Introduction

The opening verses of Ether 1 set the scene for the beginning of the Jaredite epic in the Book of Mormon. The record relates that Jared, his brother, and their families and friends “came forth . . . from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth” (v. 33). The terms tower and great tower have been easily interpreted as a reference to the Tower of Babel featured in the narrative of Genesis 11:1–9.[1] This reference to a biblical event and the events of Ether 1 provide a starting point for Moroni’s abridgment of the Jaredite record (see Omni 1:22).

Understanding the identification of the tower and its purpose aids in elucidating the theological problem with the tower and solutions to it implicit in the biblical narrative and the Jaredite record. This essay provides (1) an exegetical, close reading of the Genesis 11 text with the purpose of understanding the narrative without eisegetical or hyperliteral interpretations; (2) a discussion of the tower in a Near Eastern context to illuminate why it was offensive to God and necessitated his intervention; and (3) an inductive reading of the Jaredite narrative in the Book of Mormon. In addition, the experiences of the ancestors of Israel in the Bible and the brother of Jared in the Book of Mormon suggest applications of these passages for the modern audience.

The Biblical Account of the Tower

While the story of the tower with its materials, concept, and halted construction in Genesis 11 may be familiar, these and other elements of the story warrant close analysis to help us better grasp the nature of the tower and the theological problem it represented.

Following the Flood narrative and its aftermath, Genesis 10, known as the “Table of Nations,” lists the descendants of Noah’s sons Japheth, Ham, and Shem and concludes with a summary statement about these “nations” being “divided in the earth” (v. 32). The narrative then relates the tower episode before returning to the genealogy of Shem in Genesis 11:10.

The beginning of this pericope states that “all the earth used one language and the same words” (our translation). The phrases “the whole earth” or “all the earth” are used five times in Genesis 11:1–9, and on the basis of their use elsewhere in Genesis and the Old Testament, the Hebrew sense is not the entire population of the planet but a large group inhabiting a significant portion of the land. The identity of this group is vague.[2] It is unlikely that the entirety of Noah’s descendants had migrated en masse to settle in one location, and it is equally unclear if the tower narrative was something that happened only to Shem’s descendants, the last group discussed in Genesis 10 and listed immediately after the tower narrative, or if the author is shifting focus to a different group. This unspecified group travels either from the east or eastward[3] and settles in the plain of Shinar.

In the Old Testament, the land or plain of Shinar as a place-name can be identified as the region of southern Mesopotamia given its association with other Mesopotamian cities such as Babel, Uruk, and Akkad (see Genesis 10:10; 14:1, 9; Isaiah 11:11; Daniel 1:2; Zechariah 5:11).[4] Because extensive sources of stone were lacking, the typical Mesopotamian building materials were, as noted in Genesis 11:3, fired mudbricks and “slime . . . for mortar,” in contrast to the practice in Israel of using stone foundations, sun-dried mudbricks, and mud mortar.[5] The time and effort expended in making bricks, procuring fuel, firing the bricks, and obtaining bitumen and making it into a mastic indicate that the proposed “city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven” (v. 4), were important structures intended to endure.

Early cities in the Near East were not filled solely with dwellings but were centers of public buildings such as palaces, administrative buildings, granaries, and markets, all of which were connected to the temple complex in some manner.[6] Residential quarters developed on the periphery of these temple-focused cores. Thus, the reference to a city and tower in the Genesis narrative may not refer to a place for everyone to live, but rather to a temple complex. While migdāl, the Hebrew word rendered in English as “a tower” in Genesis 11:4, is the generic term for any watchtower or defensive work, it is clear that the tower was not that type of structure given its pairing with city (‘îr) twice, emphasizing the connection between both entities (vv. 4, 5). Additionally, the intention to have the tower’s top reaching “unto heaven” underscores its special nature.[7]

The concerns of the population are echoed in two statements in Genesis 11:4. The first, “let us make us a name,” appears to be focused on gaining prestige or fame. While nuancing this statement in Near Eastern terms may provide a better understanding of this phrase (see below), the implications are clear that the people wanted to engage in a long-lived project for which future generations would remember them. The second statement, “lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth,” stems from the people’s concern that they would be dispersed. While being separated from extended family with a shared language appears to be the simplistic interpretation of this apprehension, the agropastoral Near Eastern setting suggests anxiety about competition for resources such as water, pasturage, and arable farmland. Urbanizing enables the sharing of resources through cooperative living, allowing people to live in close proximity without competing for land or water.

Jehovah’s direct involvement in the tower episode came through observation, analysis, and action (see Genesis 11:5–8). He descended to observe the building activities, noting the unity in purpose (“Behold, the people is one”) and language (“they have all one language”) among those engaged in the work. Basing his analysis on the people’s industry and harmony, Jehovah concluded that “nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do,” indicating that humans were capable of accomplishing virtually anything. Along with the problem of the tower (discussed below), the author of the account presents this fact in the negative light of religious and secular corruption.[8] The conclusion by Jehovah was to directly intervene in the construction of the city and tower by confounding the language of the people and scattering them from the site so their project would be abandoned (v. 8). Ironically, the strength of the people in being “of one language, and of one speech” (v. 1), along with their desire to not be scattered, spelled their disaster because of the purpose of the tower and what it represented.

