Presentation 21

The approach taken in the study of Gen.10 is somewhat different from earlier and subsequent chapters. This chapter forms a remarkable genealogy and our handling of it should take note of the following observations. 1. The birth order of Noah’s sons is reversed and the table begins with Japheth whose descendants were the most geographically widespread. 2.The lists of families are not intended to be a complete but they do reflect the distribution of the nations with which the writer was familiar. 3.The names of the nations mentioned here are not necessarily the same peoples and nations inhabiting these lands today. Introduction Presentation 21

4. C19 th ethnological science concluded that there is a three-fold division of the human family, corresponding remarkably with Gen 10. The three great races it distinguished were Semitic, Aryan, and Turanian [Allophylian]. 5. Gen10 stands alone in the literature of antiquity in accounting for the distribution of the nations throughout the earth. The nearest attempt found in later Greek literature was clearly based on its mythology. In the Egyptian ‘Book of Gates’ there is a recognition of some kind of anthropological classification. 6.Gen 10 does not attempt to answer questions that might be asked from our world view e.g. how were the American continents populated? Introduction Presentation 21

Japheth was the progenitor of many tribes inhabiting the east of Europe and the north of Asia, 10:2-5. Japheth receives the shortest mention - his descendants became the Gentile nations, that were most distant from Israel. The Hebrew people considered anything that was across the sea to be an isle. And so, Japheth populated all of the lands that were on the other side of the Mediterranean and other bodies of water. Among them are a few noticeable names - Magog is a mystery. Some think that it means the land of Gog, but we do not know where those people were located. Magog is mentioned in Ezekiel 38.2; 39.6 and in Revelation 20.8 represents all of the heathen nations that gather against the Messiah. Japheth Presentation 21

In v1-4, Gomer is the Gimirra of the Assyrian Tablets, Gomer is linked with Magog in Ezek.38 as the "house of Togarmah of the north quarters". That may refer to the area of Armenia. Madai were probably the progenitors of the Medes, who existed north of Persia and west of Assyria. Javan represents the early Greeks, and the inhabitants of the coasts around the Mediterranean. Javan's offspring are mentioned in Isaiah 66:19 as existing "in the isles afar off". Tarshish is possibly Spain, while Kittim is linked with Cyprus. Dodanim is possibly the Isle of Rhodes. Tubal and Meshech are also associated with Gomer and Magog in the northern quarters of Armenia and Sarmatia (Moscovia) (see Ezek.38). Tiras is known as the Thracians of northern and central Asia Minor. Japheth Lud Lydia Javan Greeks Put Lydia Mizraim Egypt Kittim Cyprus Joktan Arabia Asshur Assyria Ashkenaz Scythians Madia Medes Hittites Togarmah Cimmerians Arphaxad Elam Amorites Canaanites Philistines Aram Syria Mediterranean Sea Gomer and Magog Presentation 21

In v5 the Hebrew word "gowy" means ‘a foreign nation’, hence, a ‘Gentile’. ‘Gowy' or 'Goyim', means non-Hebrew peoples, i.e.non-Semitic ( from Shemitic, of the family of 'Shem'). All these peoples still employed one language cf Gen.11:1, and so this word 'tongue' could mean different dialects of the same language. Alternatively it may be best to understand that chronologically Gen. 11.1ff describes the events, which in turn led to the languages mentioned in 10.5,31. Therefore languages are mentioned in Chap 10 for the sake of completeness and do not suggest that different language groups existed prior to the construction of the tower of Babel. Japheth Presentation 21

Another interesting grandson of Japheth is Ashkenaz. Although Japheth's family became the Gentile nations, a very large number, if not the majority, of modern Jews call themselves Ashkenaz Jews. These are not flesh and blood descendants of Jacob, but are descended from a nation of people who converted to Judaism sometime around the eighth century and who claimed to be descendants of Ashkenaz. Their tradition of Judaism has survived down through the centuries, and most of them think of themselves as true Jews. When linguists today talk of Indo-european languages, they refer to a common language shared by a people group some of whom migrated to the Indian sub-continent, while others travelled into Europe. Interestingly there are common roots between Sanskrit and many European languages. Japheth Presentation 21

Ham's family was the one that Israel had most contact with. Ham is associated with Egypt, Ps.78:51 and Ps. 105:23. And Cush is associated with Ethiopia, as Seba (Sheba) is also [Isa.43:3]. Mizraim is a term linked with both banks of the Nile, i.e. Upper and Lower Egypt. Phut is linked with Libya [Nahum 3:9; Ezek.27:10]. The sons of Cush are associated with the various Arabian lands of Yemen, Sabbatha, Sabbia, and Daden or Aden. Ham Presentation 21

