Gleanings from Genesis Lesson 2 Part 7 the Babel Dispersion

Doc Notes Gleanings from Genesis Lesson 2 Part 7 the Babel Dispersion

 

                 

Gentle Reader,

 

We might add just another word about the Noachian Flood before we continue to look at the Babel Dispersion. And that is the Noachian Flood should not be confused with the prehistoric flood of which our geologist speak. All around the crust of this planet there are the marks of a vast flood; but these are not that in Noah’s day was such as could have been left by the inudation of such short duration as that in Noah’s day, even if that in Noah’s day was universal. The flood to which geology bears witness is that of Genesis 1:2. It is to this, also that 2 Peter 3:5 refers.

 

And we also note, finally that when the whole Adamic race was destroyed there was one man and his family who "found grace" in the sight of God. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. (Gen 6:8-9) This man and his family were spared: it was vital for he was the tenth man from Adam in the Messianic line, from which the Saviour was to come in "the fullness of the time."

 

Satan may do his worst, and man may sink to his lowest and judgement may fall to the utermost; but the ultimate purpose of Jehovah cannot be thwarted. It moves on, and will yet triumph in a "new heavens and a new earth" wherein shall be righteousness and undimmed glory.

 

The Tower Of Babel

 

We must not think of the pre-flood age as one of primitive crudity. The indications are that it was the most remarkable civilization that our race has ever known. {Note; It is my belief that Adam and his progeny were as close to "perfect and intellectually superior as possible. We are told that today’s human being uses only  less than 1/10 of his brain can you imagine what we would have been like using 100% of our brains? We could continue to learn for an 1000 years and never fill up our understanding.}

 

 Human longevity in that era, uniformity of language, nearness to the Divine revelation and the freer communication between God and men-think what these must have meant. We get significant hints as to the arts and industries of that time in Genesis 4:20-24. But that first civilization, with its accumulation of knowledge and experience, its treasures of art and literature, its agriculture and industries, is now gone, and the Adamic race is to havea new start in Noah and his three sons with their families.

 

The record of the tower of Babel is one of the most well known but most misunderstood passages of the Bible. People remember in general terms the great tower, man’s challenge to God, and the confusion of language, but they usually remember the specific details imperfectly.

It’s a short record, so let’s read it now so we know what it actually says:

Genesis 11:
1 The whole earth had a common language and a common vocabulary.
2 When the people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.
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.)
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."
5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the people had started building.
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.
7 Come, let’s go down and confuse their language so they won’t be able to understand each other."
8 So the Lord scattered them from there across the face of the entire earth, and they stopped building the city.
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.

It is a surprise to most people to realise that the Bible does not present the narrative of the tower of Babel as an explanation of how all the languages of the world came about, though many people wrongly believe it says this.

 

From the previous chapter of Genesis, we find that many nations with their own languages already existed outside the Middle East at this time:

Genesis 10:
4 The sons of Javan were Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittim, and the Dodanim.
5 From these the coastlands of the nations were separated into their lands, every one according to its language, according to their families, by their nations.

From this record we can see that the descendants of Japheth already had their own languages at the time that the descendants of Ham had moved to Shinar. The Bible does not connect these two events, and although the history of Genesis 11 certainly steps back in time to the events of Genesis 10:9-10 (just after 2,900 BC), whereas the historical record of Genesis 10 contains events least as late as the building of Calah in verse 11 (about 1,200 BC), it does not make any reference to the descendants of Shem, Ham, or Japheth, or explain their diversity of language as a result of the events at Shinar (a diversity already referred to in Genesis 11:5-6, 20, 31).

 

The most decisive proof that this incident is not related in order to explain the origin of the world’s languages, is that the record says no such thing, and actually uses this event to explain something else entirely:

Genesis 11:
8 So the Lord scattered them from there across the face of the entire earth, and they stopped building the city.
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 record explicitly uses this event to explain why the Hebrew name ‘Babel’ was given to this city. The record tells us exactly what it intends to use this event to explain, and it is certainly not to explain the origin of the world’s languages.

 

It is also important to understand that the Babel narrative is confined to a local area within Mesopotamia, in the Middle East. The record is not speaking of the entire globe. The ‘earth’ in verse 1 is to be understood in its local sense. We saw that this is the same language as was used to describe the flood.