The closing verse of the tower pericope reveals the place-name and the meaning given to the name. The tower’s location is given as “Babel [bābel]; because the Lord did there confound [bālal] the language of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9). The Hebrew text evinces a type of wordplay (parasonance) that uses the similarity in sound between the root of the verb bll, meaning “to mix, mingle,” and the place-name bbl, the Hebrew term for Babylon.[9] Repeating the actions of verse 8, the text in verse 9 states that it was from Babel that Jehovah scattered the people (i.e., those who were at the city and the tower).

This close, exegetical reading of the tower story related in Genesis 11 leaves questions about certain details that influence the interpretation and application of this text for its modern audience. However, the identification and purpose of the tower will shed light on the problem associated with it and why divine intervention was warranted. How that problem was corrected in the Bible and the Book of Mormon is instructive in seeing how the same human tendencies that were offensive to God in the Tower of Babel episode—and are still in play in modern times—could be corrected.

Identifying the Tower and Its Purpose

Elements in the story such as the place-name Shinar and the building materials (fired brick and bitumen mastic), as well as the connection of a “tower” to an urban center, strongly suggest a Mesopotamian setting.[10] The use in Genesis 11:9 of the place-name Babel, the Hebrew name for Babylon, and its inclusion in the list of sites in Nimrod’s kingdom located in Shinar (see 10:10) further establish a firm Mesopotamian connection. The Genesis 10 sites can be identified with urban centers in Mesopotamia: Erech (Eridu) and Accad (Agade/Akkad).[11] Each of these sites was centered on a predominant set of buildings that featured a temple and tower to which a palace was often attached. Thus, the tower with its centrality to the urban layout of Mesopotamian cities in the narrative can reasonably be identified as a ziggurat.[12]

Associated with temples and cultic complexes, a ziggurat is a structure consisting of purposefully built, narrowing platforms or stages forming a tower with either ramps or stairs leading from its summit to the base. Ziggurats were dedicated to a city’s patron deity, with some cities having more than one ziggurat. More than twenty-five ziggurats in Mesopotamia have been identified and excavated by archaeologists, the most famous examples being at Ur, Babylon, and Borsippa (modern Birs Nimrud).[13] Although the area and elevation of each section, the number of stages, and the overall height vary among the ruins, the ziggurat was central to urban planning and development from the late fifth millennium BC through the Seleucid period in the third century BC following the conquest of Alexander the Great.

Originating from shrines being built atop one another in succession over the course of centuries, the ziggurats indicated a continuity of sacred space for Mesopotamian religion within the urban environment. Thus, the tower in Genesis may have been located at an established worship center. Despite differences among the various ziggurats that have been explored, a common layout and construction can be determined through archaeology and ancient texts. These monumental buildings were constructed of fired mudbricks with bitumen used as mortar for an outer shell and with mudbrick rubble and dirt constituting the solid core. Manuscript 2063 of the Schøyen Collection, termed “The Tower of Babel Stele,” records the deeds of Nebuchadnezzar II in renovating the ziggurats of Marduk in Babylon and Nabû in Borsippa:

Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon am I—in order to complete É-temen-anki [the ziggurat of Marduk at Babylon] and É-ur₄-(me)-imin-anki [the ziggurat of Nabû at Borsippa], I mobilized all countries everywhere, each and every ruler who had been raised to prominence over all the people of the world—loved by Marduk, from the upper sea to the lower sea, the distant nations, the teeming people of the world, kings of remote mountains and far-flung islands—the base I filled in to make a high terrace. I built their structures with bitumen and baked brick throughout. I completed it, raising its top to the heaven, making it gleam bright as the sun.[14]

The parallels to the baked brick and bitumen of Genesis 11:3 are evident, as well as the phrase “raising its top to the heaven.” Another parallel phrase was used to describe the ziggurat associated with the temple É-eš-ki-te, constructed by Warad-Sin, king of the Sumerian city of Larsa: “He made it as high as a mountain and made its head touch heaven.”[15]

Contrary to popular opinion, ziggurats were not meant for humans to use to ascend to the sky. Rather, they were considered sacred space (especially their uppermost stage) and were likely off-limits to the populace except for specific cultic personnel. Nor were these sacred towers or houses temples for Mesopotamian gods to receive worship and offerings; they did not have altars and images of the local deities (both texts and archaeology show that temples for deities with altars and images were located near the ziggurats).

In the case of the ziggurat at Babylon (É-temen-an-ki), the temple of Marduk was nearby, called É-sagila in texts. During excavations in 1876, a tablet was found that described the temple and ziggurat of Marduk with additional mathematical formulations. The “É-sagila Tablet” (Louvre AO 6555), as it has been called, provides measurements and details concerning the Babylonian ziggurat, especially its highest level.[16] While the ziggurat was primarily for Marduk, the tablet indicates that the upper level had six bedrooms for various Mesopotamian deities: Marduk and his consort Sarpanitu, the scribe-god Nabû and his wife Tašmetu, the water god Ea, the god of light Nusku, the sky god Anu, and Marduk’s predecessor Enlil. Marduk’s bedroom contained a bed measuring 9 cubits long and 4 cubits wide (approximately 13 feet long and more than 6 feet wide).[17] A second bed was placed in a covered courtyard facing a throne. Later, in the fifth century BC, the Greek historian Herodotus wrote the following:

The temple of Bêl, the Babylonian Zeus [. . .], was still in existence in my time. It has a solid central tower, one stadium square, with a second erected on top of it and then a third, and so on up to eight. All eight towers can be climbed by a spiral way running round the outside, and about half way up there are seats for those who make the ascent to rest on. On the summit of the topmost tower stands a great temple with a fine large couch in it, richly covered, and a golden table beside it. The shrine contains no image, and no one spends the night there except (if we may believe that Chaldaeans who are the priests of Bêl) one Babylonian woman, all alone, whoever it may be that the god has chosen. The Chaldaeans also say—though I do not believe them—that the god enters the temple in person and takes his rest upon the bed. (Herodotus, Histories, 1:181–82)

Although Herodotus uses a term translated as “temple,” the edifice surmounting the ziggurat did not resemble or function as a temple, nor did it contain the common cultic items such as altars or images of the deities. Rather, both the “É-sagila Tablet” and Herodotus note the presence of a large couch or bed, an additional bed, a throne, and a table.

