Yesterday I began a series on kings of the bible. Today I turn to our first king – Nimrod.
Encyclopedia Britannica has a nice short summary entry on Nimrod that I share with you here to get us started:
“Nimrod, also spelled Nemrod, legendary biblical figure of the book of Genesis. Nimrod is described in Genesis 10:8–12 as “the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord.” The only other references to Nimrod in the Bible are Micah 5:6, where Assyria is called the land of Nimrod, and I Chronicles 1:10, which reiterates his might. The beginning of his kingdom is said in the Genesis passage to be Babel, Erech, and Akkad in the land of Shinar. Nimrod is said to have then built Nineveh, Calah (modern Nimrūd), Rehoboth-Ir, and Resen.
“There is some consensus among biblical scholars that the mention of Nimrod in Genesis is a reference not to an individual but to an ancient people in Mesopotamia. The description of Nimrod as a “mighty hunter before the Lord” is an intrusion in this context, but probably, like the historical notices, derived from some old Babylonian saga. However, no equivalent of the name has yet been found in the Babylonian or other cuneiform records. In character there is a certain resemblance between Nimrod and the Mesopotamian epic hero Gilgamesh.”
(Source: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nimrod)
If all you are looking for is history, we could stop right there – that’s a pretty good summary. But that’s not the point of this series. It isn’t just about history. It’s about more than that – it’s about the idea of kingship of humanity versus kingship of God.
Nimrod doesn’t get a whole lot of lines in Scripture. We don’t hear any dialogue from him either. It would be easy to just bypass him and move on. But I think there are some interesting things about Nimrod that reveal important points about kingship in relation to God.
Nimrod, although not specifically named a king here in Scripture, was kinglike. We’re told from Scripture that “he was the first on earth to become a mighty warrior.” (Genesis 10:8, NRSV)
Humanity has been stuck on the idea that kings are warriors – that they fight. Kings are supposed to fight for their people and kill off any threats that exist. It is a human ideal for kings that goes back eons. I just find it interesting that the first king mentioned in Scripture is a warrior. He sets the stage as an example for all future kings. And we are only in Genesis 10, not long after the flood. Remember the flood. It was done by God because of the evil of humanity.
We’re told that Nimrod was the son of Cush, who was the son of Ham, who was the son of Noah. Here we are, four generations after the flood, and humanity is more worried about killing enemies than about anything else. Nimrod is elevated because he was a warrior – not because of his intellect, or wisdom, or kindness, or generosity, or anything else. He could kill and conquer.
Scripture also tells us the following about Nimrod:
“The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar. From that land he went into Assyria, and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-ir, Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.” (Genesis 10:10-12, NRSV)
We hear that he had a kingdom. And it expanded. And he built cities, some of them became great. This will become a regular feature of many later kings and rulers who will likewise conquer and expand their kingdoms and build great cities.
After we hear the full family lineage of Noah, which includes Nimrod, we hear about the story of the Tower of Babel, which begins this way:
“Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.” (Genesis 11:1-2, NRSV)
This is the same region used to describe the land that Nimrod ruled. It’s possible that the writer of Genesis assumed that Nimrod was in charge during the building of the Tower of Babel. Considering that we are talking about the same region, that Nimrod was a builder of great cities, and that the story comes immediately after the lineage of Noah, it is possible for us to associate Nimrod with the Tower of Babel.
It’s also important to remember that Genesis 1-11 are considered pre-history, which means they are stories designed to explain how humanity got to where it was and other deep existential questions like – why did creation happen, why do we have multiple languages, how are we connected with the past, etc.
In the story of the Tower of Babel, we hear about the people of the earth and their desires:
“Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.’” (Genesis 11:4, NRSV)
They wanted to make a name for themselves. They essentially wanted to be like Nimrod – made famous.
Reflection questions to consider:
Do we seek out fame or power like Nimrod? What greatness do we seek? How do these things rule over each one of us, our communities, our churches, and our nation? How does Nimrod as king contrast with Jesus, the king of kings?
Laced up Lutheran 
Okay,
I have reactions, input, questions and all that good jazz. I have been here since the beginning of this series, and expect to keep coming back. I am totally jazzed by it. But I don’t want to steal thunder or overwhelm your post with my comments. I hope this merely makes for good discussion, and MAYBE pushes into further territory.
Actually, even though your post is not exhaustive, nor are my questions or insights, nevertheless, I find MANY things in your post to be important. I doubt I can address them all. So pardon me if I leave something important by wayside.
Most of the background and connections you make, I have SOME familiarity with, however, some of that you enrich still for me. I am wondering more about the fourth generation bit. I am mindful that in the primordial history of ch’s 1-11, the generations of Adam come into focus with Lamech being something of a prototype for even Nimrod (possibly???), and it is important to note he is the seventh (holy number) generation of Adam, but coming through the lineage of Cain (a cursed family) whereas Seth’s kids seem to bear the blessing.
