Genesis Chapters 9, 10 Commentary by Mark Dunagan

Genesis Chapters 9 -10

Outline I.

Post-Flood Instructions: 9:1-7

II.

The Universal Covenant: 9:8-17

III.

The Destinies of Ham, Shem and Japheth: 9:18-27

IV.

Noah's Death: 9:28-29

V.

The Descendants of the Three Sons: 10:1-32

“The first seventeen verses of this chapter contain a detailed quotation of God's own words, given to Noah in response to his believing sacrifice after leaving the Ark. These verses contain the basic provision for human governments among men...They also contain the great Noahic covenant with post-Flood man, which is still in effect as far as God is concerned” (Morris p. 221). “This last section of the Flood story comprises four speeches by God, three of which are addressed to Noah and his sons (1-7, 8-11, 12-16)...and one of which is addressed only to Noah (17)” (Hamilton p. 312).

1

Genesis 9:1 “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” “Blessed”: “This is the third time God has blessed mankind (1:28; 5:2), and the third time man has been told to be ‘fruitful and multiply’ (1:28; 8:17)” (Wenham p.

192). “When God ‘blesses’, He not merely wishes well but imparts good” (Leupold p. 327). “Be fruitful and multiply”: The re-echo of Genesis 1:28, informing us that God has not given up on mankind and neither has God lowered His standards (9:6). “Replenish”: There is a time to move on. Noah and his family could have become preoccupied with all the neighbors and relatives perishing in the flood that they lost sight of the future. One cannot let the past control the present or the future. God gives Noah and his sons the marching orders to get on with life. Being the only people on the face of the earth must have been an awesome and lonely reality, but God assures them that they will have success in filling the earth. “It was God's design that mankind should quickly spread over the entire habitable earth, in order to exercise proper dominion over it” (Morris p. 222).

Genesis 9:2 “And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the heavens. With all wherewith the ground teemeth, and all the fishes of the sea, into your hand are they delivered” Genesis 9:3 “Every moving thing that liveth shall be food for you. As the green herb have I given you all”

Such "fear" and "dread" were necessary, for the animals, which were multiplying much more rapidly than man, might quickly have exterminated the sole family of survivors. Evolution needs to answer the question, 'Where did the animals get their natural fear of man”, seeing that when man is in their territory, "man" is often the one who is at the disadvantage, i.e. the large animal predators are more skillful hunters and are more powerful than man himself. Morris notes, “The ‘cattle’, seem not to have been included in this category. The domesticated animals would not shun man's presence and company; but all the others, in so far as possible and normal, would seek to flee at the approach of man” (p. 222). This would be both healthy for them and good for man as well.

2

It is often pointed out that this is the first place where man is given the right to eat meat or use the animals for food. Personally I'm not fully convinced that such is the case. It appears to me that the right to use the animals for food or other purposes is inferred in Genesis 1:28, in the sentence of “having dominion” over all created things. It seems to me that the "dominion" over the animals mentioned in Genesis 1:28, is the exact same thing as what is mentioned in Genesis 9:2-3.

Watson notes, “Some religions forbid the killing of any creature, because they believe every living thing has a ‘soul’ and even a human soul may be ‘re-born’ as an animal in another ‘incarnation’...If you refuse to kill any living creature you end up by valuing animal life higher than human life, because e.g. millions have died from plague, carried by rats, and from malaria, carried by mosquitos” (p. 102).

Genesis 9:4 “But flesh with the life thereof, {which is} the blood thereof, shall ye not eat” “Which is the blood”: “Thus it was not permissible to eat the flesh of freshly killed animals before the blood had been drained out” (Aalders p. 183). The Bible often notes that the "life" is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11; Deut. 12:23). It is scientifically correct to say that the physical life of any animal is inherently linked to the blood in that animal. “Indeed, Moses as scientifically correct. Because the red blood cells can carry oxygen…life is made possible...In fact, each human red blood cell is capable of carrying 270 million molecules of hemoglobin. If there were any less, there would not be enough residual oxygen available to sustain life after, say, a good sneeze, or a hard part on the back....But it wasn't known in George Washington's day. He was bled to death through the blood-letting process. How was Moses so accurate? Just a lucky guess?” 1 Various thoughts exist on why God gave this restriction: (a) To keep man from becoming wild and savage. (b) To teach him to appreciate the blood offered to atone for his own sins. “Belonging to God, it could be seen as His atoning gift to sinners, not theirs to Him” (Kidner p. 101). (c) To teach man respect for the animal life that he kills and eats, i.e. mankind isn't given the right to kill, simply to satisfy the urge to kill something. (d) To prevent brutality to animals, “This provision 1

A Study Course In Christian Evidences. Thompson & Jackson pp.

