends of God.

iii. If you despair in knowing you do not have Abram's faith, take comfort in knowing you have Abram's God. He can build in you the faith of Abram, because He built it in Abram himself.

iv. You do have faith. You buy a ticket to a sporting event and show up, having faith the ticket is good. You fly in an airplane because you have faith in the airline's equipment, mechanics, and pilots. You plan a weekend based on the weather report. And you do this even though sometimes there are ticket scandals, sometimes planes crash, and sometimes the weatherman is wrong; but you still have faith. God can build the faith you have.

3. (29-30) The family of Abram and his brother Nahor.

Then Abram and Nahor took wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran the father of Milcah and the father of Iscah. But Sarai was barren; she had no child.

a. Then Abram and Nahor took wives: Abram's wife Sari (her name means "contentious") was barren, unable to bear children.

b. Abram's wife was Sarai . . . she had no child: Because the name "Abram" means "Father," it must have constantly amazed those meeting Abram to discover he had no children. But his present lack of children will play an important role in God's plan of redemption.

4. (31-32) The family of Terah and their travels from Ur of the Chaldeans to Haran.

And Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot, the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram's wife, and they went out with them from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to the land of Canaan; and they came to Haran and dwelt there. So the days of Terah were two hundred and five years, and Terah died in Haran.

a. They went out with them from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to the land of Canaan: So Abram's story begins in Ur of the Chaldeans (Babylon). Joshua 24:2 describes Abram before the LORD called him. He was from a family of idol worshippers and was probably an idol worshipper himself (notwithstanding Jewish legends).

i. Abram came from a family of idol worshippers. Later, when Abram's grandson Jacob went back to Abram's relatives, they were still worshipping idols.

b. And they came to Haran and dwelt there: Acts 7:2-4 makes it clear the call of Genesis 12:1-3 came to Abram while he still lived in Ur of the Chaldeans. When he received this call from God he was only partially obedient, because he took his father Terah with him to Haran even though the LORD called him to go from Ur by himself.

c. Terah died in Haran: Sometimes we can gain meaning from names in the Bible. The name Terah means, "delay." The name Haran means "parched, barren." When Abram was in partial obedience, then delay and barrenness characterized his life. When we delay in drawing close to God we also experience barrenness.

© 2006 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Commentary -- Other

Contradiction: Gen 11:12

33. Who was the father of Shelah; Cainan (Luke 3:35-36) or Arphaxad (Genesis 11:12)?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

Although a conclusive answer is not possible, plausible explanations can be found. The most probable answer to this is that the genealogy in the Masoretic text of Genesis telescopes the generations as does Matthew in his list. When we look at the Septuagint (LXX), we find the name of Cainan included as the father of Shelah, echoing what we find in Luke. Luke, writing in Greek, would have used the Septuagint as his authority.

On that same note, if we refer to the Septuagint, when we look at Genesis 11:12 we find that Apharxad was 135 years old, rather than 35 (which would allow more time for him to be Shelah's grandfather).

78. Did God decide that the lifespan of humans was to be only 120 years (Genesis 6:3), or longer (Genesis 11:12-16)?

(Category: misread the text)

In Genesis 6:3 we read:

"Then the LORD said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.'"

This is contrasted with ages of people who lived longer than 120 years in Genesis 11:12-16. However this is based, I presume on a misreading or misunderstanding of the text.

The hundred and twenty years spoken of by God in Genesis 6:3 cannot mean the life span of human beings as you do find people older than that mentioned more or less straight away a few Chapters on into the book of Genesis (including Noah himself). The more likely meaning is that the Flood that God had warned Noah about doesn't happen until 120 years after the initial warning to Noah. This is brought out further in 1Peter 3:20 where we read,

"God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."

Therefore looking at the context of the Genesis 6:3 passage it would agree with what we find in chapter 11 of the same book.

(Geisler/Howe 1992:41)

Contradiction: Gen 11:12

33. Who was the father of Shelah; Cainan (Luke 3:35-36) or Arphaxad (Genesis 11:12)?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

Although a conclusive answer is not possible, plausible explanations can be found. The most probable answer to this is that the genealogy in the Masoretic text of Genesis telescopes the generations as does Matthew in his list. When we look at the Septuagint (LXX), we find the name of Cainan included as the father of Shelah, echoing what we find in Luke. Luke, writing in Greek, would have used the Septuagint as his authority.

On that same note, if we refer to the Septuagint, when we look at Genesis 11:12 we find that Apharxad was 135 years old, rather than 35 (which would allow more time for him to be Shelah's grandfather).

Contradiction: Gen 11:13

78. Did God decide that the lifespan of humans was to be only 120 years (Genesis 6:3), or longer (Genesis 11:12-16)?

(Category: misread the text)

In Genesis 6:3 we read:

"Then the LORD said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.'"

This is contrasted with ages of people who lived longer than 120 years in Genesis 11:12-16. However this is based, I presume on a misreading or misunderstanding of the text.

The hundred and twenty years spoken of by God in Genesis 6:3 cannot mean the life span of human beings as you do find people older than that mentioned more or less straight away a few Chapters on into the book of Genesis (including Noah himself). The more likely meaning is that the Flood that God had warned Noah about doesn't happen until 120 years after the initial warning to Noah. This is brought out further in 1Peter 3:20 where we read,

"God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."

Therefore looking at the context of the Genesis 6:3 passage it would agree with what we find in chapter 11 of the same book.

(Geisler/Howe 1992:41)

Contradiction: Gen 11:14

78. Did God decide that the lifespan of humans was to be only 120 years (Genesis 6:3), or longer (Genesis 11:12-16)?

(Category: misread the text)

In Genesis 6:3 we read:

"Then the LORD said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.'"

This is contrasted with ages of people who lived longer than 120 years in Genesis 11:12-16. However this is based, I presume on a misreading or misunderstanding of the text.

The hundred and twenty years spoken of by God in Genesis 6:3 cannot mean the life span of human beings as you do find people older than that mentioned more or less straight away a few Chapters on into the book of Genesis (including Noah himself). The more likely meaning is that the Flood that God had warned Noah about doesn't happen until 120 years after the initial warning to Noah. This is brought out further in 1Peter 3:20 where we read,

"God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."

Therefore looking at the context of the Genesis 6:3 passage it would agree with what we find in chapter 11 of the same book.

(Geisler/Howe 1992:41)

Contradiction: Gen 11:15

78. Did God decide that the lifespan of humans was to be only 120 years (Genesis 6:3), or longer (Genesis 11:12-16)?

(Category: misread the text)

In Genesis 6:3 we read:

"Then the LORD said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.'"

This is contrasted with ages of people who lived longer than 120 years in Genesis 11:12-16. However this is based, I presume on a misreading or misunderstanding of the text.

The hundred and twenty years spoken of by God in Genesis 6:3 cannot mean the life span of human beings as you do find people older than that mentioned more or less straight away a few Chapters on into the book of Genesis (including Noah himself). The more likely meaning is that the Flood that God had warned Noah about doesn't happen until 120 years after the initial warning to Noah. This is brought out further in 1Peter 3:20 where we read,

"God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."

Therefore looking at the context of the Genesis 6:3 passage it would agree with what we find in chapter 11 of the same book.

(Geisler/Howe 1992:41)

Contradiction: Gen 11:16

78. Did God decide that the lifespan of humans was to be only 120 years (Genesis 6:3), or longer (Genesis 11:12-16)?

(Category: misread the text)

In Genesis 6:3 we read:

"Then the LORD said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.'"

This is contrasted with ages of people who lived longer than 120 years in Genesis 11:12-16. However this is based, I presume on a misreading or misunderstanding of the text.

The hundred and twenty years spoken of by God in Genesis 6:3 cannot mean the life span of human beings as you do find people older than that mentioned more or less straight away a few Chapters on into the book of Genesis (including Noah himself). The more likely meaning is that the Flood that God had warned Noah about doesn't happen until 120 years after the initial warning to Noah. This is brought out further in 1Peter 3:20 where we read,

"God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."

Therefore looking at the context of the Genesis 6:3 passage it would agree with what we find in chapter 11 of the same book.

(Geisler/Howe 1992:41)

Bible Query: Gen 11:1-9

Q: In Gen 11:1-9, why was there one language before Babel, since Gen 10:5,20,31 says there were many languages began after the flood?

A: Both are true, because Genesis 10 tells how the tribes propagated both before and after Babel. Three points to consider in the answer.

Genesis 10:5 states it is telling how the Sea peoples "spread out into their territories". This spreading out occurred after Babel.

Genesis 10:20 likewise states it is referring to the territories of the sons of Ham, and the Hamites moving to their territories would be after the tower of Babel.

Genesis 10:31 is almost identical to Genesis 10:20, except that it refers to the sons of Shem.   See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.118 for more info.

Bible Query: Gen 11:5

Q: In Gen 11:5 and Gen 18:21, since God is everywhere, how did "the Lord came down to see the city..."?

A: This is an expression to communicate that God took special notice of the city. See When Critics Ask p.45 for more info, and Now That’s A Good Question p.20-22 for a different answer.

Bible Query: Gen 11:7

Q: In Gen 11:7, as far as we know, were early beliefs always polytheists with monotheism being a later development, as the skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.18 says?

A: No. As far as we know from history, the early Chinese religion was monotheistic, as well as some other southeast Asian cultures. The early Chinese name for this monotheistic God was Shang-di, which is used for God in Chinese Bibles today.

Bible Query: Gen 11:7-9

Q: In Gen 11:7-9, was the confusion of tongues at the tower of Babel copied from the Greek story of Aloadae?

A: Origen (230-254 A.D.) investigated this in Origen Against Celsus book 4 ch.21 p.505 and concluded it could not be because:

a) No Greek person was known to him (or us) that had heard of this prior to Homer.

b) Homer lived centuries after Moses.

By the way, there are conflicting dates about when Homer lived. The ancient Greek historian Aristarchus says 1044 B.C., authorities in Philostratus says 1159 B.C., and pseudo-Herodotus The Life of Homer puts it as 1102 B.C.. In contrast to that the historian Theopompus said Homer lived as late as 685 B.C.. Herodotus says it was not earlier than about 730 B.C.. The Exodus was about 1447 B.C. See The Encyclopaedia Britannica under Homer for more info.   Theophilus to Autolycus (168-181/188 A.D.) book 3 ch.20 p.117 also points out that "Moses and his followers are proved to be 900 or even 1000 years prior ot the Trojan War." However, it is actually a little over 400 years after, not 900 to 1000 years after.  

Conclusion: Either the Greeks picked up the story from the earlier Hebrews, the Greeks picked up the story from somewhere else outside of Greece, or the Greek and Bible accounts are based on the same event.

Bible Query: Gen 11:9

Q: In Gen 11:9, was deriving the name "Babel" from the Hebrew word balal meaning "mixed, confused, or confounded" false, because the in Babylonian Bab-ilu means "gate of God", as the skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.55 says?

A: No. Asimov assumes that Babel is on the site of the city of Babylon. The Bible does not say the Babylonians or Sumerians said it was because the languages were mixed, confused, or confounded. Rather, Genesis was saying that wherever Babel was, the people afterwards, (including the Hebrews who read Genesis), could call it Babel because the languages were confused there.

Bible Query: Gen 11:10

Q: In Gen 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1, 36:9, and 37:2, Num 3:1; Ru 4:18, does the Hebrew word (Toledot) start a section, or conclude a section?

A: Either it always refers to the beginning, always refers to the end, or sometimes goes either way.   Ambiguous: Here are some "toledots" that could be interpreted Either way: Genesis 2:4; 5:1; 36:9; 37:2.   Beginning: Here are some "toledots" that context demands they be at the beginning: Genesis 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; Numbers 3:1. Philo the Jew (15/20 B.C.-50 A.D.) mentions Genesis 2:4 as "summing up his [Moses’] account of the creation of the world" in On the Creation 44:129 p.18.   At the end: There is not a single "toledot" that provably belongs at the end of a section. Therefore, the ambiguous sections are probably "toledots" at the beginning.   The most conclusive prove that "toledot" is at the beginning of a section is Genesis 25:19, which says is it the account of Isaac. The immediately following section speaks of Isaac’s children. The immediately preceding section speaks of Ishmael and has nothing whatsoever to do with Isaac.   See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament (Victor Books 1985) p.22-23 for more on why "Toledot" belongs at the beginning.

Bible Query: Gen 11:11

Q: In Gen 11:11, how old was Shem when the flood came?

A: Here is what one can observe from the scriptures, and then the conclusion:

Genesis 11:11 says that Shem was 100 years old two years after the flood.

Genesis 5:32 says that Ham, Shem, and Japheth were born when Noah was 500 years old.

Genesis 7:6 says that Noah was 600 years old when the flood came on the earth.

Nothing in scripture indicates that Ham, Shem, and Japheth were triplets. Genesis 7:6 was a round number; the three were born, probably one at a time, when Noah was about 600 years old.