Ham had a notorious son named Nimrod v8-10. Nimrod means " rebellion ". He reflected something of the pre-flood rebellion and was a seeker of fame, fortune, and power. Nimrod is described as a "mighty hunter" inferring that he was a violent man. He did not simply hunt for food, and perhaps animals were not the only things he hunted. His dominant spirit led him to build a ‘kingdom for himself’. This is the first mention of ‘kingdom’ in scripture. He attempted to create a civilization without reference to God. The word 'Babel' means 'confusion'. Any thinking that does not align with God and his purpose reaps 'confusion'. Men began to set up 'things' to worship instead of God. Ham Presentation 21

The peoples mentioned in v13 would later be associated with the lands of Egypt, Phut, Lybia, and Ethiopia, Pathros, Copts [see also Jer.46:19; Ezek.30:5; Nahum 3:9; Dan.11:43; Isa.11:11; Jer.44; Amos.9:7]. The repopulating of the earth after the flood was done so quickly that some have questioned the written record, but God's hand was in it. God wanted to restore to his creation, a fruitfulness that applied to both the repopulation of men and animals. However, it was the fallen sinful nature of man that ensured that human sinfulness also spread at a great rate. Nimrod was only one outstanding example of the sinfulness of man spreading over the face of the earth. Ham Presentation 21

The last of Ham's sons was Canaan. He was under God's curse because his father mocked Noah. The curse of Canaan would be revealed in their sinful idolatry and sexual perversions. The cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim were the cities of the plain that became so decadent that God destroyed them. Sidon v19 means 'hunting', and refers to the 'Zidon' of Scripture in Gen.49:13 and Isa.23. Zidon is associated with the city of Tyre, an ancient city of commerce. This word Sidonians is a generic name to describe the ancient Phoenicians to whom the Hittites and Jebusites are also connected. Ham Presentation 21

Canaan is given more attention in this genealogy than the other sons listed before him. Perhaps Moses, the author, wanted to draw the distinct contrast between their cursed and sinful lifestyles and the way of life to which the believing community descended from Shem displayed. It is possible that Moses the author of Genesis wanted to set the two groups side by side so that the enmity between them would be recognised as spiritual in origin and not simply social. Ham Presentation 21

In v21 ff we come to Noah's youngest son Shem. This family line would produce the ‘Seed of the Woman’ [Gen.3.15], and become the bloodline of our Lord Jesus Christ. "Shem was the ancestor of all the sons of Eber.”v21 The word 'Eber' means 'a region across, on the opposite side’. Eber is the root from which the word ‘Hebrew’ comes. This label 'Hebrew' for the people of God has its origin here with Shem's son Eber. This family would fall away from the worship of God and become part of the heathen world involved in idolatry and rebellion until God called Abram out of that society and to himself. Shem Presentation 21

Many people have speculated about what the text means when it speaks of the earth being ‘divided’ in Peleg's day v22. Some believe that this could be a reference to a cataclysmic movement of the earth's tectonic plates contributing to the creation the various continents, but there is no other evidence to support such a view. It is more likely that the division referred to is the division of peoples and languages referred to in chapter 11 during the construction of the tower of Babel. Eber's other son Joktan was the ancestor of Abraham. Shem Presentation 21

These genealogies remind us of the sovereign activity of God. As we look back on them we see the effects of God’s cursing and blessing. In remarkable detail, we see God’s plan being unfolded and fulfilled throughout the generations of all the peoples of the earth. Most importantly, we see clear evidence of God's patience and mercy with man. All of the above listed tribes departed from the worship of God, but he reached down into that rebellion and called a man Abram through whom the Saviour of the world would come. Shem Presentation 21

The record of Gen.10 makes incidental observations that have been flatly contradicted over the years yet subsequently they have been shown to be accurate. For example, it was questioned in classical literature that the founders of Babylonian civilization were not Semites but Hamites. The accuracy of the biblical record has been vindicated by modern Archaeology. Again, Gen. 10 claims that Elam was founded by a Semite, yet the Elamites of history were not a Semitic people. However, a French expedition excavating Susa, the capital city of Elam, found below the ruins of historical Elam, bricks and other remains of an older civilization with Babylonian inscriptions indicating that this earlier civilization was of Semitic stock. Conclusion Presentation 21

The uniqueness of the Table of Nations is commented on by W.F. Albright : It stands absolutely alone in ancient literature, without a remote parallel even among the Greeks, where we find the closest approach to a distribution of peoples in genealogical framework. But among the Greeks the framework is mythological. In view of the inextricable confusion of racial and national strains in the ancient near East it would be quite impossible to draw up a simple scheme which would satisfy all scholars; no one system could satisfy all the claims made on the basis of ethnic predominance, ethnographic diffusion, language, physical type, culture, historical tradition. The Table of Nations remains an astonishingly accurate document. Conclusion Presentation 21