129­130.

3

would rule out all such cruel practices as those of the Abyssinians, who gouge out portions of meat from shanks of living animals, fill up the cavity with dung, and then eat the warm bloody meat” (Leupold p. 331).

Hamilton notes, “This law has no parallel in the ancient Near East...The fact that Israel's neighbors possessed no parallel law indicates that the prohibition ‘cannot be a vestige of primitive taboo, but the result of a deliberate, reasoned enactment’” (p. 314). The New Testament contains the same prohibition against eating blood (Acts 15:29). Various ancient and even some modern cultures believe that eating the blood of an animal gives one the "powers" of that animal.

The Sanctity of Human Life

Genesis 9:5 “And surely your blood, {the blood} of your lives, will I require. At the hand of every beast will I require it. And at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man.

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. For in the image of God made he man”

Apparently this law was also in force before the flood (Genesis 4:14). Clearly these verses recognize a huge gulf between the value of animal life and the value of human life. Jesus did the same thing (Matthew 12:12). “Whereas an animal's blood may be shed but not consumed, human blood cannot even be shed” (Wenham p.

193). In the Law of Moses even an animal that killed a human being was to be put to death (Exodus 21:28-29). After the flood, man still remains in the image of God. “This reasserts the unique status of man and explains why human life is specially protected, but animal life is not” (Wenham pp. 193-194).

These verses are telling us why the murderer deserves to die. The Evolutionist cannot give us a satisfactory answer why it is lawful or ethical to kill an animal, but taboo to kill another human being. Or, why the death of an animal goes for the most part unnoticed, but the death of a human being is considered to be a tragedy.

Murder is nothing more that an assault upon God Himself. Seeing that man is created in the image of God, and striking down that image, is in essence an attack

4

upon God. “He that kills a man destroys God's image and lays profane hands on that which is divine. The crime is so great that such a one actually forfeits his own right to life” (Leupold p. 334).

“I require”: The next verse informs us how, that is, God lets man be the avenger.

“By man shall his blood be shed”: The rest of the Bible points out, not just any man (Romans 12:17-21), but lawfully recognized human authorities (Romans 13:4).

God is very fair, “There is a just retaliation about having life paid for life. No man can question the justice of the price demanded. When lawgivers attempt to tamper with this regulation, they are trying to be wiser than the Divine Lawgiver” (Leupold p. 334). All "killing" is not consider murder (something that the anti-death penalty advocates overlook). The "man" who is authorized to kill the murderer, doesn't commit murder, for the executioner is doing God's will. The government which legitimately carries out the death penalty is "serving God" (Romans 13:1-4).

The Bible doesn't attach any negative stigma to the one who carries out this Divine command. God never commands and has never authorized anyone to do something which is "less" than ethical. In this passage God is commanding the death penalty, and not merely tolerating it. Morris notes, “Obviously some means of impartial verification of guilt prior to execution of the judgment is assumed, though no formal legal system is here outlined. Evidently the particular form of government might vary with time and place; but the fact of human government, exercised under God, is clearly established” (p. 225).

The Universal Covenant

Genesis 9:9 “And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you” This includes the whole human race, seeing that all are descended from Noah and his sons.

Genesis 9:10 “And with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you. Of all that go out of the ark, even every beast of the earth” “With every living creature”: Even though animals do not possess a spirit, God's

5

kindness is shown that He takes time and thought even for merely physical and temporary creatures in His creation (Matthew 6:26; 10:29; Jonah 4:11). “That is with you…of all that go out of the ark”: “Note the description of those animals with whom His covenant was made...Here is another incidental reference to the universality of the Flood, since otherwise all land animals surviving a mere local flood would not have come under the terms of God's covenant” (Morris p. 228).

Morris makes a good point, because if the Flood had only been a local judgment, then this covenant does not apply to everyone or every animal, rather it would only apply to a portion of the human race. “It would mean that God's promise was only for one section of the human race, for one part of the earth (presumably the lucky Armenians!), and for a few animals. Can we believe this?” (Watson p. 103).

Genesis 9:11 “And I will establish my covenant with you. Neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood. Neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth” This language once again emphasizes the fact that the Flood of Noah was not a regional or local flood. The thrust of this verse is that this Flood was unique, one of a kind. Nothing in the verse says that God will not at some latter time destroy the earth, but it only says that He will not do it with water (2 Peter 3:10).

Genesis 9:12 “And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations” “Token”: “The sign...was well suited to fulfill the prime function of all covenantsigns, which is reassurance” (Kidner p. 102). An on-going reminder for future generations, who were not present when God initially spoke these words.