 

The proof of this is found in the first two verses of Genesis 11:

* Verse 1: the ‘whole earth’ shared a common language, but Genesis 10:5 tells that many nations with their own languages already existed outside the Middle East at ths time, so the word ‘earth’ in chapter 11 cannot be speaking globally

 

* Verse 2: ‘the people moved eastward’, a statement which cannot refer to all the people on the planet (did all the people on the planet really move eastward?), and must therefore refer to a group of people belonging to a local area

 

* Verse 2: the people moved from the west and arrived in a plain in the land of Shinar, a statement which only makes sense if referring to a group of people moving eastward from a local area west of Shinar, and makes no sense if applied globally (people in India or Russia could not be said to be travelling ‘eastward’ to Babylon)

 

* Verse 2: the group of people was small enough to consider a plain in nearby Shinar to be an area sufficient to accommodate their new urban development, indicating that this refers to a local group of people, and not the entire planet

 

What then is the record intending to teach us? What lessons are we to learn from this?

Some have seen the narrative as condemning urbanization, connecting the tower of Babel with God’s calling of Abraham out of Ur (an event which takes place in the very next chapter). It is suggested that the urban dwellers at Babel were deliberately scattered by God in order to teach them that the nomadic lifestyle was acceptable to God, whereas the urban lifestyle was not.

 

Since the city of Ur belonged to the same civilization to which the tower of Babel belonged, and since God called Abraham out of the urban lifestyle to a nomadic lifestyle, this seems at first to be a legitimate conclusion. However, whilst there are certainly important connections between the tower of Babel and the call of Abraham (and the two narratives do appear to have been placed next to each other in deliberate contrast), God’s punishment of the people at Babel is clearly declared to be the Divine judgment on a certain attitude, not simply a way of life.

 

The urbanization at Babel is a symptom of that attitude, but it is the attitude rather than the symptom which is punished:

Genesis 11:
4 Then they said, "Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that11 we may make a name for ourselves. Otherwise we will be scattered13 across the face of the entire earth."
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. [18]

[18] tn Heb "all that they purpose to do will not be withheld from them."

It is this attitude of challenging the Divine, the assumption that man can dominate not only the natural realm of his own environment, but also the Divine realm of heaven, which is the attitude God condemns. This challenge to Divine authority, and the remaking of God in the image of man, is the sin which the tower of Babel represents, an attitude which is displayed today whenever Babel is used as a sign of man’s achievements or aims.

 

In fact, the lessons of the tower of Babel are so well understood that for centuries the tower of Babel has been used as a symbol of the very attitudes God condemned there.

 

Now lets consider the Bable Dispersion fron external evidence

 

The Tower of Babel: Outside The Bible

 

Archaeological evidence proves that the Bible’s description of the tower of Babel is historically accurate on the following points:

* The description of the building
* The time at which it was built
* The specific materials from which it was constructed
* The order of the construction process
* The motives involved in its construction

The Bible describes the tower of Babel using a term which is historically appropriate:

‘Gen 11:4 tells us that the settlers in Sumer decided to build "a city and a tower." The word used for tower is ldgm (migdal). Since this word is often used in the OT for a watchtower or a defensive tower (e.g., Judg 9:45, 51; 2 Kgs 9:17; 17:9; Isa 5:2) and nowhere else refers to a ziggurat, what reason is there to believe that in Gen 11:4 it refers to a ziggurat?

The first reason is that the setting is in Babylonia where the ziggurat was the most prominent structure in a city – both visually and ideologically. [18]

Secondly, the tower in our text was designed to bring fame and glory to the builders ("so that we may make a name for ourselves"). Mesopotamian kings often took pride in building ziggurats, but no such pride was taken in defensive towers which were simply parts of the city wall. [19]‘

‘As for the use of the word migdal, one wonders what other choice the Hebrews had for a word to refer to a ziggurat? Since they had no ziggurats in their culture, they would either have to borrow a word or use the closest word they could find in their own language. As Walton has pointed out, the word migdal is not inaccurate and has a similar etymology to ziggurat, being derived from gedal (to be large), while ziggurat is derived from the Akkadian word zaqaru (to be high). [22]‘

‘There is very good reason then to believe that the tower in our text refers to a ziggurat and not just to a defensive tower. The vast majority of scholars agree that a ziggurat is intended.

[18] Elizabeth C. Stone, "The Development of Cities in Ancient Mesopotamia," CANE 1:236, 238.

[19] Singer, A History of Technology, 1:254-55; Forbes, Studies, 1:68.