Although explicit texts linking Mesopotamian cultic activities to ziggurats are lacking, the purpose of these towers can be drawn from the names of the ziggurats as well as from a few descriptions of the structures. The name of the ziggurat of Marduk at Babylon, É-temen-an-ki, is translated as “House Foundation Platform of Heaven on Earth,” and other ziggurats were similarly named.[18] From a Babylonian list of twenty-one ziggurat names (of which fifteen are readable), the names of six ziggurats referred to linking heaven and earth or heaven and the underworld, implying that the earth, especially physically high locations like mountains, was an intermediary location between heaven and the underworld. These massive multitiered structures served as physical mountains in a landscape devoid of such features. The mountain element in two ziggurat names (“Temple of the Mountain Breeze” and “Temple of the Exalted Mountain”) reflects Near Eastern considerations about deity descending to or dwelling on mountains, a familiar element from Canaanite epics, the Old Testament, and even Greek mythology.[19] The ziggurats functioned as a stairway for the deity to travel between heaven, earth, and the netherworld. “It was solely for the convenience of the gods and was maintained in order to provide the deity with the amenities that would refresh him along the way.”[20] Thus, the purpose of ziggurats informs the interpretation of the problem with the construction of such an edifice within the urban environment of early Mesopotamia.

The Problem at the Tower

The offense in the passage resulting in the halting of construction and confusion of the languages has been the subject of many commentaries, sermons, lessons, and scholarly or ecclesiastical interpretation for millennia.[21] Such explanations or assumptions about the tower stemmed from hyperliteral readings of the text or eisegetical readings heavily influenced by a particular faith tradition.[22] Discerning the theological problem of the tower and what its construction implied, which led to the resulting divine intervention and punishment, aids in understanding God’s reaction and presents the opportunity for all audiences of the Genesis passage, ancient and modern, to learn from the story.[23]

First, it should be clear that the problem with the tower was not humanity’s ability to accomplish engineering marvels. Throughout scripture and history, humans have never received divine condemnation for building structures that inspire wonder, endure for millennia, and defy explanation. However, one problem that has been associated with the tower is pride stemming from ambition, false confidence, or presumption. Regarding the Tower of Babel, pride has been connected to the phrase “let us make us a name” (Genesis 11:4), but in the ancient Near East, “to make a name” for oneself or for a polity, like a city or kingdom, was typically connected to monumentality, that is, building or making something that would outlive its maker.[24]

Another problem commonly cited for the Tower of Babel is one of disobedience to the command to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 9:1; see v. 7). This interpretation comes from the scattering of the population at the tower in Genesis 11:8 following the confusion of the languages, the assumption being that the people’s intention to build an urban environment contradicted the command to “replenish” the earth.[25] However, the command to Noah’s family to “replenish” the earth uses the terms translated as “fruitful,” “multiplying,” and “bring forth abundantly,” all of which strongly suggest that replenishment would be accomplished by reproduction and not by physically separating from other humans. Thus, the concentration of this people group into a city was not an offense at all, let alone one that would warrant the confusion of languages and scattering of the population.

However, the above analysis of the function of ziggurats based on texts and archaeology (namely, they were intended as stairways between realms and as places of refreshment for local gods in transit) reveals the potential problem underlying the purpose of these structures within Mesopotamian religion. “The offense in this passage, then, is to be found in the beliefs that resulted in the project and what it stood for in the minds of the builders. It went beyond mere idolatry; it degraded the nature of God by portraying him as having needs.”[26] Simply put, the problem with the tower was not one of humanity being corrupted, but of humanity corrupting the nature of Deity. According to Bible scholar John H. Walton, the offense at the Tower of Babel is one of diluting God by redistributing his power, restricting his autonomy, and regulating his power.[27] Humanity had a fundamental misunderstanding of God’s sovereignty, transcendence, and power.

While power may be easily understood as the dominion and ability of God to accomplish or perform a task, Walton’s other terms require definition in order to clarify the problem that the tower represented. Sovereignty, theologically defined, can be understood as the right of God, as possessing supreme dominion, to rule and overrule in humanity’s affairs. God’s sovereignty can be seen in various statements in scripture made to the prophets such as “yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it” (Isaiah 46:11). This statement is paralleled by the declaration of Nebuchadnezzar: “All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and [God] doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Daniel 4:35).

Transcendence refers to the fact that God exists above and independently from creation. He is above, other than, and distinct from what he has made. This concept in relation to God’s thought and actions is stated by Jehovah via Isaiah, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8–9). The apostle Paul noted both the transcendence and immanence of God in his statement “One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Ephesians 4:6; emphasis added; see Moses 6:61). Additionally, the German theologian Gerhard von Rad suggested that one reason behind the prohibition on imagery in Deuteronomy 4:9–20, and elsewhere in the Mosaic law, was to enforce God’s transcendence and “not prejudice the assurance of [Jehovah’s] most personal presence.”[28]

Coupled with transcendence is the concept of God’s immanence. This attribute is related to his omnipresence (his ability to be present anywhere within creation, although he is separate, or transcendent, from it) and his omniscience (his ability to know all). The tension between these two attributes of God’s ontology (i.e., what makes him God) and reconciling transcendence and immanence have long been a struggle for many theologians.[29] Even so, Jewish and Christian theologians recognize that Deity can be both above all and yet equally present-at-hand, as evinced in the Old Testament. Recognizing the immanence of God, David questioned,

Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. (Psalm 139:8–12)

The prophet Jeremiah declared the transcendence and immanence of God: “Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:23–24).