These generational matters (the count and the blessings/curses etc) are not my strong suit. But I have come to view the primordial history as mythical in nature (not as in untrue, but stories, usually with few details and lots of unanswerable questions which depict mystery of origins, but they give us a SHAPE of things which then we find subsequent Bible stories fitting into. (I think of these narratives like Russian nesting dolls, each subsequent narrative takes the same general shape of the one previous to it, thus I look at both narratives to let them bounce sparks (exegetically/hermeneutically) off one another. This method almost always bears fruit.
But when it comes to these generation counts and so forth, I recognize symbolizms I do not understand. I wonder if you can talk more about those things, I figure you have my interest there, but I don’t know much in that area.
You go on to make a very rich connection to the Tower of Babel. I am inclined to see it the way you present it. I concur.
I have come to see the Tower of Babel as a prototype, a Russian nesting doll type symbol for world empires subsequent to this one. And IF Nimrod really is King (or somehow a king-figure) here, then he is also an emperor figure. And we can see some things in this pre-empire which are theologically significant and characteristic of all subsequent world empires throughout history. Namely, they make names for themselves, which flies in the face of the kind of King Adam (who was given dominion and rule as image bearer of God) was intended to be.
But then there is one more really significant link between the Tower of Babel and the next empire we meet on the pages of Moses’s Pentateuch. “Briicks”.
Notice these people making a name for themselves building cities and towers and prototype empires, presumably under Nimrod’s rule, build using BRICKS. Not too much is made out of that here, but the NEXT time you find that word and the thing it respresents in the Bible, you have God’s promise-bearers (the Hebrews) enslaved to the evil empire of Egypt, under that Nimrod-like figure Pharaoh, making bricks to build his empire.
This Russian nesting doll holds so much for subsequent study that I can’t keep up with all the exponentially exploding possibilities. I mean, here we have a prototype for Israel in Exile! And the longing for a Savior and all that and so much more starts connecting deep theological significance to other Bible stories all over the place.
But let’s hang close to the BRICKS for a moment. And notice here that very quietly the very notion of bricks starts getting a bad rap in the Bible.
Really? What an odd idea!
But we will find in the Bible, especially between the Tower of Babel and the Empire of Egypt, that bricks are associated with evil empire, but they are the building blocks of making a name for yourself.
On the contrary, God builds his Kingdom, not with bricks but with sons. And in Hebrew, the word SON rhymes with the word STONE, and we get that beautiful play on words in the Psalms which Jesus connects to himself where it is said, the Stone that the builders rejected is the Cornerstone. Meaning to a Hebrew reading mind, the theological connection echoes with The SON the empires rejected becomes the corner SON (King).
I am sure I am making a few leaps, but I also think these connections hold up.
At the end of all this analysis, at least for me and my thinking, I see not so much a personal application (I am not a king or in danger of becoming one) but my country is a very proud nation! We build our society on a document that even the founding fathers described as a “separation of church and state” upon which we have made a name for ourselves.
To get to the personal level, then is to speak of my allegiance to that name-for-ourselves empire we have built vs the Kingdom of God.
… Okay.
I hope I haven’t said too much. But I am certain that in the big scheme of things, neither you nor I have done more than scratch the surface here.
Don’t forget, I opened with questions. What more can you tell us about counting generations and where will that stuff lead us???
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow. That’s a lot to digest. I really like a lot of what you said in your response. And yes, I think we are only scratching the surface. There’s probably a ton more I could have written about Nimrod, but stopped where I did for some basic reasons – I was getting tired when I wrote this last night and I didn’t have a full slate of resources available to me. At any rate, You raise a good question about generations. You mentioned the significance of generations in your response. We see generations and lineage in other places where it is really important. It shows up in the Gospels with Jesus’ lineage. Even the number of generations becomes important. David is smack in the middle, Jesus is the completion. As for our subject – Nimrod – Here’s a little something I found in the commentary that I think you’re going to love. You talk about the bricks in egypt and slavery. How about this – Several commentaries talk about the idea of a generation being equivalent to 100 years. Remember that Abram was 100 when he had Isaac. Genesis 15:13-16, it states: “Then the Lord said to Abram, ‘Know this for certain, that your offspring shall be aliens in a land that is not theirs, and shall be slaves there, and they shall be oppressed for four hundred years; but I will bring judgement on the nation that they serve, and afterwards they shall come out with great possessions. As for yourself, you shall go to your ancestors in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.’” How long were the Israelites as slaves in Egypt using bricks to make great cities for warrior kings? Exodus 12:40 tell us that they lived in Egypt 430 years – the equivalent of four OT generations. Maybe Nimrod is an arch-type for what human kings and empires would be like. Thanks for adding to the discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cogitating…
Will get back with you…
(this is good!)