Bible Query: Gen 11:18-24

Q: In Gen 11:18-24, is there any extra-Biblical record of Reu, Serug, and Nahor?

A: No one can expect that we have we have an independent record of every individual. However, in this case we probably do have an independent record. The Assyrian chronicles record villages in modern Syria named Paligg, Reu, and Sarugi, and Nakhur. The Mari records also mention Nakhur.

Bible Query: Gen 11:22

Q: In Gen 11:22, how do you pronounce "Nahor"?

A: Cruden’s Concordance and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary both say it is pronounced with a long "a" and the accent on the first syllable.

Bible Query: Gen 11:24

Q: In Gen 11:24, how do you pronounce "Terah"?

A: Cruden’s Concordance says it is pronounced with no long vowels and the accent on the first syllable. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary and Harper’s Bible Dictionary say the "e" is long, and the accent is also on the first syllable.

Bible Query: Gen 11:27

Q: In Gen 11:27 and Gen 17:5, what is the etymology (origin) of the names "Abram" and "Abraham"?

A: According to the New Bible Dictionary (1962) p.5, and the KJV footnote, the origin of the name is uncertain. It is a West Semitic name, and probably means "the father is exalted" or "exalted father". The name "Abraham" means, "father of multitudes" or "father of a multitude".

Bible Query: Gen 11:27

Q: Does Gen 11:27 teach that Abram, Nahor, and Haran were born in any specific order?

A: While some mistakenly think a list in the Bible always implies who was born first, that is not true. For example, in 1 Chronicles 3:15, Zedekiah was listed as Josiah’s third son, and Shallum/Jehoahaz was list as fourth. Yet when Jehoahaz became king in 609 B.C., he was 23 years old, and Zedekiah was only ten years old. For another example, Ham is mentioned before Shem and Japheth, yet Genesis 9:24 shows that Ham was younger. Thus if the Bible gives a list without saying they are in order, we should not try to read in to the Bible what is not there.

In this particular case, since Abram was 75 when he left Haran after Terah died (Genesis 12:4), and Terah died at 205 years (Genesis 11:32), Abram was not the son who was born when Terah was 70. Abram was not born until Terah was at least 130.

Bible Query: Gen 11:27

Q: In Gen 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1, 36:9, and 37:2, Num 3:1; Ru 4:18, does the Hebrew word (Toledot) start a section, or conclude a section?

A: Either it always refers to the beginning, always refers to the end, or sometimes goes either way.   Ambiguous: Here are some "toledots" that could be interpreted Either way: Genesis 2:4; 5:1; 36:9; 37:2.   Beginning: Here are some "toledots" that context demands they be at the beginning: Genesis 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; Numbers 3:1. Philo the Jew (15/20 B.C.-50 A.D.) mentions Genesis 2:4 as "summing up his [Moses’] account of the creation of the world" in On the Creation 44:129 p.18.   At the end: There is not a single "toledot" that provably belongs at the end of a section. Therefore, the ambiguous sections are probably "toledots" at the beginning.   The most conclusive prove that "toledot" is at the beginning of a section is Genesis 25:19, which says is it the account of Isaac. The immediately following section speaks of Isaac’s children. The immediately preceding section speaks of Ishmael and has nothing whatsoever to do with Isaac.   See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament (Victor Books 1985) p.22-23 for more on why "Toledot" belongs at the beginning.

Bible Query: Gen 11:28

Q: In Gen 11:28, was Abram from the city of Ur, or was he from the town of Haran in Gen 24:4?

A: Abram was originally from Ur of the Chaldeans in southern Mesopotamia, but prior to coming to Canaan, Abram and his relatives first settled in the town of Haran in modern-day Syria. See When Critics Ask p.35, 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.33-34 and Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.88-89 for more info.

Bible Query: Gen 11:28

Q: Why does Gen 11:28 mention Ur of the Chaldeans, since Ur was a Sumerian city?

A: The Chaldeans and Sumerians of Iraq were assimilated in Moses’ time, and Moses mentioned the land of modern-day Iraq as it was known in Moses’ time. Also, Ebla documents mention a town called Uru which was in Padan Aram (modern Syria). So just to be sure there was no mistake, instead of just saying "Ur", it said "Ur of the Chaldeans". See 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.32 for more info.

Bible Query: Gen 11:28

Q: In Gen 11:28, could Abraham have left from another city named Ur?

A: No. There was a city near Haran called Ur/Urfa (modern day Edessa), a Hittite town called Ura in Northeast Anatolia / Armenia, and a Hittite seaport also called Ura near Tarsus. However, these towns are first mentioned 500 years after Abraham. See the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1761 and the Wycliffe Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology p.602,603 for more info.

Bible Query: Gen 11:28

Q: In Gen 11:28, what do we know about the Mesopotamian city Ur apart from the Bible?

A: We know much about Ur, thanks to extensive excavations. The city was probably the largest in the world at that time, with a population of estimated at 180,000, 200,000, and 300,000. It was oval shaped, and the mound is 3000 ft long by 800 feet wide. It had a three-stage Ziggurat, 70 foot above the plan. The walls were 30 feet high. It was a wealthy city, with spectacular artwork. The people of Ur were relatively sophisticated, with a mathematical text showing cube roots.

Geography: Ur had the Euphrates River on one side, and canals on the other sides. The land was somewhat alkaline, but great for wheat and barley with irrigation. There were about 50 kinds of fish in the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. There were no trees around, so they imported wood from 400 miles away.

Civilization: About 40% of all grain was used to make beer. A board game was found. The had one and two story mud brick houses, and unpaved streets. Often a family tomb was beneath the house.

Literature: The first Sumerian writing was about 3,200 B.C., 1,200 years before Abraham. 100,000 tablets have been recovered from Ur, Umma, Lagash, Puzrish-Dagan, and Nippur.

Science: A mathematical tablet of cube roots was found. They did not have a decimal system, but instead used 1, 10, 60, 600, 3600, 36,000 etc. A relic of this is that we divide circles into 360 degrees. Their calendar had 360 days, and they practiced astrology. The main Ziggurat was very well built.

Temples: The main Ziggurat was to the moon god (not goddess) named Nanna/Nannar in Sumerian, and Sin in Akkadian/Semitic. The main Ziggurat had three tiers. The lowest, 210 by 140 by 20 feetwas built by Ur-Nammu and Dungi. Ur-Nammu lived around the time of Abraham. Nabonidus (c.560 B.C.), built the second tier, and a small building was the third tier. There were temples to E-num-mah, Nirgal/Ningal (Nanna’s wife), and the shrine of Nannar.

History: The first Dynasty of Ur (2600-2500 B.C.) had kings named Mesanepada and Aanepada. The Gutians ruled Ur from 2150-2070 B.C. until Ur-Nammu threw them off and started the Third Dynasty of Ur. The people of Ur sacked Susa, the Elamite capital about 50 years later. Abraham left Ur before 2000 B.C.. In 2004 B.C. (some say 1950 B.C.) the Elamite sacked Ur, and it never regained its prior prominence. So if Abraham had disobeyed God and stayed in Ur, either he or his descendants would probably have been enslaved.

See The Sumerians, TimeFrame 3000-1500 B.C: The Age of the God-Kings, Encyclopaedia Britannica (1956) vol.22 p.885, Unger’s Bible Dictionary p.1126-1127, The Anchor Bible Dictionary vol.6 p.766-767, 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.34, the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1758-1760, the Wycliffe Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology p.596-604 The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.1045-1046 for more info.

Bible Query: Gen 11:31

Q: In Gen 11:31, did Abram leave for Canaan from Ur, or from Haran as Gen 12:5 says?

A: Genesis 12 does not say Abram was in Haran when God called him. There is no mention that Genesis 11:31 is chronologically before Genesis 12. Many modern biographies are strictly chronological, but there is no requirement that they be so, and often it is was not strictly chronological in the Old Testament and the Gospels. We can only be sure it was intended to be in chronological order when the writer makes a claim that it is in chronological order. Genesis 24:4 dos not say "land of by birthplace" in Hebrew, but rather "my country", meaning where Abram lived for a while and where his closest relatives still lived.

Critics Ask: Gen 11:5

GENESIS 11:5 —How can God “come down” from heaven when He is already here (and everywhere)?

PROBLEM: God is omnipresent, that is, everywhere at the same time ( Ps. 139:7-10 ). But this text declares that God “came down” to see the city that men had built. But if He is already here, then how can He “come down” here?

SOLUTION: God “came down” as a theophany, which is a special localized manifestation of the presence of God. These theophanies often appeared in the OT. Once God appeared to Abraham as a man ( Gen. 18:2 ). God also came down to speak to Moses ( Ex. 3 ), Joshua ( Josh. 5:13-15 ), and Gideon ( Jud. 6 ) in a similar manner.   

Critics Ask: Gen 11:28

GENESIS 11:28 —How could Abraham’s family be from Ur of the Chaldees when elsewhere it says his ancestors came from Haran?

PROBLEM: There is an apparent conflict as to where Abraham is really from. Genesis 11:28 says Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees (in southern Iraq), but Genesis 29:4 claims he is from Haran (in northern Iraq).

SOLUTION: This conflict is easily resolved. Abraham’s family originated in Ur, but later migrated to Haran when God called him ( Gen. 11:31-12:1 ). It is not unusual that Abraham would look back to Haran, where he had lived until he was 75 years old, as his homeland. Also, he quite naturally refers to the children of his two older brothers as part of his family.   

Evidence: Gen 11:9

For witnessing to those who don't speak English, see the back of this Bible for the entire gospel in picture form.

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Genesis (Book Introduction)

GENESIS, the book of the origin or production of all things, consists of two parts: the first, comprehended in the first through eleventh chapters, gives a general history; the second, contained in the subsequent chapters, gives a special history. The two parts are essentially connected; the one, which sets out with an account of the descent of the human race from a single pair, the introduction of sin into the world, and the announcement of the scheme of divine mercy for repairing the ruins of the fall, was necessary to pave the way for relating the other, namely, the call of Abraham, and the selection of his posterity for carrying out the gracious purpose of God. An evident unity of method, therefore, pervades this book, and the information contained in it was of the greatest importance to the Hebrew people, as without it they could not have understood the frequent references made in their law to the purposes and promises of God regarding themselves. The arguments that have been already adduced as establishing the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch prove of course that Moses was the author of Genesis. The few passages on which the rationalists grounded their assertions that it was the composition of a later age have been successfully shown to warrant no such conclusion; the use of Egyptian words and the minute acquaintance with Egyptian life and manners, displayed in the history of Joseph, harmonize with the education of Moses, and whether he received his information by immediate revelation, from tradition, or from written documents, it comes to us as the authentic work of an author who wrote as he was inspired by the Holy Ghost (2Pe 1:21).

JFB: Genesis (Outline)