Misunderstanding these divine attributes of sovereignty, transcendence, immanence, and power can inform a belief that effectively is a limitation or dilution of God, confining him to a specific place and attempting to appease his needs to gain divine favor and ultimately make him beholden to humanity. Worship of an aniconic deity often resulted in either having a low concept of God (having needs that can be met) or a very lofty one (God is disconnected and not interested in humanity).[30] As the concluding episode in the Primeval History within Genesis (i.e., its first eleven chapters), the tower narrative presents a culmination of humanity’s corruption and debasement, reflected in how the people sought to impart their characteristics and needs to their Creator.

Within the book of Genesis, the solution to the Tower of Babel problem comes through a reintroduction to the divine throughout the course of the ancestral narratives of Abraham and Sarah. As Walton notes, “When the offence of the tower builders is seen as the corruption of the concept of deity and the covenant is seen as God’s program of revealing himself to the world through Abram and his family, the pieces of Genesis fit together and its structure becomes transparent.”[31] God’s transcendence can be seen in his commands to Abram regarding the move from Haran to Canaan, the sojourn in Egypt, the return to Canaan, the seminomadic movements throughout Canaan, and the building of altars at various locations. God’s immanence can be seen in his presence and conversations with, and revelations to, Abram. The sovereignty of God can be observed in his protecting Abram and Sarai in Egypt, commanding Abram to follow him and obey commandments, making covenants, and changing Abram’s and Sarai’s names. Throughout the lives of Israel’s patriarch and matriarch, God’s power is shown in protecting them, providing for them, and ultimately giving them their promised son. All four godly attributes—sovereignty, transcendence, immanence, and power—are also demonstrated in the near sacrifice of Isaac (see Genesis 22). God’s sovereignty is evident in his command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as well as in his countercommand to not sacrifice the boy once Abraham had demonstrated his faith in Jehovah. The three days’ journey to Moriah from the camp in Beersheba and God’s presence on the mount illustrate his transcendence and immanence. Finally, his power was again displayed through the miraculous provision of the ram caught in the thicket as a substitutionary sacrifice for Isaac, a foreshadowing of the power of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

The Jaredite Crises and the Problem at the Tower

While the Bible answers the problems of the tower throughout the ancestral narratives of Genesis, the Book of Mormon presents solutions to the problem via examples of faith. For example, it provides specific details about a group of people known as the Jaredites, who were among those associated with the tower in Genesis 11.[32] The Jaredites are first introduced in the book of Omni, where in verse 20 a large stone with engravings is brought to King Mosiah₁ for interpretation. We learn that the text on the stela gave an account of the last surviving Jaredite, Coriantumr, who had lived with the people of Zarahemla for several months (see v. 21). The account goes on to note that Coriantumr’s ancestors “came out from the tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people” (v. 22), thereby associating the Jaredites with the tower in Genesis 11.

The Jaredites are mentioned again in the book of Mosiah. When King Limhi sent forty-three people from Lehi-Nephi northward to find the land of Zarahemla, they instead discovered an area covered with ruins and human and animal remains (see 8:7–8; 21:25–26). The expedition also found and brought back twenty-four gold plates whose engravings were translated by King Mosiah₂ about thirty years later (see 8:9; 21:27; 28:11–13).[33] These plates included a history of the Jaredites “back to the building of the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people and they were scattered abroad upon the face of the earth” (28:17).[34]

In the book of Ether, Moroni provides an abridged account of the records found on the twenty-four gold plates. The first chapter includes the lineage of Ether, the author of the record, tracing him back to Jared, who “came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth” (v. 33). The first six chapters of the book of Ether relate the experiences of Jared, his family, and their friends at the tower, as well as their subsequent overland and maritime journey to a new land. Through an inductive, close reading of Ether 1–3, we have identified three crises that the Jaredites encountered at the tower and on their journey that correspond to the theological problems discussed above in relation to the tower in Genesis 11.[35] The events surrounding these crises—the confounding of language, the scattering of people, and their traveling in darkness—reveal a complex and profound understanding of the sovereignty, transcendence, and power of God by Jared and his brother, an understanding that results in their obtaining a promised land and a new covenantal relationship with God.

Crisis one: Confounding of language

The narrative of the Jaredites begins at “the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people” (Ether 1:33).[36] In response to this crisis, Jared asks his brother to petition the Lord to not confound their words. Jared first requests only that he and his brother continue to be able to communicate with each other, but he subsequently also asks that the language of their friends and their families not be confounded (vv. 34–36). The response of Jared and his brother to the crisis of the confounding of language reveals a unique understanding of the sovereignty, transcendence, and power of God that is noticeably different from that of those described as building the tower in Genesis 11.

Instead of restricting the autonomy of God, the actions of the brothers show a reliance on his sovereignty to overrule even his own actions among humanity. Jared and his brother realize that since God possesses supreme dominion and ultimate control over all people, he can choose to intervene in their affairs. In requesting that he not confound their language, the brothers show a reliance on a God who will make his own choices according to his own will, and not because of manipulation by those who were building the tower for a needy and dependent deity.