[22] John Walton, "The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications," BBR 5 (1995), 156’

Paul H Seely, ‘The Date Of The Tower Of Babel And Some Theological Implications’, pages 18-19, originally published in Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001) 15-38

The Biblical account of the tower of Babel comes just after the record of the flood, and since it has been demonstrated that the flood occurred around 3,000 BC, we know that the events surrounding the tower of Babel must have taken place not long after this date.

 

The available archaeological evidence proves that the Bible is accurate in describing a building such as the tower of Babel as having been constructed at this time. In fact, this was precisely the era during which constructions made of baked bricks, with bitumen mortar, were being built in the Mesopotamian region:

‘Indeed, Jacquetta Hawkes indicates in her archaeological survey that baked brick was not used for architecture anywhere in the entire world until c. 3000B.C. [15]

The use of baked brick in the tower of Babel indicates very clearly, therefore, that it was not built before c. 3500 to 3000 B.C. The use of bitumen (asphalt) for mortar also gives clear evidence of the earliest date to which we can ascribe the events of Gen 11:1-9. Since there are extensive remains of brick buildings in the sites of the ancient Near East and bituminous mortar is nearly as indestructible as baked brick, [16] it is easy to ascertain when bitumen began to be used as mortar for bricks.

The evidence from thousands of bricks shows that bitumen was not used as a mortar for brick until baked brick appeared. Until c. 3500 to 3000 B.C., if mortar was used, it was gypsum or just mud.

[15] Jacquetta Hawkes, The Atlas of Early Man (New York: St. Martin’s, 1976), 50, 76.

[16] Forbes, Studies, 1:69.

Paul H Seely, ‘The Date Of The Tower Of Babel And Some Theological Implications’, pages 17-18, originally published in Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001) 15-38

This tower could not have been built prior to 3,000 BC. The Biblical record is therefore correct in describing the building of this tower as being shortly after the Mesopotamian flood of 2,900 BC.

 

The specific materials which the Bible describes as having been used to build the tower are also historically accurate, indicating that it was indeed a ziggurat, as the Hebrew word suggests:

‘The use of baked brick and bitumen also tells us that the migdal in our text was a ziggurat rather than a defensive tower, for baked brick and bitumen were very expensive in Mesopotamia and hence were saved for luxurious architecture like palaces, temples, and ziggurats.’

Paul H Seely, ‘The Date Of The Tower Of Babel And Some Theological Implications’, page 18, originally published in Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001) 15-38

Likewise, the order of construction described in the Biblical record is also accurate:

‘It is also telling that in our text the making of the baked bricks is specifically mentioned first (v. 3) and after that the building of the city and tower (v. 4). This is exactly the way the building of the temple and ziggurat of Babylon are described in Enuma Elish (6.50-70) as well as in the account of Nabopolassar in Neo-Babylonian times. [20]

[20] So strong is the parallel with Enuma Elish that E. A. Speiser thought Gen 11:1-9 was a response to Enuma Elish. Andre Parrot, The Tower of Babel (London: SCM, 1955), 19.’

Paul H Seely, ‘The Date Of The Tower Of Babel And Some Theological Implications’, pages 18-19, originally published in Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001) 15-38

One of the motives the Bible ascribes to the builders of the tower, is the desire to reach heaven. This aim is commonly found in the records of the ziggurats of this era:

‘In addition, Nabopolassar is told to make the foundation of Babylon’s ziggurat "secure in the bosom of the nether world, and make its summit like the heavens" just as our text describes the tower as having "its head in the heavens." Indeed it is typical of the descriptions of Mesopotamian ziggurats that they have their heads in the heavens. Thus King Samsuiluna is said to have made "the head of his ziggurat … as high as the heavens." The top of Hammurabi’s ziggurat was said to be "lofty in the heavens." And Esarhaddon, speaking of the ziggurat he built, says, "to the heavens I raised its head."

[21] John H. Walton, The Tower of Babel (Ph.D, diss., Hebrew Union College, 1981), 44-45.’

Paul H Seely, ‘The Date Of The Tower Of Babel And Some Theological Implications’, page 18, originally published in Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001) 15-38

Archaeological also evidence shows that the theological attitude on Mesopotamia changed significantly at this time, with the development of the urban state. The gods were no longer seen as simply the impersonal manifestations of natural forces, but were redefined in more human terms:

‘From every angle, then, the narrative, taken against its historical and cultural background, continually points us to the early period of urbanization in southern Mesopotamia.