• THE CREATION OF HEAVEN AND EARTH. (Gen 1:1-2)
• THE FIRST DAY. (Gen 1:3-5)
• SECOND DAY. (Gen 1:6-8)
• THIRD DAY. (Gen 1:9-13)
• FOURTH DAY. (Gen 1:14-19)
• FIFTH DAY. The signs of animal life appeared in the waters and in the air. (Gen 1:20-23)
• SIXTH DAY. A farther advance was made by the creation of terrestrial animals, all the various species of which are included in three classes: (1) cattle, the herbivorous kind capable of labor or domestication. (Gen 1:24-31)
• THE NARRATIVE OF THE SIX DAYS' CREATION CONTINUED. The course of the narrative is improperly broken by the division of the chapter. (Gen 2:1)
• THE FIRST SABBATH. (Gen 2:2-7)
• THE GARDEN OF EDEN. ( Gen 8-17)
• THE MAKING OF WOMAN, AND INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. (Gen 2:18-25)
• THE TEMPTATION. (Gen 3:1-5)
• THE FALL. (Gen 3:6-9)
• THE EXAMINATION. (Gen 3:10-13)
• THE SENTENCE. (Gen 3:14-24)
• BIRTH OF CAIN AND ABEL. (Gen. 4:1-26)
• GENEALOGY OF THE PATRIARCHS. (Gen. 5:1-32)
• WICKEDNESS OF THE WORLD. (Gen. 6:1-22)
• ENTRANCE INTO THE ARK. (Gen. 7:1-24)
• ASSUAGING OF THE WATERS. (Gen 8:1-14)
• DEPARTURE FROM THE ARK. (Gen 8:15-22)
• COVENANT. (Gen 9:1-7)
• RAINBOW. (Gen. 9:8-29)
• GENEALOGIES. (Gen. 10:1-32)
• CONFUSION OF TONGUES. (Gen. 11:1-32) 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.
• CALL TO ABRAM. (Gen. 12:1-20)
• RETURN FROM EGYPT. (Gen. 13:1-18)
• WAR. (Gen. 14:1-24)
• DIVINE ENCOURAGEMENT. (Gen. 15:1-21)
• BESTOWMENT OF HAGAR. (Gen. 16:1-16)
• RENEWAL OF THE COVENANT. (Gen. 17:1-27)
• ENTERTAINMENT OF ANGELS. (Gen 18:1-8)
• REPROOF OF SARAH. An inquiry about his wife, so surprising in strangers, the subject of conversation, and the fulfilment of the fondly cherished promise within a specified time, showed Abraham that he had been entertaining more than ordinary travellers (Heb 13:2). (Gen 18:9-15)
• DISCLOSURE OF SODOM'S DOOM. (Gen 18:16-22)
• ABRAHAM'S INTERCESSION. (Gen 18:23-33)
• LOT'S ENTERTAINMENT. (Gen. 19:1-38)
• ABRAHAM'S DENIAL OF HIS WIFE. (Gen. 20:1-18)
• BIRTH OF ISAAC. (Gen 21:1-13)
• EXPULSION OF ISHMAEL. (Gen 21:14-21)
• COVENANT. (Gen 21:22-34)
• OFFERING ISAAC. (Gen. 22:1-19)
• AGE AND DEATH OF SARAH. (Gen 23:1-2)
• PURCHASE OF A BURYING-PLACE. (Gen. 23:3-20)
• A MARRIAGE COMMISSION. (Gen 24:1-9)
• THE JOURNEY. (Gen. 24:10-67)
• SONS OF ABRAHAM. (Gen 25:1-6)
• DEATH OF ABRAHAM. (Gen 25:7-11)
• DESCENDANTS OF ISHMAEL. Before passing to the line of the promised seed, the historian gives a brief notice of Ishmael, to show that the promises respecting that son of Abraham were fulfilled--first, in the greatness of his posterity (compare Gen 17:20); and, secondly, in their independence. (Gen 25:12-18)
• HISTORY OF ISAAC. (Gen 25:19-34)
• SOJOURN IN GERAR. (Gen. 26:1-35)
• INFIRMITY OF ISAAC. (Gen. 27:1-27)
• THE BLESSING. (Gen. 27:28-46)
• JACOB'S DEPARTURE. (Gen. 28:1-19)
• JACOB'S VOW. (Gen 28:20-22)
• THE WELL OF HARAN. (Gen. 29:1-35)
• DOMESTIC JEALOUSIES. (Gen. 30:1-24)
• JACOB'S COVENANT WITH LABAN. (Gen. 30:25-43)
• ENVY OF LABAN AND SONS. (Gen. 31:1-21)
• LABAN PURSUES JACOB--THEIR COVENANT AT GILEAD. (Gen. 31:22-55)
• VISION OF ANGELS. (Gen 32:1-2)
• MISSION TO ESAU. (Gen 32:3-32)
• KINDNESS OF JACOB AND ESAU. (Gen 33:1-11)
• THE PARTING. (Gen 33:12-20)
• THE DISHONOR OF DINAH. (Gen. 34:1-31) Though freed from foreign troubles, Jacob met with a great domestic calamity in the fall of his only daughter. According to JOSEPHUS, she had been attending a festival; but it is highly probable that she had been often and freely mixing in the society of the place and that she, being a simple, inexperienced, and vain young woman, had been flattered by the attentions of the ruler's son. There must have been time and opportunities of acquaintance to produce the strong attachment that Shechem had for her.
• REMOVAL TO BETHEL. (Gen 35:1-15)
• BIRTH OF BENJAMIN--DEATH OF RACHEL, &c. (Gen 35:16-27)
• DEATH OF ISAAC. (Gen 35:28-29)
• POSTERITY OF ESAU. (Gen. 36:1-43)
• PARENTAL PARTIALITY. (Gen 37:1-4)
• THE DREAMS OF JOSEPH. (Gen. 37:5-36)
• JUDAH AND FAMILY. (Gen. 38:1-30)
• JOSEPH IN POTIPHAR'S HOUSE. (Gen. 39:1-23)
• TWO STATE PRISONERS. (Gen 40:1-8)
• THE BUTLER'S DREAM. (Gen 40:9-15)
• THE BAKER'S DREAM. (Gen 40:16-23)
• PHARAOH'S DREAM. (Gen. 41:1-24)
• JOSEPH INTERPRETS PHARAOH'S DREAMS. (Gen 41:25-36)
• JOSEPH MADE RULER OF EGYPT. (Gen. 41:37-57)
• JOURNEY INTO EGYPT. (Gen. 42:1-38)
• PREPARATIONS FOR A SECOND JOURNEY TO EGYPT. (Gen 43:1-14)
• ARRIVAL IN EGYPT. (Gen. 43:15-30)
• THE DINNER. (Gen 43:31-34)
• POLICY TO STAY HIS BRETHREN. (Gen. 44:1-34)
• JOSEPH MAKING HIMSELF KNOWN. (Gen. 45:1-28)
• SACRIFICE AT BEER-SHEBA. (Gen 46:1-4)
• IMMIGRATION TO EGYPT. (Gen. 46:5-27)
• ARRIVAL IN EGYPT. (Gen 46:28-34)
• JOSEPH'S PRESENTATION AT COURT. (Gen. 47:1-31)
• JOSEPH'S VISIT TO HIS SICK FATHER. (Gen. 48:1-22)
• PATRIARCHAL BLESSING. (Gen. 49:1-33)
• MOURNING FOR JACOB. (Gen. 50:1-26)

TSK: Genesis (Book Introduction)

The Book of Genesis is the most ancient record in the world; including the History of two grand and stupendous subjects, Creation and Providence; of each of which it presents a summary, but astonishingly minute and detailed accounts. From this Book, almost all the ancient philosophers, astronomers, chronologists, and historians have taken their respective data; and all the modern improvements and accurate discoveries in different arts and sciences, have only served to confirm the facts detailed by Moses, and to shew, that all the ancient writers on these subjects have approached, or receded from, truth and the phenomena of Nature, in exactly the same proportion as they have followed or receded from, the Mosaic history. The great fact of the deluge is fully confirmed by the fossilised remains in every quarter of the globe. Add to this, that general traditions of the deluge have been traced among the Egyptians, Chinese, Japanese, Hindoos, Burmans, ancient Goths and Druids, Mexicans, Peruvians, Brazilians, North American Indians, Greenlanders, Otaheiteans, Sandwich Islanders, and almost every nation under heaven; while the allegorical turgidity of these distorted traditions sufficiently distinguishes them from the unadorned simplicity of the Mosaic narrative. In fine, without this history the world would be in comparative darkness, not knowing whence it came, nor whither it goeth. In the first page, a child may learn more in an hour, than all the philosophers in the world learned without it in a thousand years. (The original publisher remembers these words addressed to him and other boys in the year 1780, by his excellent tutor, the later Rev. John Ryland, of Northampton.)

TSK: Genesis 11 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Gen 11:1, One language in the world; Gen 11:2, The building of Babel; Gen 11:5, It is interrupted by the confusion of tongues, and the builders dispersed; Gen 11:10, The generations of Shem; Gen 11:27, The generations of Terah, the father of Abram; Gen 11:31, Terah, with Abram and Lot, remove from Ur to Haran.

Poole: Genesis 11 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 11.

One language in the earth, Gen 11:1 . They journey from the east, settle in a plain in the land of Shinar, Gen 11:2 ; make bricks, which they burn and use with slime, Gen 11:3 ; build a city and tower that they might not be scattered, Gen 11:4 . God sees it, Gen 11:5 . Disapproves their design, Gen 11:6 ; defeats it, and scatters them by confounding their language, Gen 11:7,8 ; for which reason the place called Babel, Gen 11:9 . The posterity of Shem to Abram, Gen 11:10-26 . Abram takes Sarai to wife, Gen 11:29 . She is barren, Gen 11:30 . He removes from Ur to Haran, Gen 11:31 , where his father dies, Gen 11:32 .

MHCC: Genesis (Book Introduction)

Genesis is a name taken from the Greek, and signifies " the book of generation or production;" it is properly so called, as containing an account of the origin of all things. There is no other history so old. There is nothing in the most ancient book which exists that contradicts it; while many things recorded by the oldest heathen writers, or to be traced in the customs of different nations, confirm what is related in the book of Genesis.

MHCC: Genesis 11 (Chapter Introduction)

(Gen 11:1-4) One language in the world, The building of Babel.

(Gen 11:5-9) The confusion of tongues, The builders of Babel dispersed.

(v. 10-26) The descendants of Shem.

(Gen 11:27-32) Terah, father of Abram, grandfather of Lot, they remove to Haran.

Matthew Henry: Genesis (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The First Book of Moses, Called Genesis

We have now before us the holy Bible, or book, for so bible signifies. We call it the book, by way of eminency; for it is incomparably the best book that ever was written, the book of books, shining like the sun in the firmament of learning, other valuable and useful books, like the moon and stars, borrowing their light from it. We call it the holy book, because it was written by holy men, and indited by the Holy Ghost; it is perfectly pure from all falsehood and corrupt intention; and the manifest tendency of it is to promote holiness among men. The great things of God's law and gospel are here written to us, that they might be reduced to a greater certainty, might spread further, remain longer, and be transmitted to distant places and ages more pure and entire than possibly they could be by report and tradition: and we shall have a great deal to answer for if these things which belong to our peace, being thus committed to us in black and white, be neglected by us as a strange and foreign thing, Hos 8:12. The scriptures, or writings of the several inspired penmen, from Moses down to St. John, in which divine light, like that of the morning, shone gradually (the sacred canon being now completed), are all put together in this blessed Bible, which, thanks be to God, we have in our hands, and they make as perfect a day as we are to expect on this side of heaven. Every part was good, but all together very good. This is the light that shines in a dark place (2Pe 1:19), and a dark place indeed the world would be without the Bible.

We have before us that part of the Bible which we call the Old Testament, containing the acts and monuments of the church from the creation almost to the coming of Christ in the flesh, which was about four thousand years - the truths then revealed, the laws then enacted, the devotions then paid, the prophecies then given, and the events which concerned that distinguished body, so far as God saw fit to preserve to us the knowledge of them. This is called a testament, or covenant ( diatheke ), because it was a settled declaration of the will of God concerning man in a federal way, and had its force from the designed death of the great testator, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Rev 8:8. It is called the Old Testament, with relation to the New, which does not cancel and supersede it, but crown and perfect it, by the bringing in of that better hope which was typified and foretold in it; the Old Testament still remains glorious, though the New far exceeds in glory, 2Co 3:9.

We have before us that part of the Old Testament which we call the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses, that servant of the Lord who excelled all the other prophets, and typified the great prophet. In our Saviour's distribution of the books of the Old Testament into the law, the prophets, and the psalms, or Hagiographa , these are the law; for they contain not only the laws given to Israel, in the last four, but the laws given to Adam, to Noah, and to Abraham, in the first. These five books were, for aught we know, the first that ever were written; for we have not the least mention of any writing in all the book of Genesis, nor till God bade Moses write (Exo 17:14); and some think Moses himself never learned to write till God set him his copy in the writing of the ten Commandments upon the tables of stone. However, we are sure these books are the most ancient writings now extant, and therefore best able to give us a satisfactory account of the most ancient things.

We have before us the first and longest of those five books, which we call Genesis, written, some think, when Moses was in Midian, for the instruction and comfort of his suffering brethren in Egypt: I rather think he wrote it in the wilderness, after he had been in the mount with God, where, probably, he received full and particular instructions for the writing of it. And, as he framed the tabernacle, so he did the more excellent and durable fabric of this book, exactly according to the pattern shown him in the mount, into which it is better to resolve the certainty of the things herein contained than into any tradition which possibly might be handed down from Adam to Methuselah, from him to Shem, from him to Abraham, and so to the family of Jacob. Genesis is a name borrowed from the Greek. It signifies the original, or generation: fitly is this book so called, for it is a history of originals - the creation of the world, the entrance of sin and death into it, the invention of arts, the rise of nations, and especially the planting of the church, and the state of it in its early days. It is also a history of generations - the generations of Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc., not endless, but useful genealogies. The beginning of the New Testament is called Genesis too (Mat 1:1), Biblos geneseos the book of the genesis, or generation, of Jesus Christ. Blessed be God for that Book which shows us our remedy, as this opens our wound. Lord, open our eyes, that we may see the wondrous things both of thy law and gospel!

Matthew Henry: Genesis 11 (Chapter Introduction)

The old distinction between the sons of God and the sons of men (professors and profane) survived the flood, and now appeared again, when men began to multiply: according to this distinction we have, in this chapter, I. The dispersion of the sons of men at Babel (Gen 11:1-9), where we have, 1. Their presumptuous provoking design, which was to build a city and a tower (Gen 11:1-4). 2. The righteous judgment of God upon them in disappointing their design, by confounding their language, and so scattering them (Gen 11:5-9). II. The pedigree of the sons of God down to Abraham (v. 10-26), with a general account of his family, and removal out of his native country (Gen 11:27, etc.).