The actions of Jared and his brother also reveal an awareness of God’s power and transcendence. Their petition to him shows not only that they believed he would allow them to continue communicating if it were his will, but also that he wielded enough power to perform the task of changing, or not changing, the people’s language. In other words, they viewed God not as dependent on humanity to fulfil earthly needs, but as possessing independent power and ability to accomplish whatever task he chose to perform. Jared and his brother also had knowledge of the transcendence of God, and although he was an omnipotent sovereign who existed apart from and above creation, they knew he was also aware of his followers and their reliance on him. In addition, his immanence is seen in his “compassion” for the brothers, their families, and friends in listening to their plea and not confounding their language (Ether 1:35, 37).

Crisis two: Scattering of people

The second crisis of the Jaredites at the tower occurred immediately after the first. In the Old Testament and Book of Mormon accounts, the confounding of language is typically connected with the subsequent scattering of people, often with the addition that they were scattered “upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8–9; Mosiah 28:17; Ether 1:33).[37] In the book of Ether, Jared responds to this crisis by requesting that his brother ask God if “he will drive us out of the land” and, if so, “whither we shall go” (1:38). Jared continues by stating, “Who knoweth but the Lord will carry us forth into a land which is choice above all the earth? And if it so be, let us be faithful unto the Lord, that we may receive it for our inheritance.” The brother of Jared follows these requests by praying to the Lord (v. 39). Thus we see that the questions, statements, and actions of the brothers in response to the scattering crisis reveal an extensive understanding of God’s transcendence, sovereignty, and power.

In contrast to those who attempted to inhibit the scattering of people by building the tower, Jared did not request that his family and his friends not be driven out of the land. He left that decision to the Lord and only requested information about where they should go. Knowing that his people would be kept together no matter where they traveled, Jared did not attempt to regulate the power of God for his own selfish use, but rather showed an awareness that the thoughts and ways of the God are omniscient and distinct from those of humankind.

In noting that his people needed to be faithful to the Lord in order to reach a choice land for their inheritance, Jared also revealed a comprehension of their dependence on a transcendent God. Instead of viewing the Lord as obligated by the tower builders to satiate his earthly needs, Jared and his brother realized that they are reliant upon and indebted to a God whose wisdom is above and separate from their own. They believed not only in the power of God to guide them to a new land but also in the sovereignty of God that he would “carry” them to a choice land (Ether 1:38).

Jared disclosed further understanding of God’s transcendence when he asked, “Who knoweth but the Lord?” regarding “a land which is choice above all the earth” (Ether 1:38). Jared was cognizant that because the Lord is transcendent over the entire earth, only he would have the full knowledge of how and where to send the Jaredites to the choicest land. The people who built the tower to house God hoped that the tower would bind him to a certain location, allowing them to regulate his power for their benefit, while Jared and his brother understood that God was separate and distinct from creation, an understanding that allowed for his transcendent omnipresence according to his will.

In responding to Jared and his brother about the crisis of scattering the people, the Lord revealed his own sovereignty, transcendence, and power to the Jaredites. Instead of the people attempting to manipulate God by offering him earthly goods like the food, water, and shelter, it was the sovereign Lord who gave the Jaredites specific instructions about flocks, seeds, and the directions for their journey (see Ether 1:41; 2:5). It was the transcendent Lord who assured them that he would “go before” them and lead them on their journey across many lands, while it was the powerful Lord who promised the brother of Jared that he and his family would be blessed and become a great nation once they arrived (see 1:42–43; 2:5). Even though God was known to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, here he also revealed himself to be compassionate, immanent, and conscientious. The Lord not only promised that he would lead the Jaredites to a choice land, but he also “came down and talked with the brother of Jared,” even in the absence of a tower, a staircase, or material offerings provided by the Jaredites (see 2:4–5).

Crisis three: Traveling in darkness

After the Jaredites arrived at the great sea, the Lord instructed them to build small, light, and “exceedingly tight” barges in order to cross the ocean (see Ether 2:16–17).[38] After constructing the ships, the brother of Jared realized that there would be no light in the vessels, so he asked the Lord, “Wilt though suffer that we shall cross this great water in darkness?” (v. 22). Instead of solving this dilemma, the Lord responded, “What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels?” (v. 23). According to Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, “Clearly the brother of Jared was being tested. God had done his part. Unique, resolutely seaworthy ships for crossing the ocean had been provided. The brilliant engineering had been done. The hard part of the construction project was over. Now the Lord wanted to know what the brother of Jared would do about incidentals.”[39] The brother of Jared had already demonstrated a complex and profound understanding of the sovereignty, transcendence, and power of God through his responses to the first two crises; however, his understanding and consequently his faith were not yet perfect.

The brother of Jared decided to go to Mount Shelem, where he created sixteen small clear stones out of molten rock and then prayed for assistance (see Ether 3:1–5).[40] In that astounding prayer, he disclosed his extensive knowledge of the sovereignty, transcendence, and especially the power of God. A full awareness of God’s sovereignty is reflected in an understanding of his supreme rulership and kingship. Because of his inherent right to rule humanity according to his omniscience, God has the unerring wisdom to designate laws and commandments, as well as the associated blessings and punishments. In verse 3, the brother of Jared remarks how the “iniquity” of the Jaredites led to their being “smitten,” “driven . . . forth,” and spending many years in the wilderness. However, unlike the capricious nature attributed to deity by those who undertook to build the tower, the brother of Jared knew that a sovereign God is also compassionate, and thus he asks him to be “merciful,” to have “pity,” and to “turn away [his] anger” from the Jaredites. Rather than attempting to restrict God’s autonomy, the brother of Jared recognizes God’s law-giving leadership as well as his benevolence toward his people.