As the urbanized state began to function, the universe came to be considered a state ruled by the gods. [45]‘

‘Jacobsen has presented the view that the earlier picture of the gods was one in which each god, or numinous power, was seen as bound up by a particular natural phenomenon through which he was made manifest. The god was seen to be the power behind the phenomenon, and the phenomenon circumscribed the power of the god and was the god’s only form. [46]

As the situation developed, however, a change took place. Rather than continuing to emphasize the powerful uncontrolled manifestation of deity in natural phenomena, the view of the cosmos as a state emerged, with the now humanized gods as citizens and rulers.

[45] Jacobsen, Before Philosophy, 142.

[46] Jacobsen, "Formative Tendencies In Sumerian Religion," Toward the Image of Tammuz, 2.’

John H. Walton, ‘The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 5, pages 167-168, 1995

This new religious attitude was a direct product of the new urbanization process which took place after the flood:

‘Mesopotamian theology that is reflected in most of the mythology of Babylon and Assyria has an urbanized society as its foundation. This theological perspective arose sometime early in the urbanization process, for even the Early Dynastic literature reflects that point of view. One indicator of this shift is the sudden popularity of the practice of setting up statues in temples that were intended to pray for the life of the benefactor. Nissen observes,

We can assume that it is highly probable that the custom of setting up statues in temples with this intention began in the Early Dynastic Period.’

‘The ziggurat and the temple complex provide the link between urbanization, of which they are the central organ, and Mesopotamian religion which they typify.’

‘Jacobsen further comments:

Particularly powerful and concrete in the new anthropomorphic view was the symbol of the temple, the god’s house. Towering over the flat roofs of the surrounding town, it gave the townsmen visible assurance that the god was present among them. [49]

The development in Mesopotamian religion that took place with the development of urbanization, was that men began to envision their gods in conformity with the image of man.

[50] J. J. Finkelstein, "Bible and Babel," Commentary 26 (1958) 440.’

John H. Walton, ‘The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 5, pages 167-168, 1995

It must be noted that the entire purpose of the ziggurat was to provide a physical connection between the human and the Divine, But although the ziggurat builders often speak of reaching the heavens with their towers, their aim was not to personally ascend to the gods, but to cause the gods to descend to earth. The ziggurat was not so much a stairway to heaven, as a stairway to earth. The gods would come down to earth at the request of men:

‘Man was no longer attempting to be like God, but more insidiously, was trying to bring deity down to the level of man. The gods of the Babylonians were not only understood to interact with each other and operate their affairs as humans do, but they also behaved like humans, or worse. Finkelstein observes,

The Babylonian gods … although not themselves BOUND by moral or ethical principles, nevertheless appreciated them and expected man to live by them. The Babylonians, it would seem, fashioned their gods in their own image more faithfully than the Israelites did theirs. [50]

This is what is represented by the ziggurat. The function of the ziggurat that was suggested earlier as a result of our study of the names further supports this. The needs and nature of the deities who would make use of such a stairway reflect the weakness of deity brought about by the Babylonian anthropomorphization of the gods. It is this system of religion that was an outgrowth of the urbanization process as it unfolded in Mesopotamia, and it was this system that had as its chief symbol the towering ziggurat.

[50] J. J. Finkelstein, "Bible and Babel," Commentary 26 (1958) 440.’

John H. Walton, ‘The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 5, pages 167-168, 1995

The Biblical description thus displays evidence of being an excellent historical account, demonstrating a considerable knowledge of many details of these ziggurats, including:

* The era during which they were built
* The specific materials from which they were made
* The specific order of their construction
* The motivation behind them

　

In addition, there is a specific time duration in which this tower must have been built. Archaeological evidence proves that such a ziggurat must have been built no later than 2,400 BC:

‘We see then that the archaeological facts coalesce around the dates 3500 to 3000 B.C. The building of a city not just a settlement, the use of baked brick, the use of bitumen for mortar and the fact that a ziggurat is being built all dovetail in date. This remarkable agreement makes it highly probable that the earliest date to which we can ascribe the tower of Babel as described in Gen 11:1-9 is c. 3500 to 3000 B.C.