Constable: Genesis (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title

Each book of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament, called the Torah [instruction] by the Jews) originally received its title in the Hebrew Bible from the first word or words in the book.¹ The Hebrew word translated "in the beginning" is beresit. The English title "Genesis," however, has come to us from the Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome (Liber Genesis). The Latin title came from the Septuagint translation (the Greek translation of the Old Testament made about 300 years before Christ). "Genesis" is a transliteration of the Greek word geneseos, the Greek word that translates the Hebrew toledot. This Hebrew word is the key word in identifying the structure of Genesis, and the translators have usually rendered it "account" or "generations" (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2).

Date

The events recorded date back to the creation of the world.

Many Christians believe the earth is millions of years old. They base this belief on the statements of scientists and understand Scripture in the light of these statements. Likewise, many Christians believe that the human race began hundreds of thousands of years ago for the same reason.

Most evangelicals who take the Scriptures seriously believe that the earth is not much older than 10, 000 years. They base this on the genealogies in Scripture (Gen. 5; 10; 11; et al.), which they understand to be "open" (i.e., not complete). Evangelicals usually hold to a more recent date for man's creation, also for the same reason.

A smaller group of evangelicals believes that the genealogies are either "closed" (i.e., complete) or very close to complete. This leads us to date the creation of the world and man about 6, 000 years ago.²

Liberal interpreters have placed the date of composition of Genesis much later than Moses' lifetime.

If one accepts Mosaic authorship, as most conservative evangelicals do, the date of composition of Genesis must be within Moses' lifetime (ca. 1525-1405 B.C.). This book was perhaps originally intended to encourage the Israelites to trust in their faithful, omnipotent God as they anticipated entrance into the Promised Land from Kadesh Barnea or from the Plains of Moab.³ Moses may have written it earlier to prepare them for the Exodus,⁴ but this seems less likely.

Writer

The authorship of the Pentateuch has been the subject of great controversy among professing Christians since Spinoza introduced "higher criticism" of the Bible in the seventeenth century. The "documentary hypothesis," which developed from his work, is that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, as most scholars in Judaism and the church until that day believed. Instead, it was the product of several writers who lived much later than Moses. A redactor (editor) or redactors combined these several documents into the form we have now. These documents (J, E, D, P, and others) represent a Yahwistic tradition, an Elohistic tradition, a Deuteronomic tradition, a Priestly tradition, etc.⁵

The evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is conclusive if one believes that Jesus Christ spoke the truth when He attributed authorship to Moses (Matt. 19:8; Mark 7:10; Luke 18:29-31; 20:37; 24:27; John 7:19). Jesus Christ did not specifically say that Moses wrote Genesis, but in our Lord's day the Jews regarded the Pentateuch (Torah) as a whole unit. They recognized Moses as the author of all five books. Consequently they would have understood what Jesus said about any of the five books of Moses as an endorsement of the Mosaic authorship of them all.⁶

Scope

The events recorded in Genesis stretch historically from Creation to Joseph's death, a period of at least 2500 years. The first part of the book (ch. 1-11) is not as easy to date precisely as the second part (ch. 12-50). The history of the patriarchs recorded in this second main division of the text covers a period of about 300 years.

The scope of the book progressively and consistently narrows. The selection of content included in Genesis points to the purpose of the divine author: to reveal the history of and basic principles involved in God's relationship with people.⁷

Purpose

Genesis provides the historical basis for the rest of the Bible and the Pentateuch, particularly the Abrahamic Covenant. Chapters 1-11 give historical background essential to understanding that covenant, and chapters 12-50 record the covenant and its initial outworking. The Abrahamic Covenant continues to be the basic arrangement by which God operates in dealing with humanity throughout the Pentateuch and the rest of the Bible.

"The real theme of the Pentateuch is the selection of Israel from the nations and its consecration to the service of God and His Laws in a divinely appointed land. The central event in the development of this theme is the divine covenant with Abraham and its . . . promise to make his offspring into the people of God and to give them the land of Canaan as an everlasting inheritance."⁸

Genesis provides an indispensable prologue to the drama that unfolds in Exodus and the rest of the Pentateuch. The first 11 chapters constitute a prologue to the prologue.

"Two opposite progressions appear in this prologue [chs. 1-11]: (a) God's orderly Creation with its climax in His blessing of man, and (b) the totally disintegrating work of sin with its two greatest curses being the Flood and the dispersion at Babel.⁹ The first progression demonstrates God's plan to bring about perfect order from the beginning in spite of what the reader may know of man's experience. The second progression demonstrates the great need of God's intervention to provide the solution for the corrupt human race."¹⁰

Theology

"The subject matter of the theology in Genesis is certainly God's work in establishing Israel as the means of blessing the families of the earth. This book forms the introduction to the Pentateuch's main theme of the founding of the theocracy, that is, the rule of God over all Creation. It presents the origins behind the founding of the theocracy: the promised blessing that Abraham's descendants would be in the land.

"Exodus presents the redemption of the seed out of bondage and the granting of a covenant to them. Leviticus is the manual of ordinances enabling the holy God to dwell among His people by making them holy. Numbers records the military arrangement and census of the tribes in the wilderness, and shows how God preserves His promised blessings from internal and external threats. Deuteronomy presents the renewal of the covenant.

"In the unfolding of this grand program of God, Genesis introduces the reader to the nature of God as the sovereign Lord over the universe who will move heaven and earth to establish His will. He seeks to bless mankind, but does not tolerate disobedience and unbelief. Throughout this revelation the reader learns that without faith it is impossible to please God' (Heb. 11:6)."¹¹

Message¹²

The message of the Bible might be the best place to begin our study of the Old Testament. What is the Bible all about? We could state it as follows: God desires to glorify Himself by blessing humankind.

The message of the Pentateuch (Torah) is that people can experience God's blessing by trusting Him (believing His word) and by obeying Him (following His initiative).

Genesis is in the Bible primarily to teach us this lesson. People can enjoy a personal relationship with God and thereby realize their own fulfillment as human beings only through trust in God and obedience to God. This is the message statement. Genesis reveals that God is faithful to His promises and powerful enough to bring them to fulfillment.

Genesis reveals that God originally intended people to have an immediate relationship with their Creator. Evidences for this are as follows.

1. God made man as a special creation (2:7).

2. He made man with special care (2:7).

3. He made man in His own image (1:26-27).

4. He regarded man as His son (1:28-30).

5. He consistently demonstrated concern for man's welfare (3:9).

God's immediate relationship with Adam was broken by the Fall (ch. 3). In the Fall man did two things.

1. He failed to trust God's goodness with his mind.

2. He rebelled against God's government with his will (3:6).

God then took the initiative to re-establish the relationship with man that He had created man to enjoy. He provided a covering for man's sin until He would finally remove it. This temporary covering came through the sacrificial system.

Throughout Genesis we see that people in general consistently failed to trust and obey God (e.g., in Noah's day, at Babel, in the patriarchal period).

Genesis also records what God has done to encourage people to trust and obey Him. It is only by living by these two principles that people can enjoy a relationship with God and realize all that God created them to experience.

On the one hand, Genesis reveals much about the person and work of God. This revelation helps us trust and obey Him. It is through His personal revelations to the main characters in Genesis that God revealed Himself initially (e.g., Adam and Eve, Noah, the patriarchs).

On the other hand, Genesis reveals much about the nature of man. Not only did God reveal the perversity of man, but He also identified positive examples of faith and obedience in the lives of the godly.

In Genesis we learn that faith in God is absolutely essential if we are to have fellowship with Him and realize our potential as human beings.

Faith is the law of life. If one lives by faith he flourishes, but if he does not, he fails. The four patriarchs are primarily examples of what faith is and how it manifests itself. In each of their lives we learn something new about faith.

Abraham's faith demonstrates unquestioning obedience. When God told him to do something, he did it. This is the most basic characteristic of faith. That is one reason why Abraham is "the father of the faithful." God revealed Himself nine times to Abraham and each time Abraham's response was unquestioning obedience.

Isaac's faith helps us see the quality of passive acceptance that characterizes true faith in God. This was his response to God's two revelations to him.

Jacob's story is one of conflict with God until he came to realize his own limitations. Then he trusted God. We can see his faith in his acknowledged dependence on God. God's seven revelations to him eventually led him to this position.

Joseph's life teaches us what God can do with a person who trusts Him consistently in the face of adversity. The outstanding characteristic of Joseph's life was his faithful loyalty to God. He believed God's two revelations to him in dreams even though God's will did not seem to be working out as he thought it would. Patient faith and its reward shine through the story of Joseph.

Faith, the key concept in Genesis, means trusting that what God has prescribed is indeed best for me and waiting for God to provide what He has promised. A person of faith is one who commits to acting on this basis even though he or she may not see how it is best.

The Pentateuch is all about God, man, and our relationship. In our study of it, we will be building a model to show how each new book builds on what has preceded. The key concept in Genesis is faith.

Constable: Genesis (Outline)

Outline

The structure of Genesis is very clear. The phrase "the generations of" (toledot in Hebrew, from yalad meaning "to bear, to generate") occurs ten times (really eleven times since 36:9 repeats 36:1), and in each case it introduces a new section of the book.¹³ The first part of Genesis is introductory and sets the scene for what follows. An outline of Genesis based on this structure is as follows.

1. Introduction 1:1-2:3

2. The generations of heaven and earth 2:4-4:26

3. The generations of Adam 5:1-6:8

4. The generations of Noah 6:9-9:29

5. The generations of the sons of Noah 10:1-11:9

6. The generations of Shem 11:10-26

7. The generations of Terah 11:27-25:11

8. The generations of Ishmael 25:12-18

9. The generations of Isaac 25:19-35:29

10. The generations of Esau 36:1-43

11. The generations of Jacob 37:1-50:26

A full expository outline designed to highlight the relative emphases of the book follows. We shall follow this outline in these notes as we seek to unpack the message of the book.

I. Primeval events 1:1-11:26

A. The story of creation 1:1-2:3

1. An initial statement of creation 1:1

2. Conditions at the time of creation 1:2

3. The six days of creation 1:3-31

4. The seventh day 2:1-3

B. What became of the creation 2:4-4:26

1. The garden of Eden 2:4-3:24

2. The murder of Abel 4:1-16

3. The spread of civilization and sin 4:17-26

C. What became of Adam 5:1-6:8

1. The effects of the curse on humanity ch. 5

2. God's sorrow over man's wickedness 6:1-8

D. What became of Noah 6:9-9:29

1. The Flood 6:9-8:22

2. The Noahic Covenant 9:1-17

3. The curse on Canaan 9:18-29

E. What became of Noah's sons 10:1-11:9

1. The table of nations ch. 10

2. The dispersion at Babel 11:1-9

F. What became of Shem 11:10-26

II. Patriarchal narratives 11:27-50:26

A. What became of Terah 11:27-25:11

1. Terah and Abraham's obedience 11:27-12:9

2. Abram in Egypt 12:10-20

3. Abram's separation from Lot ch. 13

4. Abram's military victory ch. 14

5. The Abrahamic covenant ch. 15

6. The birth of Ishmael ch. 16

7. The sign of circumcision ch. 17

8. Yahweh's visit to Abraham 18:1-15

9. Abraham's intercession for Lot 18:16-33

10. The destruction of Sodom ch. 19

11. Abraham's sojourn at Gerar ch. 20

12. The birth of Isaac 21:1-21

13. Abimelech's treaty with Abraham 21:22-34

14. The sacrifice of Isaac 22:1-19

15. The descendants of Nahor 22:20-24

16. The purchase of Sarah's tomb ch. 23

17. The choice of a bride for Isaac ch. 24

18. Abraham's death 25:1-11

B. What became of Ishmael 25:12-18

C. What became of Isaac 25:19-35:29

1. Isaac's twin sons 25:19-26

2. The sale of the birthright 25:27-34

3. Isaac and Abimelech 26:1-11

4. Isaac's wells 26:12-33

5. Jacob's deception for Isaac's blessing 26:34-28:9

6. Jacob's vision at Bethel 28:10-22

7. Jacob's marriages and Laban's deception 29:1-30

8. Jacob's mishandling of God's blessings 29:31-30:24

9. Jacob's new contract with Laban 30:25-43

10. Jacob's flight from Haran ch. 31

11. Jacob's attempt to appease Esau 32:1-21

12. Jacob at the Jabbok 32:22-32

13. Jacob's meeting with Esau and his return to Canaan ch. 33

14. The rape of Dinah and the revenge of Simeon and Levi ch. 34

15. Jacob's return to Bethel ch. 35

D. What became of Esau 36:1-37:1

E. What became of Jacob 37:2-50:26

1. God's choice of Joseph 37:2-11

2. The sale of Joseph into Egypt 37:12-36

3. Judah and Tamar ch. 38

4. Joseph in Potiphar's house ch. 39

5. The prisoners' dreams and Joseph's interpretations ch. 40

6. Pharaoh's dreams and Joseph's interpretation ch. 41

7. Joseph's brothers' first journey into Egypt ch. 42

8. Joseph's brothers' second journey into Egypt ch. 43

9. Joseph's last test and its results ch. 44

10. Joseph's reconciliation with his brothers 45:1-15

11. Israel's move to Egypt 45:16-46:30

12. Joseph's wise leadership 46:31-47:27

13. Jacob's worship in Egypt 47:28-48:22

14. Jacob's blessing of his sons 49:1-28

15. Deaths and a promise yet to be fulfilled 49:29-50:26¹⁴

Constable: Genesis

Bibliography

Aalders, Gerhard Charles. Genesis. The Bible Student's Commentary series. 2 vols. Translated by William Heynen. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Aharoni, Yohanan, and Michael Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. Revised ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977.