The brother of Jared references the transcendence of God multiple times in Ether 3:2. As mentioned earlier, a transcendent God exists independently and above his creation and cannot be manipulated to come down to earth and be bound to residing in a certain location like the tower. The holiness of a transcendent God also exists independently and separately from an imperfect humanity. The brother of Jared describes God as one who is “holy and dwellest in the heavens,” while, on the other hand, the Jaredites exhibit “weakness,” “are unworthy,” and have “natures that have become evil continually.” The brother of Jared is aware of the elevated holiness of God, especially in relation to “the fall” of humanity. However, even though a transcendent God is distinct and separate from his creation, he is also immanent and aware of all his children, no matter their location or state of holiness. The brother of Jared knows that his people can “call upon” God for help and that they “may receive according to [their] desires.” Rather than attempt to regulate God’s power, he recognizes God’s complete omnipresence as well as his awareness of every one of his children.

The apex of the brother of Jared’s prayer focuses on his understanding of God’s power, as seen in Ether 3:4–5.[41] A powerful God is one who can accomplish any task, at any time, and in any place. This is in contrast to the humanized, dependent God whose power was tied to the tower builders’ offerings of food, clothing, and shelter. Verse 4 begins with the brother of Jared acknowledging this integral part of the nature of God: “I know, O Lord, that thou hast all power, and can do whatsoever thou wilt.” Rather than requesting, the brother of Jared then tells the Lord to illuminate the stones.[42] In verse 5 he closes his prayer, again referencing the potent nature of God: “O Lord, thou canst do this. We know that thou art able to show forth great power, which looks small unto the understanding of men.” The amazing omnipotence and wisdom of God cannot be compared to the basic understanding of humanity; however, the brother of Jared also acknowledges that God generously uses his power “for the benefit of man.” Rather than attempt to redistribute the power of God, the brother of Jared recognizes his absolute proficiency and potency yet also his conscientious use of that power to help humanity.

After the prayer, the Lord touched the stones with his finger, which is seen by the brother of Jared. Because “it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood,” the brother of Jared fell down (Ether 3:6). Moroni states that “because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the finger of Jesus” (v. 19). Because the brother of Jared possessed exceeding faith and what appears to be a sure knowledge of the sovereignty, transcendence, and power of God, he was able to, as Elder Holland stated, “thrust himself through the veil.”[43]

However, despite the brother of Jared’s uncommonly deep understanding of these three natures of God, he lacked an understanding of the physical nature of the Lord. Because he knew that the omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence of God made him distinct and separate from humanity, to realize that God was in the same form as humanity must have been astonishing. At this point, the understanding and faith of the brother of Jared were such that “he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting” (Ether 3:19). Seeing the finger of the Lord completed his knowledge and faith in God. Because of the brother of Jared’s now “perfect knowledge of God, he could not be kept from within the veil,” and he saw the complete form of the premortal Christ and ultimately a vision of all humanity and its history until the end of times (see vv. 20, 25–26). As Jeffrey M. Bradshaw observes, “In the stories of the transgressions of Adam and Eve, of the ‘sons of God’ who married the ‘daughters of men,’ and of the builders of the Tower of Babel, we cannot fail to observe the common story thread concerning a God who places strict boundaries between the human and the divine. However, we must not forget a significant and opposite theme in Genesis 1–11—namely, that within some of these same chapters God is also portrayed as having sought to erase the divine-human boundary for a righteous few, drawing them into his very presence.”[44]

Conclusion

Throughout millennia, the Tower of Babel story has prompted many interpretations and applications. The Tower of Babel has been construed as the image of humanity’s corporate rebellion against God. The tower narrative has also been read as a critique not of religion but of Babylonian ideology and empire, with the tower seen as a projection of military might and the divine judgment given for building a city and uniting under one language.[45] The account of the tower could be seen as a critique of Babylon as a “gate of the gods” versus Israel as the covenant people being the true means by which God would enter through the gate of humanity. The punishment of confounding the people’s language and scattering them was read in light of understanding the tower to have been a means whereby humanity was attempting to reach heaven through its own efforts or being disobedient by urbanizing and not filling the earth.

This study has attempted to show that the problem with the Tower of Babel appears to have stemmed from its purpose, which, after the manner of ancient Mesopotamian “towers” or ziggurats, was to appease the appetites of the deity and portray a god with needs that humans can fulfill. Such a view of God fundamentally misunderstands his sovereignty, transcendence, and power, effectively diluting his authority and redistributing and hindering his power. This problem is not limited to the ancient world of the Israelites’ ancestors or of the Jaredites. As Walton notes, “By nature, we are all pagans caught in the Babel syndrome.”[46]

Having a skewed perspective or understanding of these divine attributes can be connected to limiting God in some way. The solution to the Babel syndrome is to have a corrected, renewed vision of God. The stories of Abraham and Sarah and the other ancestors in Genesis serve as reminders to Israel of God’s sovereignty, transcendence, immanence, and power operative throughout their lifetimes. The three crises that the Jaredites faced, and the brother of Jared’s responses, illustrate the light and knowledge possible when a correct perception of God’s attributes is acknowledged and faith is realized. As opposed to bringing God down from heaven to earth by devaluing him and giving him human limitations, God’s revelation of himself brought Abraham and the brother of Jared up to the divine level, showing them their true potential, and God seeks to do the same for the modern believer.[47] While we may work to change our personal perceptions of God, the ultimate solution and reversal of the Tower of Babel syndrome will come when Jehovah will “change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him with one accord” (Zephaniah 3:9 New Revised Standard Version).