LikeLiked by 2 people
First, Agent X said a lot when he wrote, “Jesus is Lord. King. He is NOT the people’s choice, but God’s.” I am still trying to get my heart around that. I am a humble lay person but I love this discourse. Consider me a fly on the wall who will once in a while buzz by you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I keep meaning to get into some reference books on Nimrod and get back to this. Been busy, but I am digging it too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow! Okay…
I must apologize and confess, my expertise on Nimrod is lacking, so is my time to research him/them, and anyway, aside from the internet, I don’t have much in the way of reliable resources.
Counterbalancing this with my own blog, another research/writing project I am working on, AND the other duties which befall me (not the least of which is 3 little people in diapers constantly interfering with my other agendas), I am not getting very far with this.
I am scratching more surface and discovering how much I don’t know.
I looked at the Gilgamesh Epic as presented in V.P. Hamiltons Handbook on the Pentateuch, and I looked up Nimrod in ABD. I got nothing definitive. He could be a god, a hero, or a composite of such.
It turns out there are some very LATE Jewish and Christian writings that deal with Nimrod which will likely prove unhelpful in looking at his origins, BUT I have an idea that they will be useful in a certain KIND of approach, one I would suggest has great value.
My approach does not come with the rigors of academic discipline and you and your readers can be my peer review, but as I see it there are two ways of trying to get into/behind the Nimrod story/figure. One is to attempt to isolate and study him historically whether as a real man, a god, or a composite character and trace origins and so forth, but another is to place him in the Bible metanarrative. (They are not necessarily mutually exclusive approaches, but presumably we have all we need already to investigate the later, whereas the former will require a lot more research and will still come down to conjecture anyway.)
If we treat the whole Bible as a single narrative/metanarrative with a unity of it’s own, then need only determine Nimrods placement and function in that narrative. What is he doing there?
Part of THIS approach can, and probably should, examine what early church leaders were saying about him, since they presumably are closer to Jesus and the Apostles than us, and thus presumably their treatment of Nimrod will demonstrate how THEY answered such questions.
I did not chase footnotes (so far) and I am not likely to invest that much into this side project (its a side project for me currently).
Back to my own gut reaction to this study, and some strands I did not mention before….
When you announced you were going to study “kings”, it was clear to me that you meant kings in the Bible, but I assumed you meant Kings of Israel/Judah specifically. You had a broader category in mind, obviously. To my mind there are still two other biblical categories of Kings, broadly speaking. One is, like it appears you are doing here, an examination of all kings/king-like figures mentioned in the Bible, and the other would be kings of other nations mentioned in the Bible – not leaders of God’s people as opposed to those of God’s people.
I am wondering why you didn’t start with Adam, actually. You stretched back almost to the beginning, but not quite, but far enough that it seems Adam would be the first and even main King/King-like figure to show up in the primordial history.
Your blog, your choice, of course and so I do not find fault with it, but it suggests you have categories in your mind you have not revealed as far as I can tell.
The little bit of research I did on Nimrod in the last several hours tells me he is likely associated with Babylon AND Assyria (Nineveh particularly) and possibly Egypt too. All of these observations point squarely, in my mind, to a biblical critique of Empire. But of course the Gilgamesh Epic, IF THAT has bearing, deals with a Babylonian flood myth, which would also bounce sparks off our biblical Nimrod – obviously.
I didn’t see anything dealing with counting generations. But my search was very limited, and besides, counting generations, symbols, and secret codes are a whole genre of Bible study which is almost certainly disastrous hermeneutics, and searching the web for legit scholarship where such things are concerned is like studying pornography for say a sociology project. You can search for scholarly examination of issues surrounding porn, but you are very likely going to unleash a lot of garbage on your computer when you type your key words into search engines! Beware of what you are about the get!
Nevertheless, I am clear that there are a LOT more kings to study in the Bible than just Nimrod. AND I expect that the insights we distill along the way may begin to resonate with the little we know about Nimrod (Russian nesting dolls type stuff).
I am excited for what comes next.
Keep posting!
God bless…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks X. Great comments. I didn’t start with Adam because I am interested in really looking at earthly kings. Adam is an interesting character in that he is king-like because of God setting him over the garden, but he is also a bit different than other earthly kings. His kingship comes from God, not from humans. I haven’t decided if I am going to talk much about the kings of Israel/Judah. There are many studies on these kings and I would encourage people to look at them. But the other kings – those not of Israel/Judah are interesting characters of history and the Bible. You are right, my primary concern is not the historical nature, but rather how these folks fit into Scripture and also, how they relate to us today. Thanks for the conversation. I’m looking forward to seeing how it continues. I’ll have a post again on Thursday as I am traveling the next couple of days.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brothers (assuming Agent X is male),
Ia a not a pro and plan to be a spectator on the 50 yard line. I love the debate (game?), but If I walked out to the field I would be murdered. You will find me in the bleachers. listening, learning, and once in a while saying “but…”
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are always welcome to comment Joe. Questions are always welcome, as are observations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Pharaoh | Laced up Lutheran