Albright, William Foxwell. "Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 163 (October 1961):36-54.

_____. The Archaeology of Palestine. 1949. Revised ed. Pelican Archaeology series. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1956.

_____. The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1963.

Alexander, John F. "Sabbath Rest." The Other Side 146 (November 1983):8-9.

Alexander, T. Desmond. "Genesis 22 and the Covenant of Circumcision." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25 (1983):17-22.

_____. "Lot's Hospitality: A Clue to His Righteousness." Journal of Biblical Literature 104:2 (June 1985):289-91.

Allis, Oswald T. The Five Books of Moses. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1949.

_____. God Spake by Moses. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1951.

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic, 1981.

Ancil, Ralph E. "Is Creation More than a Model of Origins?" Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly 5:2 (Winter 1982):3-13.

Anderson, Bernhard W. "Creation and Ecology." American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 4:1 (January 1983):14-30.

Anderson, Don. Abraham: Delay Is Not Denial. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, Kingfisher Books, 1987.

Anderson, Gary. "The Interpretation of Genesis l:1 in the Targums." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52:1 (January 1990):21-29.

Anderson, J. Kerby and Harold G Coffin. Fossils in Focus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Andrews, Gini. Your Half of the Apple. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972.

Aufenson-Vance, Deborah. "Lot's Wife Remembers." Adventist Review 163:8 (February 20, 1986):5.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. "Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from Abraham to Moses." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:505 (January-March 1970):3-25.

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. "Sabbatical Typologies of Messianic Redemption." Journal for the Study of Judaism. 17:2 (December 1986):153-76.

Baldwin, Joyce G. The Message of Genesis 12-50. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

Ballard, Bruce W. "The Death Penalty: God's Timeless Standard for the Nations?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):471-87.

Bar-Deroma, H. "The River of Egypt (Nahal Mizraim)." Palestinian Exploration Quarterly 92 (1960):37-56.

Barker, Kenneth L. "The Antiquity and Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives." In A Tribute to Gleason Archer, pp. 131-39. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Barr, James. "Why the World Was Created in 4004 B.C.: Archbishop Ussher and Biblical Chronology." Bulletin of John Rylands University Library of Manchester 67:2 (Spring 1985):575-608.

Barre, Lloyd M. "The Riddle of the Flood Chronology." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 41 (June 1988):3-20.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1951.

Baylis, Charles P. "The Author of Hebrews' use of Melchizedek from the Context of Genesis." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1989.

Beit-Arieh, Itzhaq. "New Evidence on the Relations between Canaan and Egypt during the Proto-Dynastic Period." Israel Exploration Journal 34:1 (1984):20-23.

_____. "New Light on the Edomites." Biblical Archaeological Review. 14:2 (March-April 1988):28-41.

Ben-Tor, Amnon. "The Trade Relations of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age." Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 29:1 (February 1986):1-27.

Berg, S. B. The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes, and Structure. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation series, 44. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. "Abraham and the Righteous of Sodom." Journal of Jewish Studies 33:1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1982):119-32.

Blosser, Oliver R. "Was Nimrod-Sargon of Agade, the First King of Babylon?" It's About Time, June 1987, pp. 10-13.

Bock, Darrell L. "Interpreting the Bible--How Texts Speak to Us." In Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 76-105. By Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993.

Boice, James M. Genesis. 2 vols. Ministry Resources Library series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982, 1985.

Briggs, Peter. "Testing the Factuality of the Conquest of Ai Narrative in the Book of Joshua." A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Colorado Springs, Colo., Nov. 15, 2001.

Bright, John. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Broshi, Magen. "The Credibility of Josephus." Journal of Jewish Studies 33:1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1982):379-84.

Brotzman, Ellis R. "Man and the Meaning of Nephesh." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:580 (October-December 1988):400-9.

Brueggemann, W. "From Dust to Kingship." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84 (1972):1-18.

_____. Genesis. Interpretation series. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Bury, J. B.; S. A. Cook; and F. E. Adcock, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols. 2nd ed. reprinted. Cambridge: University Press, 1928.

Busenitz, Irvin A. "Woman's Desire for Man: Genesis 3:16 Reconsidered." Grace Theological Journal 7:2 (Fall 1986):203-12.

Bush, George. Notes on Genesis. New York: Ivison, Phinney & Co., 1860; reprint ed., 2 vols., Minneapolis: James and Klock Publishing Co., 1976.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis. Translated by John King. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1948.

_____. Genesis. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

Campbell, Donald K. "Passing the Test." Kindred Spirit 9:2 (Summer 1985):9-10.

Cardona, Dwardu. "Jupiter--God of Abraham (Part III)." Kronos 8:1 (Fall 1982):63-77.

Carmichael, Calum M. "Forbidden Mixtures." Vetus Testamentum 32:4 (1982):394-415.

Carnell, Edward John. An Introduction to Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1948.

Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part II. From Noah to Abraham, Genesis VI:9--XI:32. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964.

Caylor, Duane K. "Capital Punishment, a different Christian perspective." Reformed Journal 36:7 (July 1986):10-12.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947.

Chalmers, Thomas. Posthumous Works of the Rev. Thomas Chalmers. Vol. 1: Daily Scripture Readings. Edinburgh: Sutherland and Knox, 1851.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. "Evidence from Genesis." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 35-54. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Chitwood, Arlen L. Judgment Seat of Christ. Norman, Okla.: The Lamp Broadcast, Inc., 1986.

"Cities of the Dead Sea Plain." Buried History. 18:3 (September 1982):35-48.

Clifford, Richard J. "Cosmogonies in the Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible." Orientalia 53:2 (1984):183-201.

Clines, David J. A. The Theme of the Pentateuch. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament supplement series, no. 10. Sheffield, England: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1978.

Coats, George W. Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature. Forms of Old Testament Literature series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Cole, Timothy J. "Enoch, a Man Who Walked with God." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:591 (July-September 1991):288-97.

Cooper, Robert M. "Capital Punishment: Helplessness and Power." Encounter 46:2 (Spring 1985):163-75.

Cottrell, Jack. "The Doctrine of Creation from Nothing." Seminary Review 29:4 (December 1983):157-74.

Cox, Raymond L. "What Made Abraham Laugh?" Eternity, November 1975, pp. 19-20.

Cryer, Frederick H. "The Interrelationships of Gen. 5, 32; 11, 10-11 and the Chronology of the Flood." Biblica 66:2 (1985):241-61.

Cummings, Violet M. Has Anybody Really Seen Noah's Ark? San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1982.

Curtis, Edward M. "Structure, Style and Context as a Key to Interpreting Jacob's Encounter at Peniel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:2 (June 1987):129-37.

Custance, Arthur C. Without Form and Void. Brockville, Ont.: By the author, or Doorway Papers, 1970.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. Revised ed. 5 vols. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Daube, D. Studies in Biblical Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947.

Davis, John J. "The Camel in Biblical Narratives." In A Tribute to Gleason Archer, pp. 141-52. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

_____. Paradise to Prison. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975.

Davis, M. Stephen. "Polygamy in the Ancient World." Biblical Illustrator 14:1 (Fall 1987):34-36.

_____. "Stories of the Fall in the Ancient Near East." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):37-40.

de Chardin, Pierre Teilhard. The Phenomenon of Man. New York: Harper and Row, 1959.

DeHaan, Martin Ralph. 508 Answers to Bible Questions. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1952.

Delitzsch, Franz. A New Commentary on Genesis. 6th ed. 2 vols. Translated by Sophia Taylor. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888-89.

_____. A System of Biblical Psychology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988; reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.

de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. 2 vols. Translated by John McHugh. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

Dever, William G. "Beersheba." Biblical Illustrator, Spring 1983, pp. 56-62.

Diakonoff, I. M. "Women in Old Babylonia Not Under Patriarchal Authority." Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 29:3 (October 1984):225-38.

Diamond, J. A. "The Deception of Jacob: A New Perspective on an Ancient Solution to the Problem." Vetus Testamentum 34:2 (1984):211-13.

Dickason, C. Fred. Angels, Elect and Evil. Chicago: Moody Press, 1975.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Waters Above: Earth's Pre-Flood Vapor Canopy. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981.

Dods, Marcus. The Book of Genesis. The Expositor's Bible series. New York: George H. Coran Co., n.d.

Dresner, Samuel. "Rachel and Leah: Sibling Tragedy or the Triumph of Piety and Compassion?" Bible Review 6:2 (April 1990):22-27, 40-42.

Driver, G. R. and John C. Miles, eds. and trans. The Babylonian Laws. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952-55.

Driver, S. R. Book of Genesis. Westminster Commentaries series. London: Methuen, 1904.

Dumbrell, William J. Covenant and Creation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

Ellis, Peter F. The Yahwist: the Bible's First Theologian. London: G. Chapman, 1969.

Ellul, J. The Meaning of the City. Translated by D. Pardee. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970.

England, Donald. A Christian View of Origins. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

Erdman, Charles R. The Book of Genesis. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1950.

Erlandsson, Seth. "Faith in the Old and New Testaments: Harmony or Disagreement?" Concordia Theological Quarterly 47:1 (January-March 1983):1-14.

Eslinger, L. "A Contextual Identification of the bene ha'elohim and benoth ha'adam in Genesis 6:1-4." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 13 (1979):65-73.

Evans, Carl D. "The Patriarch Jacob--An Innocent Man.'" Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1985):32-37.

Exum, J. Cheryl. "The Mothers of Israel: The Patriarchal Narratives from a Feminist Perspective." Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1986):60-67.

Exum, J. Cheryl and J. William Whedbee. "Isaac, Samson, and Saul: Reflections on the Comic and Tragic Visions." Semeia 32 (1884):5-40.

Family Life Conference. Little Rock, Ark.: Family Ministry, 1990.

Fawver, Jay D. and R. Larry Overstreet. "Moses and Preventive Medicine." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:587 (July-September 1990):270-85.

Feinberg, Charles Lee. "The Image of God." Bibliotheca Sacra 129:515 (July-September 1972):235-46.

Figart, Thomas O. A Biblical Perspective on the Race Problem. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973.

Filby, Frederick A. Creation Revealed. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963.

Finley, Thomas J. "Dimensions of the Hebrew Word for Create' (bara)." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:592 (October-December 1991):409-23.

Fishbane, Michael. "Composition and Structure in the Jacob Cycle (Gen. 25:19-35:22)." Journal of Jewish Studies 26:1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1975):15-38.

_____. Text and Texture. New York: Schocken, 1979.

Fisher, Loren R. "Abraham and His Priest-King." Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962):264-70.

_____. "An Amarna Age Prodigal." Journal of Semitic Studies 3:2 (April 1958):113-22.

Foh, Susan T. "What Is the Woman's Desire?" Westminster Theological Journal 37:3 (Spring 1975):376-83.

_____. Women and the Word of God. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1979.

Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art in Genesis. Assen, Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1975.

Foster, Harry. "Jacob. Walking with a Limp." Toward the Mark, September-October 1982, pp. 97-100.

Fouts, David M. "Peleg in Gen 10:25." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:1 (March 1998):17-21.

Frame, Randy. "The Strange Case of Steven Linscott." Christianity Today, February 4, 1983, pp. 42-45, 47.

Frankfort, Henri. Ancient Egyptian Religion. New York: Columbia University Press, 1948; reprint ed. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Harper Torchbooks, 1961.

Freedman, R. David. "A New Approach to the Nuzi Sistership Contract." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 2:2 (Summer 1970):77-85.

_____. "Put Your Hand Under My Thigh'--The Patriarchal Oath." Biblical Archaeology Review 2:2 (June 1976):3-4, 42.

_____. "Woman, A Power Equal to Man." Biblical Archaeology Review 9:1 (January-February 1983):56-58.

Friedman, Richard Elliott. "Deception for Deception." Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1986):22-31, 68.

Gage, Warren. "The Eschatological Structure of Genesis." Paper written in Tubingen, W. Germany, November 18, 1979.

Gardener, R. F. R. Abortion: The Personal Dilemma. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972.

Gardner, Joseph L., ed. Reader's Digest Atlas of the Bible. Pleasantville, N.Y.: Reader's Digest Association, 1985.