Notes

[1] Despite the popularity of the name “Tower of Babel” for the edifice being constructed in the Genesis 11 narrative, that term is not used in scripture. In Genesis 11 the construction is simply called “the tower” (הַמִּגְדָּל, migdāl) and is paired with “the city” (הָעִיר‎, ‘îr), referring to Babel (Genesis 11:9).

[2] See John H. Walton, Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 372.

[3] The Hebrew text simply states that the group traveled miqqedem (מִקֶּ֑דֶם). Literally, this compound word means “from the east,” so the group went westward. However, elsewhere in Genesis (e.g., 2:8; 13:11), the word can be translated eastward, so the group could have been headed to the east. This latter reading would fit an observed pattern of a guard posted east of Eden (see Genesis 3:24) and Cain being cast out of the Lord’s presence and dwelling east of Eden (see 4:16).

[4] In Joshua 7:21, Achan confesses that among the items that he spoiled from Jericho was “a goodly Babylonian garment,” for which the Hebrew text uses Shinar (’adderet šin‘ār ’aḥat ṭōwbâh).

[5] The King James Version renders hēmār (חֵמָ֔ר) as “slime,” although “asphalt” or “bitumen” is a better rendering. Bitumen was used in Mesopotamia as mortar in construction, as a waterproofing agent, as an adhesive for object repairs, as boat caulking, and as a component of domestic artifacts such as spindle whorls, balls, and dice, as well as jewelry elements. See J. Connan, “Use and Trade of Bitumen in Antiquity and Prehistory: Molecular Archaeology Reveals Secrets of Past Civilizations,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 354 (1999): 33–50.

[6] See J. Nicholas Postgate, Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History (London: Routledge, 1992), 73–78.

[7] The phrase בַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְרֹאשׁ֣וֹ (literally, “and its top/head in the heavens”) should not be taken as the intention of the builders to construct a tower to reach “heaven” with the English connotation of the abode of the deity; rather, “heaven(s)” for ancient Hebrew speakers simply meant the sky. This phrase, then, is idiomatic for a tall building, much like the modern term skyscraper. The statement in Helaman 6:28 about the builders trying to build a tower “that they might get to heaven” should also not be taken as an indicator of a goal to reach the dwelling place of the God. Rather, Mormon is drawing on the same idiom in Genesis 11:4 and Deuteronomy 1:28 to describe the builders constructing a tall tower to reach the sky.

[8] See Walton, Genesis, 378.

[9] See Scott B. Noegel, “Wordplay” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2021), 258–59. The Hebrew word bbl is used more than 180 times in the Old Testament to refer to the city of Babylon and the Neo-Babylonian kingdom of the eight to sixth centuries BC. As discussed below, the etymology of Babylon in Akkadian (bab-ilū), meaning “gate of the gods,” is also indicative of the tower’s purpose.

[10] For details on the various Mesopotamian elements of the tower narrative, see John H. Walton, “The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 5 (1995): 155–75.

[11] The King James Version of Genesis 10:10 mentions Calneh as a place-name within Nimrod’s kingdom. Modern biblical scholarship has suggested that this is a distortion of a term meaning “all of them,” as rendered in the New Revised Standard Version; see William F. Albright, “The End of Calneh in Shinar,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 3 (1944): 254. While Calneh is also attested in Amos 6:2, that place-name likely refers to Calno (modern Kullan-Köy), a site in Syria near Carchemish and Arpad mentioned in Isaiah 10:9, not located near these Genesis 10 sites in Mesopotamia.

[12] Although scholars debated which ziggurat Genesis 11 refers to, the view that the Tower of Babel was a ziggurat was well established in the nineteenth century during western European explorations of Mesopotamia. See George Smith, The Chaldean Account of Genesis (London: Low, Marston, Searle, and Rivington, 1879); and E. G. H. Kraeling, “The Tower of Babel,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 40 (1920): 276–81. While Hebrew lacks a word for “ziggurat,” Hebrew migdāl (“tower”) stands parallel to the Akkadian root zaqāru, meaning “to be high/elevated.” Additionally, the lexical range of the Akkadian word zakāru includes invoking the local deity; see The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, ed. A. Leo Oppenheim (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1961), 21:16, 55.

[13] Andre Parrot, Ziggurats et Tour de Babel (Paris: Editions Albin Michel, 1949), 52–54.

[14] See A. George, Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2011), 153–69.

[15] See D. Frayne, Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Old Babylonian Period (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990), 208.

[16] See Friedrich Wetzel and F. H. Weissbach, Das Hauptheiligtum des Marduk in Babylon, Esagila und Etemenanki (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs Verlag, 1938), 49–56.

[17] See Wetzel and Weissbach, Das Hauptheiligtum des Marduk in Babylon, 54–55.

[18] These include the “House of the Wielder of the Seven Decrees of Heaven and Earth” (the ziggurat of Nabu at Borsippa), the “Temple of the Stairway to Pure Heaven” (the ziggurat at Sippar), the “House of the Ziggurat, Exalted Dwelling Place” at Kish, and others. See Walton, “Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel,” 159–60.