But, what is the latest date to which we can ascribe its building? There is a text saying that Sharkalisharri restored the temple-tower at Babylon c. 2250 B.C., and another text indicates that Sargon I destroyed Babylon c. 2350 B.C. [24]

This suggests that there was a city established at Babylon efore 2350 B.C.; so, allowing a modest 50 years of city history, we can set 2400 B.C. as the terminus ante quem for the first ziggurat built in Babylon. [25]

We can thus date the building of the tower of Babel sometime between 3500 and 2400 BC.

[24] CAH3 1:1:219; Evelyn Klengel-Brandt, "Babylon," OEANE 1:254.

[25] Ziggurats began as elevated temples and did not become "true ziggurats" until c. 2100 B.c., after which they continued to be built or at least rebuilt until the fall of Babylon in the sixth century B.C.’

Paul H Seely, ‘The Date Of The Tower Of Babel And Some Theological Implications’, page 19, originally published in Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001) 15-38

This detail provides evidence that the Biblical record of the tower of Babel must itself be very old. Many modern scholars (especially secular academics), wish to argue that the Pentateuch was written at a very late date, supposedly during the Babylonian captivity (6th century BC), though incorporating some earlier material from no earlier than the 10th century BC.

It must be asked how even a 10th century writer living in Israel could possibly have such a precise knowledge of these specific details of religious buildings constructed over 1,400 years before he lived, during a kingdom long since ended, in a geographical area he had never visited.

Aside from the specific details of the tower itself, there is evidence for the key historical events described in Genesis 11, specifically:

* A time when the people had a common language and culture (Genesis 11:1)
* A new era of urbanisation subsequent to the flood (Genesis 11:3-4)
* The confusion of language (Genesis 11:5-7)

In agreement with the Biblical record, the Sumerian King List (copies of which date from at least 2170 BC), records that a new dynastic era commenced after the flood:

‘After the flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kiš.

In Kiš, Gišur became king; he ruled for 1,200 years.’

The city of Kish was the first of the Sumerian Early Dynastic I era. This era is known as the ‘Golden Age’, and dates from 2,900-2,700 BC. It was the construction of monumental buildings which had previously not been made (such as the ziggurat), and large scale urbanization in the form of new city states:

‘The bloom and further development of the city states is called the Early Dynastic period (2900-2400 BCE) or Old Sumerian period. It is divided into three periods in which different cities dominate. The Old Sumerian period is characterized by strong rivalry between city states and an increasing division between state and religion. Monumental buildings that should be called palaces as opposed to temples are attested for the first time.’

John Heise, ‘Akkadian Language’, chapter 3, 1996

The fact that Early Dynastic I commences shortly after 2,900 BC, proves that both the Sumerian King List and the Genesis 11 record are correct to describe a new era of urbanization and monumental architecture subsequent to the Mesopotamian flood of 2,900 BC.

Significant for the Biblical narrative of the tower of Babel, this was an era during which the region shared a common culture, religion, and language:

‘Despite the rivalry there are strong similarities in architecture, building materials, motives of ornaments etc., The people shared a common religion and spoke the same language. So in general one could speak of a Sumerian art and culture.’

John Heise, ‘Akkadian Language’, chapter 3, 1996

The Sumerian King List informs us that Enmekar ruled subsequent to the kingship of Kis, meaning some time after 2,900 BC:

‘Then Kiš was defeated and the kingship was taken to Eanna.

In Eanna, Meš-ki’ag-gašer, son of Utu, became lord and king; he ruled for 324 years. Meš-ki’ag-gašer entered the sea and disappeared.

Enmekar, son of Meš-ki’ag-gašer, the king of Uruk, who built Uruk, became king; he ruled for 420 years.’

The list of kings of the Early Dynastic I era continues to the first dynasty of Ur, which took place some time after the reign of Enmekar. The sequence given in the Sumerian King List is clearly inaccurate, since archaeological evidence demonstrates that the kings during this time actually reigned between 2,900 and 2,600 BC, many of them being contemporary with each other. The reign of Enmekar therefore took place between 2,900 and 2,700 BC.

A legendary account of the reign of Enmekar, written some time after, includes a significant reference to the division of men’s languages by one of the gods. The exact details of the translation are uncertain, but it is undisputed that the text refers specifically to the languages of men having been divided by the god Enlil, some time prior to the reign of Enmekar.

Here are two translations of the text:

‘Once upon a time there was no snake, there was no scorpion,
There was no hyena, there was no lion,
There was no wild dog, no wolf,
There was no fear, no terror,
Man had no rival.
In those days, the lands of Subur (and) Hamazi,
Harmony-tongued (?) Sumer, the great land of the decrees of princeship,
Un, the land having all that is appropriate (?), The land Martu, resting in security, The whole
universe, the people in unison (?)