Geisler, Normal L. "Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:1 (March 1999):3-19.

Geller, Stephen A. "The Struggle at the Jabbok: the Uses of Enigma in a Biblical Narrative." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 14 (1982):37-60.

Gish, Duane T. "Evolution--A Philosophy, Not a Science." Good News Broadcaster, March 1984, pp. 34-37.

Golka, Friedemann. "The Aetiologies in the Old Testament." Vetus Testamentum 26:4 (October 1976):410-28; and 27:1 (January 1977):36-47.

Gordon, Cyrus H. "Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets." Biblical Archaeologist 3:1 (February 1940):1-12.

Grassi, Joseph A. "Abba, Father (Mark 14:36): Another Approach." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50:3 (September 1982):449-58.

Gray, Elmer L. "Capital Punishment in the Ancient Near East." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):65-67.

Grayson, A. K., and J. Van Seters. "The Childless Wife in Assyria and the Stories of Genesis." Orientalia 44:4 (1975):485-86.

Green, William Henry. "Primeval Chronology." In Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, pp. 13-28. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

Greenberg, Blu. "Marriage in the Jewish Tradition." Journal of Ecumenical Studies 22:1 (Winter 1985):3-20.

Greenberg, M. "Another Look at Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim." Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962):239-48.

Greengus, Samuel. "Sisterhood Adoption at Nuzi and the Wife- Sister' in Genesis." Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975):5-31.

Gronbock, Jakob H. "Baal's Battle with Yam--A Canaanite Creation Fight." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (October 1985):27-44.

Guinness, Oz. The Dust of Death. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1973.

Ham, Kenneth A. The Lie: Evolution. Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 1987.

_____. Genesis and the Decay of the Nations. Florence, Ky.: Answers in Genesis, 1991.

Ham, Ken; Andrew Snelling; and Carl Wieland. The Answers Book. Revised ed. Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 1990.

Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990.

_____. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Harbach, Robert C. Studies in the Book of Genesis. Grand Rapids: Grandville Protestant Reformed Church, 1986.

Harrison, R. K. "From Adam to Noah: A Reconsideration of the Antediluvian Patriarchs' Ages." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:2 (June 1994):161-68.

Harrison, William K. "The Origin of Sin." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:517 (January-March 1973):58-61.

Hasel, Gerhard F. "The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19 (1981):61-78.

_____. "The Sabbath in the Pentateuch." In The Sabbath in Scripture and History, pp. 21-43. Edited by Kenneth A. Strand. Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1982.

Hawkins, Kerry L. "The Theology of the Flood." Seminary Review 34:2 (December 1988):69-88.

Hays, J. Daniel. "The Cushites: A Black Nation in Ancient History." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):270-80.

_____. "The Cushites: A Black Nation in the Bible." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):396-409.

Hayward, James L. and Donald E Casebolt. "The Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11: A Statistical Study." Origins 9:2 (1982):75-81.

Heck, Joel D. "A History of Interpretation of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:585 (January-March 1990):16-31.

_____. "Issachar: Slave or Freeman? (Gen. 49:14-15)." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:4 (December 1986):385-96.

Heidel, Alexander. The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946.

Helyer, Larry R. "The Separation of Abram and Lot: Its Significance in the Patriarchal Narratives." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 26 (June 1983):77-88.

Hendel, Ronald S. "When the Sons of God Cavorted with the Daughters of Men." Bible Review 3:2 (Summer 1987):8-13, 37.

Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm. Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch. 2 vols. Translated by J. E. Ryland. Edinburgh: John B. Lowe and T. & T. Clark, 1847.

_____. Egypt and the Books of Moses. Translated by R. D. C. Robbins. Andover, Mass.: Allen, Morrill and Wardwell, 1843.

Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. 6 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1935.

Hens-Piazza, Gina. "A Theology of Ecology: God's Image and the Natural World." Biblical Theology Bulletin 13:4 (October 1983):107-10.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. Working with God: Scriptural Studies in Intercession. New York: Carlton Press, 1987.

Hindson, Edward E. The Philistines and the Old Testament. Baker Studies in Biblical Archaeology series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.

Hodges, Zane C. The Gospel Under Siege. Dallas: By the Author, Redencion Viva, P.O. Box 141167, 1981.

Hoehner, Harold W. "The Duration of the Egyptian Bondage." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):306-16.

Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. "The Linguistic Origins of Teraphim." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):230-38.

Holt, L., Jr. and R McIntosh. Holt Pediatrics. 12th ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953.

Horbury, W. "Extirpation and excommunication." Vetus Testamentum 35 (1985):13-38.

Horn, Siegfried H. Biblical Archaeology: A Generation of Discovery. Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1985.

Houtman, C. "What Did Jacob See In His Dream At Bethel?" Vetus Testamentum 27:3 (July 1977):337-51.

Howard, David M., Jr. "Sodom and Gomorrah Revisited." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:4 (December 1984):385-400.

Howe, Frederic R. "The Age of the Earth: An Appraisal of Some Current Evangelical Positions." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:565 (January-March 1985):23-37; 566 (April-June 1985):114-29.

Howe, George. "Carbon-14 and Other Radioactive Dating Methods." Caldwell, Idaho: Bible-Science Association, 1970.

Humphreys, D. Russell. Starlight and Time. Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 1994.

Humphreys, W. L. Joseph and His Family: A Literary Study. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina, 1988.

Hunter, Alastair G. "Father Abraham: A Structural and Theological Study of the Yahwist's Presentation of the Abraham Material." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35 (June 1986):3-27.

Hutchison, John C. "Darwin's Evolutionary Theory and 19th-Century Natural Theology." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):334-54.

Hyman, Ronald T. "Questions in the Joseph Story: The Effects and Their Implications for Teaching." Religious Education 79:3 (Summer 1984):437-55.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1939 ed. S.v. "Antedeluvian Patriarchs," by John D. Davis.

_____. S.v. "Raamses," by C. R. Conder.

Jackson, Thomas A. "Creation Stories of the Ancient Near East." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):20-25.

Jastrow, Robert. God and the Astronomers. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1978.

_____. Until the Sun Dies. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1977.

Jay, Nancy. "Sacrifice, Descent and the Patriarchs." Vetus Testamentum 38:1 (1988):52-70.

Jeske, John C. "The Gospel Adam and Eve Heard: Genesis 3:15." Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 81:3 (Summer 1984):182-84.

Johns, Warren H. "Strategies for Origins." Ministry, May 1981, pp. 26-28.

Johnson, Elliott E. "Premillennialism Introduced: Hermeneutics." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 15-34. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Jones, Peter. "Androgyny: The Pagan Sexual Ideal." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):443-69.

Jordan, James B. "Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion in the Book of Genesis." Christianity and Civilization 3 (Summer 1983):38-80.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. "The Literary Form of Genesis 1-11." In New Perspectives on the Old Testament, pp. 48-65. Waco: Word Books, 1970.

_____. "The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):135-50.

_____. "The Promised Land: A Biblical-Historical View." Bibliotheca Sacra 138:552 (October-December 1981):302-12.

_____. Toward an Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.

Karageorghis, Vassos. "Exploring Philistine Origins on the Island of Cyprus." Biblical Archaeology Review 10:2 (March-April 1984):16-28.

Kardimon, Samson. "Adoption As a Remedy For Infertility in the Period of the Patriarchs." Journal of Semitic Studies 3:2 (April 1958):123-26.

Keil, C. F. and Franz Delitzsch. The Pentateuch. 3 vols. Translated by James Martin. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Key, Thomas. "Does the Canopy Theory Hold Water?" Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 37:4 (December 1985):223-25.

Kidner, Derek. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1967.

Kitchen, K. A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1966.

_____. The Bible In Its World. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

_____. "The Old Testament in its Context: 1 From the Origins to the Event of the Exodus." Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 59 (1971):2-10.

_____. "The Old Testament in its Context 6." Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 64 (1972):2-10.

Klotz, John W. "A Creationist Environmental Ethic." Creation Research Society Quarterly 21:1 (June 1984):6-8.

_____. Genes, Genesis, and Evolution. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970.

_____. Modern Science in the Christian Life. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1961.

Kofahl, Robert E. and Kelly L Segraves. The Creation Explanation. Wheaton: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1975.

Labuschagne, Casper J. "The Pattern of the Divine Speech Formulas in the Pentateuch." Vetus Testamentum 32:3 (1982):268-96.

LaHaye, Tim F. and John D Morris. The Ark on Ararat. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1976.

Lane, David H. "Special Creation or Evolution: No Middle Ground." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):11-31.

_____. "Theological Problems with Theistic Evolution." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:602 (April-June 1994):155-74.

Lang, Bernhard. "Afterlife: Ancient Israel's Changing Vision of the World Beyond." Bible Review 4:1 (February 1988):12-23.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 1: Genesis-Leviticus, by John Peter Lange and Frederic Gardiner. Translated by Tayler Lewis, A. Gosman, and Charles M. Mead.

Larkin, Clarence. The Spirit World. Philadelphia: By the Author, 1921.

Larsson, Gerhard. "The Chronology of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the MT and LXX." Journal of Biblical Literature 102:3 (September 1983):401-9.

LaSor, William Sanford. "Biblical Creationism." Asbury Theological Journal 42:2 (1987):7-20.

Lawlor, John I. "The Test of Abraham: Genesis 22:1-19." Grace Theological Journal 1:1 (Spring 1980):19-35.

Lazenby, Henry F. "The Image of God: Masculine, Feminine, or Neuter?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:1 (March 1987):63-70.

Leupold, H. C. Exposition of Genesis. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942.

Lewis, Clive Staples. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1958.

Lewis, Jack P. "Noah and the Flood in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Tradition." Biblical Archaeologist 47:4 (December 1984):224-39.

_____. "The Offering of Abel (Gen 4:4): A History of Interpretation." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):481-96.

L'Heureux, Conrad. "The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim." Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974):265-74.

Livingston, G. Herbert. The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Loewen, Jacob A. "The Names of God in the Old Testament." The Bible Translator 35:2 (April 1984):201-7.

Longacre, R. E. Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1989.

Love, Vicky. Childless Is Not Less. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1984.

Lowenthal, E. I. The Joseph Narrative in Genesis. New York: Ktav, 1973.

Lucas, Ernest. "Miracles and natural laws." Christian ARENA 38:3 (September 1985):7-10.

Luke, K. "Esau's Marriage." Indian Theological Studies 25:2 (June 1988):171-90.

_____. "Two Birth Narratives in Genesis." Indian Theological Studies 17:2 (June 1980):154-80.

Luther, Martin. Luther's Commentary on Genesis. 2 vols. Translated by J. Theodore Mueller. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958.

_____. Luther's Works. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann. Vol. 7: Lectures on Genesis Chapters 38-44. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1965.

MacKenzie, Roderick A. F. "The Divine Soliloquies in Genesis." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (1955):277-86.

Mafico, T. J. "The Crucial Question Concerning the Justice of God." Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 42 (March 1983):11-16.

Malcolm, David. "The Seven-Day Cycle." Creation Ex Nihilo 9:2 (March 1987):32-35.

Mann, Thomas. "Jacob Takes a Bride." Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1986):52-59.

_____. Joseph and His Brothers. New York: Knopf, 1948.

March, Frank Lewis. Studies in Creationism. Washington: Review and Herald, 1950.

Martin, Jobe. The Evolution of a Creationist. Revised ed. Rockwall, Tex.: Biblical Discipleship Publishers, 1996.

Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1-11:26. New American Commentary series. N.c.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996.

Mathewson, Steven D. "Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming Old Testament Narratives." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (October-December 1997):410-35.

Mattingly, Gerald L. "The Early Bronze Age Sites of Central and Southern Moab." Near Eastern Archaeological Society Bulletin 23 (Spring 1984):69-98.

Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistle of St. James. Revised 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan and Co., 1913; reprint ed. Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1977.

McGee, J. Vernon. Ruth: The Romance of Redemption. 1943. Reprint ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1981.

McIlwain, William J., Jr. "My Ways Are Not Your Ways." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):92-100.

McKenzie, Brian Alexander. "Jacob's Blessing of Pharaoh: An Interpretation of Gen 46:31-47:26." Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983):386-99.

Mehlman, Bernard. "Genesis 31:19-39: An Interpretation." Journal of Reform Judaism 29:3 (Summer 1982):33-36.

Mendelsohn, I. "On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 156 (December 1959):38-40.

Mennen, Doug. "How the Wise Man Overcomes Temptation." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):83-91.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Ebla and Biblical Historical Inerrancy." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:550 (October-December 1983):302-21.

_____. "Fixed Dates in Patriarchal Chronology." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:547 (July-September 1980):241-51.

_____. Kingdom of Priests. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

_____. "The Peoples of the Old Testament according to Genesis 10." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:613 (January-March 1997):3-22.