[19] For example, the association of Baal with his palace on Mount Zaphon in Ugaritic (Canaanite) literature, Zeus with Mount Olympus, and Jehovah with Sinai (Exodus 19), Mount Moriah (Genesis 22), Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18), an unnamed “exceeding high mountain” (1 Nephi 11), and Mount Shelem (Ether 3:1) illustrate this concept.

[20] Walton, Genesis, 374.

[21] Sources from later antiquity such as the Greco-Roman scholar Alexander of Miletus (also known as Polyhistor), the Jewish historian Josephus, and the church historian Eusebius drew on the biblical story first. Other nonbiblical stories, with extra explanations regarding the halted construction, were added to relate the story of a people who tried to build a tower; see Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 1.4–5. These accounts all interpreted the problem with the tower as one of the builders trying to reach the heavens for some purpose, be it for their own glory or in disobedience to a divine command. This assessment of the tower’s problem is echoed in scholarship in the modern era. For example, the problem with the tower that scholars like E. G. H. Kraeling and others espoused was the attempt of humans to “climb into heaven.” Kraeling, “Tower of Babel,” 281.

[22] Religious commentaries and sermons have often read the phrase “whose top may reach unto heaven” (Genesis 11:4) as the builders literally trying to create a structure tall enough to reach into heaven. Early leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught that the builders were attempting to reach the City of Enoch. See the discussion of Joseph Smith’s and Orson Pratt’s teachings in Jared Ludlow, “Power in the Book of Ether,” in Illuminating the Jaredite Records, ed. Daniel L. Belnap (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2020), 185–86.

[23] The Old Testament uses both Elohim (“God”) and YHWH (Jehovah; “the Lord”) to refer to the deity of Israel, often without distinguishing between the persons of the Father and Son (Jesus Christ). Recognizing that the tower narrative uses “the Lord” exclusively, we use the term God in this section when discussing the attributes connected to both the Father and the Son as members of the Godhead without distinction.

[24] A commemorative inscription of Nebuchadnezzar states that he fortified Babylon and the É-sangila and “made an everlasting name for my reign.” For other examples, see N. Sarna, Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with New JPS Translation (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 83.

[25] Noting the rebellion of Nimrod against God’s authority, Josephus stated that the refusal to scatter was the offense of the tower project. See in Antiquities of the Jews 1.4.

[26] Walton, Genesis, 377.

[27] See Walton, Genesis, 384.

[28] Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1, The Theology of Israel’s Historical Tradition (New York: Harper and Bros., 1962), 217.

[29] The German theologian Otto Eissfeldt opined that “the tension between the absolute and the relative, between transcendence and immanence is currently the problem of theology, and for biblical science this general problem narrows down to the particular one: history and revelation.” “Israelitisch-jüdische Religionsgeschichte und alttestamentliche Theologie,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 44 (1926): 1. However, less than fifty years later these tensions were seen as an outmoded dichotomy in theology; see Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 17–18.

[30] See von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:218.

[31] Walton, Genesis, 382.

[32] The historical context for the Jaredites, their journeys, and their settlement in a new land has been discussed by Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1988). For a more recent collection of essays viewing the Jaredite narratives through historical, narratological, pedagogical, and reception-history lenses, see Belnap, Illuminating the Jaredite Records.

[33] For a possible relationship between the text of the stele in Omni and the twenty-four gold plates, see Daniel L. Belnap, “‘They Are of Ancient Date’: Jaredite Traditions and the Politics of Gadianton’s Dissent,” in Belnap, Illuminating the Jaredite Records, 3–5.

[34] The tower is also mentioned in Helaman 6:28, which states that the “author of all sin” (v. 30) inspired the people to build the tower “sufficiently high that they might get to heaven.”

[35] As an inductive reading of the Jaredite experience through the lens of the tower and its problems in Genesis 11, our analysis is not meant to be exhaustive in its sources or normative in its interpretation.

[36] The corroboration of details regarding the tower, confounding of languages, and scattering of the populace between Genesis 11 and Ether 1 has been interpreted as support for both the biblical account and that of the Book of Mormon; see Sidney B. Sperry, Book of Mormon Compendium (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968), 464. These points provide a literary connection between the two volumes of scripture and context for the Jaredite narrative.

[37] The confounding of language at the tower is also mentioned in Omni 1:22, but instead of mentioning the subsequent scattering of people, Amaleki comments on their “scattered” bones in the land northward.

[38] Some connections have been tentatively made between this transoceanic journey and the scattering of those from the tower on ships as anciently related by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 1.5.

[39] Jeffrey R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2009), 16.

[40] Charles Swift, in “Upon Mount Shelem: The Liminal Experience of the Brother of Jared,” in Belnap, Illuminating the Jaredite Records, 85–128, discusses the transformative experiences of the brother of Jared before, during, and after his encounter with the Lord.

[41] For a discussion of the concepts of power presented in Ether, including that of God in illuminating the stones, see Ludlow, “Power in the Book of Ether,” 183–202.

[42] See Swift, “Upon Mount Shelem,” 104.

[43] Holland, Christ and the New Covenant, 23.

[44] Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “The Tree of Knowledge as the Veil of the Sanctuary,” in Ascending the Mountain of the Lord: Temple, Praise, and Worship in the Old Testament, ed. David Rolph Seely, Jeffrey R. Chadwick, and Matthew J. Grey (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013), 60.

[45] See J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2005), 221.

[46] Walton, Genesis, 383.

[47] Given the problem of the tower discussed here, it is interesting that the name Jared derives from the Semitic verb meaning “to descend.”