Presentation 21
Presentation 21
Introduction
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.
Presentation 21
Introduction
4. C19th 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?
Presentation 21
Japheth
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.
Presentation 21
Japheth
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.
Gomer and Magog
Ashkenaz
Scythians
Cimmerians
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.
Lud
Lydia
Hittites
Javan
Greeks
Kittim
Cyprus
Mediterranean
Sea
Aram
Syria
Asshur
Assyria
Madia
Medes
Amorites
Elam
Canaanites
Philistines
Arphaxad
Put
Lydia
Mizraim
Egypt
Presentation 21
Togarmah
Joktan
Arabia
Japheth
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.
Presentation 21
Japheth
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.
Presentation 21
Ham
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.
Presentation 21
Ham
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.
Presentation 21
Ham
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.
Presentation 21
Ham
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.
Presentation 21
Ham
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.
Presentation 21
Shem
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.
Presentation 21
Shem
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.
Presentation 21
Shem
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.
Presentation 21
Conclusion
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.
Presentation 21
Conclusion
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.
Presentation 21