_____. "Rashi, Nicholas de Lyra, and Christian Exegesis." Westminster Theological Journal 38:1 (Fall 1975):66-79.

_____. "A Theology of the Pentateuch." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 7-87. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Milgrom, Jacob. Numbers. JPS Torah Commentary series. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990.

_____. "Religious Conversion and the Revolt Model for the Formation of Israel." Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982):169-76.

Millikin, Jimmy A. "The Origin of Death." Mid-America Theological Journal 7:2 (Winter 1983):17-22.

Mills, M. S. "A Comparison of the Genesis and Lukan Genealogies (The Case for Cainan)." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978.

Mills, Watson E. "Sons of God: The Roman View." Biblical Illustrator, Fall 1983, pp. 37-39.

Miscall, Peter D. "The Jacob and Joseph Stories as Analogies." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 6 (February 1978):28-40.

_____. The Workings of Old Testament Narrative. Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Chico, Ca: Scholars Press, 1983.

Mixter, Russell Lowell, ed. Evolution and Christian Thought Today. 1st ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959.

_____. "A Letter to President Edman, March 26, 1962." Bulletin of Wheaton College, May 1962, pp. 4-5.

Monson, James M. The Land Between. Jerusalem: By the Author: P.O. Box 1276, 1983.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morganstern, J. "The Book of the Covenant, Part III--The Huqqim." Hebrew Union College Annual 8-9 (1931-32):1-150.

Morris, Henry M. "Biblical Catastrophism and Modern Science." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:498 (April-June 1968):107-15.

_____. "Biblical Creationism and Modern Science." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):20-28.

_____. "The Gap Theory." Creation Ex Nihilo. 10:1 (December 1987-February 1988):35-37.

_____. The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976.

_____. "Looking At the Original Kinds." Creation Ex Nihilo 10:4 (November 1988):15-16.

_____. Science, Scripture and the Young Earth. El Cajon, Calif.: Institute for Creation Research, 1983.

Morris, John D. The Young Earth. Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 1994.

Morris, Leon. The Wages of Sin. London: Tyndale Press, 1954.

Morrison, Martha A. "The Jacob and Laban Narrative in Light of Near Eastern Sources." Biblical Archaeologist 46:3 (Summer 1983):155-62.

Morrow, Lance. "In the Beginning: God and Science." Time 113 (Feb. 5, 1979), 149-50.

Morton, Glenn R. "The Carbon Problem." Creation Research Society Quarterly 20:4 (March 1984):212-19.

Muffs, Yochanan. "Abraham the Noble Warrior: Patriarchal Politics and Laws of War in Ancient Israel." Journal of Jewish Studies 33:1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1982):81-107.

Muilenburg, James. "The Birth of Benjamin." Journal of Biblical Literature 75 (1956):194-201.

Mulzac, Kenneth. "Genesis 9:1-7: Its Theological Connections with the Creation Motif." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):65-77.

Myers, Ellen. "God's Sabbath Rest--Man's Created Destiny." Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly 7:3 (Spring 1985):11-14.

New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed. S.v. "Amorites," by A. R. Millard.

_____. S.v. "Mining and Metals," by A. Stuart.

_____. S.v. "Rephaim," by T. C. Mitchell.

New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, 1970 ed. S.v. "Chronology."

Newman, Robert C. and Herman J Eckelmann. Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

Nichol, Francis David, ed. The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary. 7 vols. Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc., 1953-57.

Nicol, George G. "Genesis XXIX. 32 and XXXV. 22a: Reuben's Reversal." Journal of Theological Studies 31:2 (October 1980):536-39.

Noble, C. S. and J. J Naughton. "Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas Content and Uncertainties in Age Dating." Science 162 (Oct. 11, 1968):265-67.

O'Brien, J. Randall. "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):60-65.

Olson, Everett C. "The Role of Paleontology in the Formulation of Evolutionary Thought." Bioscience 16:1 (January 1966):37-40.

Pappas, Harry S. "Deception as Patriarchal Self-Defense in a Foreign Land: A Form Critical Study of the Wife-Sister Stories in Genesis." Greek Orthodox Theological Review 29:1 (Spring 1984):35-50.

Parker, Gary. Creation Facts of Life. Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 1994.

Parker, Joseph. The People's Bible. Vol. 1: The Book of Genesis. New York: Funk & Wagnalls Publishers, 1890.

"The Patriarchs' Wives as Sisters--Is the Anchor Bible Wrong?" Biblical Archaeology Review 1:3 (September 1975):22-26.

Patten, Donald W. "The Biblical Flood: A Geographical Perspective." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:509 (January-March 1971):36-49.

Patterson, Richard D. "The Old Testament Use of an Archetype: The Trickster." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:3 (September 1999):385-94

Pember, George Hawkins. Earth's Earliest Ages and Their Connection with Modern Spiritualism and Theosophy. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., n.d.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Prophecy for Today. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Peterson, Everett H. "Prehistory and the Tower of Babel." Creation Research Society Quarterly 19:2 (September 1982):87-90.

Pettinato, Giovanni. "The Royal Archives of Tell Mardekh-Ebla." Biblical Archaeologist 39 (May 1976):44-52.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. Ras Shamra and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962.

Pfeiffer, Charles F., and Howard F Vos. The Wycliffe Historical Geography of Bible Lands. Chicago: Moody Press, 1967.

Phillips, Anthony. Ancient Israel's Criminal Law. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970.

_____. "Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-Exilic Israel." Vetus Testamentum 23:3 (July 1973):349-61.

Pieters, Albertus. Old Testament History. Vol. 1: Notes on Genesis. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1943.

Pink, Arthur W. Gleanings in Genesis. 1922; reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1950.

Polzin, Robert. "The Ancestress of Israel in Danger' in Danger." Semeia 3 (1975):81-98.

Poverello, Robert M. "The Angels at Sodom and Genesis Rabbah: A Study in Midrash." Exegesis and Exposition. 3:1 (Fall 1988):61-62.

Pritchard, James B., ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969.

"The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law." Buried History 5:4 (December 1969):106-14.

Pun, Pattle P. T. "A Theology of Progressive Creationism." Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 39:1 (March 1987):9-19.

Rabinowitz, Isaac. "Sarah's Wish (Gen. XXI 6-7)." Vetus Testamentum 29 (July 1979):362-63.

Ramm, Bernard. The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954.

Ramsey, George W. "Is Name-Giving an Act of Domination in Genesis 2:23 and Elsewhere?" Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 50:1 (January 1988):24-35.

Ray, J. D. "Two Etymologies: Ziklag and Phicol." Vetus Testamentum 36:3 (July 1986):355-61.

Rendall, Ted S. "Using the Creation Account for Maximum Spiritual Profit." Prairie Overcomer 60:8 (September 1987):3-5, 22.

Rendsburg, Gary A. "Notes on Genesis XXXV." Vetus Testamentum 34:3 (July 1984):361-65.

Rice, Stanley. "Botanical and Ecological Objections to a Preflood Water Canopy." Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 37:4 (December 1985):225-29.

Rimmer, Harry. Modern Science and the Genesis Record. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941.

Robertson, O. Palmer. "Current Critical Questions Concerning the Curse of Ham' (Gen 9:20-27)." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:2 (June 1998):177-88.

Robinson, Haddon. Leadership 3:1 (Winter 1982), p. 104.

Robinson, Robert B. "Literary Functions of the Genealogies of Genesis." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (October 1986):595-608.

Roehrs, Walter R. "Divine Covenants: Their Structure and Function." Concordia Journal 14:1 (January 1988):7-27.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Covenant with Abraham and Its Historical Setting." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:507 (July-September 1970):241-56.

Rooker, Mark F. "Genesis 1:1-3: Creation or Re-Creation?" Bibliotheca Sacra 149:595 (July-September 1992):316-23; and 596 (October-December 1992):411-27.

Ross, Allan P. Creation and Blessing. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

_____. "The Curse of Canaan." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:547 (July-September 1980):223-40.

_____. "The Daughters of Lot and the Daughter-in-Law of Judah: Hubris or Faith in the Struggle for Women's Rights." Exegesis and Exposition. 2:1 (Summer 1987):71-82.

_____. "The Dispersion of the Nations in Genesis 11:1-9." Bibliotheca Sacra 138:550 (April-June 1981):119-38.

_____. "Genesis." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 15-101. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

_____. "Jacob at the Jabbok, Israel at Peniel." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:568 (October-December 1985):338-54.

_____. "Jacob's Vision: The Founding of Bethel." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:567 (July-September 1985):224-37.

_____. "Noah--'This One Shall Comfort Us.'" Exegesis and Exposition. 3:1 (Fall 1988):71-82.

_____. "The Table of Nations in Genesis 10--Its Content." Bibliotheca Sacra 138:549 (January-March 1981):22-34.

_____. "The Table of Nations in Genesis 10--Its Structure." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:548 (October-December 1980):340-53.

Ross, Hugh N. Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994.

Roth, Ariel A. "Evidences for a Worldwide Flood." Ministry, May 1984, pp. 12-13.

Roth, Wolfgang M. W. "The Wooing of Rebekah: A Tradition-Critical Study of Genesis 24." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972):177-87.

Rowley, Harold H. "Recent Discovery and the Patriarchal Age." In The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Revised. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965.

Ruble, Richard L. "The Doctrine of Dreams." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:500 (October-December 1968):360-64.

Ryrie, Charles C. "The Bible and Evolution." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:493 (January-March 1967):66-78.

_____. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

_____. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

_____. "The Doctrine of Capital Punishment." Bibliotheca Sacra 129:515 (July-September 1972):211-17.

_____. You Mean the Bible Teaches That . . . Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Sailhamer, John H. "Exegetical Notes: Genesis 1:1-2:4a." Trinity Journal 5 NS:1 (Spring 1984):73-82.

_____. "Genesis." In Genesis-Numbers. Vol. 2 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990.

_____. "The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:1 (March 2001):5-23.

_____. "The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch." Westminster Theological Journal 53 (Fall 1991):241-61.

_____. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Salkin, Jeffrey K. "Dinah, The Torah's Forgotten Woman," Judaism 35:3 (Summer 1986):284-89.

Samuel, Maurice. Certain People of the Book. New York: Knopf, 1955.

_____. "Joseph--The Brilliant Failure." Bible Review 2:1 (Summer 1986):38-51, 68.

Sarna, Nahum M. "Abraham in History." Biblical Archaeology Review 3 (December 1977):5-9.

_____. Understanding Genesis. 1st ed. Heritage of Biblical Israel series, no. 1. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1966.

Sasson, J. "The Tower of Babel' As a Clue to the Redactional Structuring of the Primeval History [Gen 1-11:9]." In The Bible World: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon, pp. 211-19. Edited by Gary Rendsburg, et al. New York: Ktav, 1980.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Sauer, Erich E. The King of the Earth. Translated by Michael Bolister. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Scalise, Pamela J. "The Significance of Curses and Blessings." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):57-59.

Schaeffer, Edith. "What Is My Mess of Pottage?" Christianity Today 19:12 (March 14, 1975):50-51.

Schaeffer, Francis A. Genesis in Time and Space. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1972.

Schaub, R. Thomas and Walter E Rast. "Preliminary Report of the 1981 Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 254 (Spring 1984):35-60.

Schneider, Hermann. "Did the Universe Start Out Structured?" Creation Research Society Quarterly 21:3 (December 1984):119-23.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Seaver, William L. "A Statistical Analysis of the Genesis Life- Spans." Creation Research Society Quarterly 20:2 (September 1983):80-87.

Seebass, Horst. "The Joseph Story, Genesis 48 and the Canonical Process." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35 (June 1986):29-43.

Segal, Moses Hirsch. The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Its Authorship and Other Biblical Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967.

Selman, M. J. "The Social Environment of the Patriarchs." Tyndale Bulletin 27 (1976):114-36.

Shapiro, Marc. "The Silence of Joseph." Journal of Reform Judaism 36:1 (Winter 1989):13-17.

Sharp, Donald B. "In Defense of Rebecca." Biblical Theology Bulletin 10:4 (October 1980):164-68.

Shea, William H. "Literary Structural Parallels between Genesis 1 and 2." Origins 16:2(1989):49-68.

Shehadeh, Imad N. "Contrasts between Eastern and Western Culture." Exegesis and Exposition 2:1 (Summer 1987):3-12.

Shelley, Marshall. "The Death Penalty: Two Sides of a Growing Issue." Christianity Today, March 2, 1984, pp. 14-17.

Shepperson, Vance L. "Jacob's Journey: From Narcissism toward Wholeness." Journal of Psychology and Theology 12:3 (1984):178-87.

Sherlock, Charles. "Creationism, Creation and Scripture." Interchange 35 (1984):17-32.

Simons, J. The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1959.

Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930.

Slusher, Harold S. Critique of Radiometric Dating. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1973.

Smith, Gary V. "The Concept of God/the Gods as King in the Ancient Near East and the Bible." Trinity Journal 3:NS (1982):18-38.

Smith, William Robertson. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. 3rd ed. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1969.