To Enlil in one tongue [spoke].

[...]

(Then) Enki, the lord of abundance (whose) commands are trustworthy,
The lord of wisdom, who understands the land,
The leader of the gods,
Endowed with wisdom, the lord of Eridu
Changed the speech in their mouths, [brought (?)] contention into it,
Into the speech of man that (until then) had been one.’

‘Chant to him the holy song, the incantation sung in its chambers — the incantation of Nudimmud: "On that day when there is no snake, when there is no scorpion, when there is no hyena, when there is no lion, when there is neither dog nor wolf, when there is thus neither fear nor trembling, man has no rival!

At such a time, may the lands of Cubur and Hamazi, the many-tongued, and Sumer, the great mountain of the me of magnificence, and Akkad, the land possessing all that is befitting, and the Martu land, resting in security — the whole universe, the well-guarded people — may they all address Enlil together in a single language! For at that time, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings, Enki, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings

– Enki, the lord of abundance and of steadfast decisions, the wise and knowing lord of the Land, the expert of the gods, chosen for wisdom, the lord of Eridug, shall change the speech in their mouths, as many as he had placed there, and so the speech of mankind is truly one.’

Regardless of which translation is preferred, in both it is clear that this passage contains a reference to an earlier time, before the reign of Enmekar, when unity of language was ended by a Divine act resulting in a diversity of languages. The second translation sees this invocation as an appeal to the gods to reverse this process.

The Modern Babel

The modern manifestation of Babel was foretold in Scripture, just as the ancient Babel is recorded there. The spirit which drives men to form vast organisations aimed at uniting nations in political empires is as alive and well today as it was thousands is years ago on the plain on Shinar. Neither the attitudes, nor the aims have changes, and even the catchcry is the same:

‘For the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire we have the opportunity to unite Europe, not by force of arms, but on the basis of shared ideals and agreed common rules.’

Romano Prodi, EU Commission President, EU Parliament, 13 October 1999

‘The last step will then be the completion of integration in a European Federation, such a group of States could conclude a new European framework treaty, the nucleus of a constitution of the Federation.

On the basis of this treaty, the Federation would develop its own institutions, establish a government which, within the EU, should speak with one voice… a strong parliament and a directly elected president.’

Joschka Fischer, Geman Foreign Minister, Berlin, 12 May, 2000

As if this were not enough, these modern builders of Babel explicitly identify themselves with the ancient tower and its architects, even to the point of building their own tower. Many of us would be familiar with the poster printed by the European Council depicting the tower of Babel depicted in Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s painting of 1563, and the words ‘Europe: Many Tongues, One Voice’, an explicit challenge to the Divine judgment on the men of Shinar. We may also be familiar with the European Parliament building in Strasbourg, also designed deliberately to look like the same depiction of the tower of Babel.

These modern expressions of the spirit of Shinar show that the lesson is well understood and is being consciously rejected. But such schemes, though oft repeated over the centuries, are doomed to failure:

Daniel 2:
42 In that the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, the latter stages of this kingdom will be partly strong and partly fragile.
43 And in that you saw iron mixed with wet clay, so people will be mixed with one another without adhering to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.

‘Time and again men have dreamed of rearing on these dominions one mighty kingdom. Charlemagne tried it. Charles V tried it. Louis XIV tried it. Napoleon tried it. But neither succeeded.

A single verse of prophecy was stronger than all their host.

…’Partly strong, and partly broken,’ was the prophetic description. And such, too, has been the historic fact concerning them.

…It is ‘partly strong’–i.e., it retains, even in its broken state, enough of its iron strength to resist all attempts to mold its part together.

‘This shall not be,’ says the word of God.
‘This has not been,’ replies the book of history.’

William Newton, ‘Lectures on the First Two Visions of the Book of Daniel’, pages 34-35, 1859

Daniel 2:
44 In the days of those kings the God of heaven will raise up an everlasting kingdom that will not be destroyed and a kingdom that will not be left to another people. It will break in pieces and bring about the demise of all these kingdoms. But it will stand forever.
45 You saw that a stone was cut from a mountain, but not by human hands; it smashed the iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold into pieces. The great God has made known to the king what will occur in the future. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is reliable."

We will continue this study and draw some conclusions next time.

Denis