Speiser, Ephraim A., ed. Genesis. 1st ed. Translated by E. A. Speiser. Anchor Bible series, no. 1. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964.

_____. "I Know Not the Day of My Death.'" Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955):252-65.

Sprinkle, Joe M. "Old Testament Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:4 (December 1997):529-50.

Stahr, James A. "The Death Penalty." Interest, March 1984, pp. 2-3.

Sterchi, David A. "Does Genesis 1 Provide a Chronological Sequence?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:4 (December 1996):529-36.

Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1985.

Stevens, R. Paul. "Family Feud." His 42:3 (December 1981):18-20.

Stigers, Harold G. A Commentary on Genesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Strickling, James E. "The Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues." Kronos 8:1 (Fall 1982):53-62.

Student Map Manual. Jerusalem: Pictorial Archive (Near Eastern History) Est., 1979.

Sutherland, Dixon. "The Organization of the Abraham Promise Narratives." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 95:3 (1983):337-43.

Tabick, Jacqueline. "The Snake in the Grass: The Problems of Interpreting a Symbol in the Hebrew Bible and Rabbinic Writings." Religion 16 (April 1986):155-67.

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. 1980. S.v. "dor," by Robert D. Culver, 1:186-87.

Thiselton, A. C. "The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings." Journal of Theological Studies NS25:2 (October 1972):283-99.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Genesis. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Thompson, Henry. O. "The Biblical Ammonites." Bible and Spade 11:1 (Winter 1982):1-14.

Throntveit, Mark. "Are the Events in the Genesis Account Set Forth in Chronological Order? No." In The Genesis Debate, pp. 36-55. Edited by Ronald F. Youngblood. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986.

Thurman, L. Duane. How to Think About Evolution & Other Bible-Science Controversies. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1978.

Townsend, Jeffrey L. "Fulfillment of the Land Promise in the Old Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:568 (October-December 1985):320-37.

Tsevat, Matitiahu. "Studies in the Book of Samuel" Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961):191-216.

_____. "Two Old Testament Stories (Gen. 32:23-32 and Judg. 10:1-5; 12:7-15) and their Hittite Analogies." Journal of the American Oriental Society 103:1 (January-March 1983):321-26.

Ukleja, P. Michael. "Homosexuality and the Old Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:559 (July-September 1983):259-66.

Van Bebber, Mark; and Paul S Taylor. Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross. Second ed. Mesa, Ariz.: Eden Communications, 1995.

Van Seters, John. "Jacob's Marriages and Ancient Near East Customs: A Reexamination." Harvard Theological Review 62:4 (October 1969):377-95.

_____. "The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel." Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968):401-408.

Vawter, Bruce. On Genesis: A New Reading. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977.

von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis. Translated by John H. Marks. Revised ed. The Old Testament Library series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972.

Vos, Gerhardus. Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954.

Vos, Howard F. Genesis. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Walsh, J. T. "Genesis 2:4b-3:24: A Synchronic Approach." Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977):161-77.

Waltke, Bruce K. "Cain and His Offering." Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):363-72.

_____. "The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:525 (January-March 1975):25-36; 526 (April-June 1975):136-144; 527 (July-September 1975):216-228; 528 (October-December 1975):327-342; 133:529 (January-March 1976):28-41.

_____. Creation and Chaos. Portland, Oreg.: Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1974.

_____. "Reflections from the Old Testament on Abortion." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19:1 (Winter 1976):3-13.

Walvoord, John F. "The New Covenant." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 186-200. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Warfield, B. B. "On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race." Princeton Theological Review 9:1 (January 1911):1-25.

Wcela, Emil A. "The Abraham Stories, History and Faith." Biblical Theology Bulletin 10 (October 1970):176-81.

Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Weir, C. J. Mullo, "The Alleged Hurrian Wife-Sister Motif in Genesis." Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society 2:22 (1967-68):14-25.

Weisman, Z. "National Consciousness in the Patriarchal Promises." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31 (February 1985):55-73.

Wenham, Gordon J. "The Coherence of the Flood Narrative." Vetus Testamentum 28:3 (1978):336-48.

_____. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

_____. Genesis 15-50. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1994.

_____. "The Symbolism of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15: A Response to G. F. Hasel, JSOT 19 (1981):61-78." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 22 (1982):134-37.

Wenham, John W. "Christ's View of Scripture." In Inerrancy, pp. 3-36. Edited by Norman L. Geisler. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980.

West, Stuart A. "The Nuzi Tablets." Bible and Spade 10:3-4 (Summer-Autumn 1981):65-73.

Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-11: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984.

_____. Genesis 12-36: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985.

_____. Genesis 37-50: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986.

_____. "Promises to the Patriarchs." In The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible Supplement Volume, pp. 690-93. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. New York: Abingdon, 1962.

Whitcomb, John C., Jr. The Early Earth. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

_____. Esther: The Triumph of God's Sovereignty. Everyman's Bible Commentary series; Chicago: Moody Press, 1979.

Whitcomb, John C., and Donald B DeYoung. Review of The Waters Above: Earth's Pre-Flood Vapor Canopy, by Joseph C. Dillow. Grace Theological Journal 3:1 (Spring 1982):123-32.

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M Morris. The Genesis Flood. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968.

White, Hugh C. "The Divine Oath in Genesis." Journal of Biblical Literature 92:2 (June 1973):165-79.

_____. "The Joseph Story: A Narrative that Consumes' Its Content." Semeia 31 (1985):49-69.

Whybray, R. Norman. Introduction to the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Williams, John. "Joseph's Wardrobe." Harvester 64:7 (July 1985):19, 21.

Willis, David L. "Creation and/or Evolution." Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 29:2 (June 1977):68-72.

Wilson, R. R. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1977.

Wiseman, Donald J. "Abraham in History and Tradition. Part I: Abraham the Hebrew." Bibliotheca Sacra 134:534 (April-June 1977):123-30.

_____. "Abraham in History and Tradition. Part II: Abraham the Prince." Bibliotheca Sacra 134-535 (July-September 1977):228-37.

Witmer, John A. "The Doctrine of Miracles." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):126-34.

Wonderly, Daniel E. God's Time-Records in Ancient Sediments. Flint, Mich.: Crystal Press, 1977.

Wood, Bryant G. "Journey Down the Jabbok." Bible and Spade, Spring 1978, pp. 57-64.

Wood, Leon. A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Woodmorappe, John. "A Diluviological Treatise on the Stratigraphic Separation of Fossils." Creation Research Society Quarterly 20:3 (December 1983):133-85.

Woudstra, Martin H. "The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-Historical Significance." Calvin Theological Journal 5:2 (1970):184-89.

Wright, Chris. "Corruption and Dishonesty: An Old Testament Perspective." TRACI Journal 29 (April-September 1985):4-20.

_____. "Intercession or Irritation?" Third Way, February 1983, pp. 18-19.

Wright, David F. "Woman Before and After the Fall: a comparison of Luther's and Calvin's interpretation of Genesis 1-3." Churchman 98:2 (1984):126-35.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Anthropomorphism in Ancient Religion." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):29-44.

_____. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):24-152.

Young, Davis A. Christianity and the Age of the Earth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

_____. Creation and the Flood. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.

Young, Edward J. Genesis 3. London: Banner of Truth, 1966.

_____. In the Beginning. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976.

_____. Studies in Genesis One. International Library of Philosophy and Theology series in Biblical and Theological Studies. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1973.

Youngblood, Clark. "Wells." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):41-49.

Zimmerli, Walther. "Abraham." Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 6 (1978):49-60.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, 1975 ed. S.v. "River of Egypt," by Bruce K. Waltke.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Genesis (Book Introduction)

THE BOOK OF GENESIS.

INTRODUCTION.

The Hebrews now entitle all the Five Books of Moses, from the initial words, which originally were written like one continued word or verse; but the Septuagint have preferred to give the titles the most memorable occurrences of each work. On this occasion, the Creation of all things out of nothing, strikes us with peculiar force. We find a refutation of all the heathenish mythology, and of the world's eternity, which Aristotle endeavoured to establish. We behold the short reign of innocence, and the origin of sin and misery, the dispersion of nations, and the providence of God watching over his chosen people, till the death of Joseph, about the year of the world 2369 (Usher) 2399 (Salien and Tirinus), the year before Christ 1631. We shall witness the same care in the other Books of Scripture, and adore his wisdom and goodness in preserving to himself faithful witnesses, and a true Holy Catholic Church, in all ages, even when the greatest corruption seemed to overspread the land. (Haydock)

----------------------------------------

This Book is so called from its treating of the Generation, that is, of the Creation and the beginning of the world. The Hebrews call it Bereshith, from the word with which it begins. It contains not only the History of the Creation of the World, but also an account of its progress during the space of 2369 years, that is, until the death of Joseph.

Gill: Genesis (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO GENESIS

This book, in the Hebrew copies of the Bible, and by the Jewish writers, is generally called Bereshith, which signifies "in the beginning", being the first word of it; as the other four books of Moses are also called from their initial words. In the Syriac and Arabic versions, the title of this book is "The Book of the Creation", because it begins with an account of the creation of all things; and is such an account, and so good an one, as is not to be met with anywhere else: the Greek version calls it Genesis, and so we and other versions from thence; and that because it treats of the generation of all things, of the heavens, and the earth, and all that are in them, and of the genealogy of men: it treats of the first men, of the patriarchs before the flood, and after it to the times of Joseph. It is called the "first" book of Moses, because there are four more that follow; the name the Jewish Rabbins give to the whole is חמשה חומשי תורה, "the five fifths of the law", to which the Greek word "pentateuch" answers; by which we commonly call these books, they being but one volume, consisting of five parts, of which this is the first. And that they were all written by Moses is generally believed by Jews and Christians. Some atheistical persons have suggested the contrary; our countryman Hobbes ^a would have it, that these books are called his, not from his being the author of them, but from his being the subject of them; not because they were written by him, but because they treat of him: but certain it is that Moses both wrote them, and was read, as he was in the Jewish synagogues, every sabbath day, which can relate to no other writings but these, Joh 1:45. And Spinosa, catching at some doubts raised by Aben Ezra on Deu 1:1 concerning some passages which seemed to him to have been added by another hand, forms objections against Moses being the author of the book of Genesis; which are sufficiently answered by Carpzovius ^b. Nor can Ezra be the author of the Pentateuch, as Spinosa suspects; since it is plain these writings were in being before his time, in the times of Josiah, Amaziah, yea, of David, and also of Joshua, 2Ch 34:14 nay, they are even referred to in the book of Ezra as the writings of Moses, Ezr 3:2 to which may be added, in proof of the same, Deu 31:9. Nor are there any other writings of his authentic; what are ascribed to him, as the Analepsis of Moses, his Apocalypse, and his Last Will and Testament, are apocryphal. That this book of Genesis particularly was written by him, is evident from the testimony of Philip, and even of our Lord Jesus Christ, who both testify that he wrote concerning the Messiah, Joh 1:45 as he did in this book, where he speaks of him as the seed of the woman that should break the serpent's head; as the seed of Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed; and as the Shiloh, to whom the gathering of the people should be, Gen 3:15. Nor is there any reason to believe that he wrote this book from the annals of the patriarchs, since it does not appear, nor is it very probable, that they had any; nor from traditions delivered down from one to another, from father to son, which is more probable, considering the length of the lives of the patriarchs: but yet such a variety of particulars respecting times, places, persons, their genealogies and circumstances, so nicely and exactly given, can scarcely be thought to be the fruit of memory; and much less is it to be imagined that he was assisted in it by Gabriel, when he lived in solitude in Midian: but it is best of all to ascribe it to divine inspiration, as all Scripture is by the apostle, 2Ti 3:16 for who else but God could have informed him of the creation, and the manner and order in which every creature was brought into being, with a multitude of things recorded in this book? the design of which is to lead men into the knowledge and worship of the one true God, the Creator of all things, and of the origin of mankind, the fall of our first parents, and their posterity in them; and to point at the means and method of the recovery of man by the Messiah, the promised seed; and to give an account of the state and case of the church of God, in the times of the patriarchs, both before and after the flood, from Adam, in the line of Seth, to Noah; and from Noah to the times of Joseph, in whose death it ends: and, according to Usher ^c, it contains an history of two thousand, three hundred, and sixty nine years.

Gill: Genesis 11 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO GENESIS 11

This chapter gives an account of the inhabitants of the earth before the confusion of tongues at Babel, of their speech and language, which was one and the same, and of the place where they dwelt, Gen 11:1 and of their design to build a city and tower, to make them a name and keep them together, which they put in execution, Gen 11:3 of the notice the Lord took of this affair, and of the method he took to put a stop to their designs, by confounding their speech, and dispersing them abroad upon the face of the earth, Gen 11:5 then follows a genealogy of Shem's posterity down to Abraham, Gen 11:10 and a particular relation is given of Terah, the father of Abraham, and his family, and of his going forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, in order to go into the land of Canaan, and of his death at Haran by the way, Gen 11:27.