Genesis 9:13 “I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth” “Bow”: That is, the rainbow.

There is quite a bit of discussion concerning whether it had ever rained before the

6

Flood, and hence, if this is the first time a rainbow had ever appeared. Some say that God is simply attaching a new meaning to the Rainbow, that had been part of this world from Creation. Morris, holds the opposite view: “Before the Flood, the upper air contained only invisible water vapor, and therefore no rainbow was possible. With the new hydrological cycle following the Flood, the former vapor canopy is gone” (p. 227). “It has been attractively suggested that the ‘bow’ would now picture to men God's battle-bow laid aside...against the gloom of the cloud, seems enough to make it a token of grace” (Kidner p. 102).

We need to sit and think for awhile. This earth is a beautiful place in which to live.

So much so, that many people spend tremendous amounts of time, energy and money in the attempt to prolong their stay. The Rainbow is merely one majestic and lovely thing upon this planet. Now, if the same God who created the Universe, is the same God who paid such a high price for our eternal salvation (John 3:16).

Then heaven must really be beautiful!

Genesis 9:14 “And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud” “The promise is not that a rainbow will be seen in every cloud, but that when it is seen...God will remember His covenant” (Kidner p. 102).

Genesis 9:15 “And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh” Be thankful that God "remembers". “The tragedy is, that though all men admire the beautiful rainbow, few any longer associate it with God's promise” (Morris p.

229). Regardless of how men would act in the future, God would remember His agreement.

The Sons of Noah

7

Genesis 9:18 “And the sons of Noah, that went forth from the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth. And Ham is the father of Canaan” “Ham is the father of Canaan”: “This reference anticipates 10:6, which tells that Canaan was the youngest and fourth son of Ham” (Hamilton p. 320). In addition, Canaan will figure in the curse and blessing section of 9:25-27. Carefully note how God had the Bible written in such a way as to assist the reader. Without this reference, verses 9:25-27 would be confusing. We cannot blame "misinterpretation" upon a short-coming in the text of Scripture. Morris notes, “Presumably, he is singled out for special mention because of his being the ancestor of the Canaanites, who were the wicked inhabitants of the land promised to Abraham and to the children of Israel, at the time when Moses was later editing this narrative and leading his people there” (p. 232).

Genesis 9:19 “These three were the sons of Noah. And of these was the whole earth overspread” Man is carrying out the Divine injunction found in 9:1. It is clear that the Flood was Universal, seeing that the whole earth (the people found on the whole earth) are the direct descendants of these three sons. “In the world today there seem to be several major ‘races’ (three or six or more, depending on the particular system of classification), perhaps 150 or so nations of some significance, and well over 3,000 tribal languages and dialects. Yet this diversity of peoples and tongues must have come from a common ancestor, because all of these are true men, capable of physical interrelationships, capable of learning and education, and even capable of spiritual fellowship with the Creator” (Morris pp. 231-232). At times people criticize the idea of all modern races being descended from Noah's three sons. Yet what alternative does Evolution present? All men are descended from apes? Personally I prefer to be descended from "My Three Sons", rather than "Bonzo Goes To Washington".

Noah’s Drunkenness

8

Genesis 9:20 “And Noah began to be a husbandman, and planted a vineyard”

“Began to be a husbandman”: “A man of the soil” (NEB). Life gets back to normal and it is time to work the soil, plant and provide for one's family. “Planted a vineyard”: Noah is not living a miserable existence after the Flood. “The vine, unlike the olive, is a delicate plant” (Watson p. 104). Noah is spending time on a plant that takes careful and intelligent cultivation. It seems clear that people before the Flood knew all about "wine" and its effects (Matthew 24:38). So we can't assume that Noah was ignorant of the intoxicating nature of the wine he made. “It is interesting to read in the Encyclopaedia Britannica that ‘viticulture (grapegrowing) probably had its beginnings in the area around the Caspian Sea, which is generally recognized as the place of origin of the best-known grape” (Watson p. 103) Of course, that's the part of the world where the Ark landed.

Genesis 9:21 “And he drank of the wine, and was drunken. And he was uncovered within his tent” “Uncovered”: We are not told exactly why he did this-- did his intoxicated state make him too warm? “Maybe the biblical writer is simply saying that too much wine reduces a normally rational being to a buffoon” (Hamilton p. 322). The Bible is completely honest. The man who stood above his contemporaries (Genesis 6:9), is not a god nor is he infallible or sinless. Consider the brevity of the account, a plain statement of fact, no excuses and no juicy details at the same time. Situation ethics would have justified Noah. Why after such a stressful experience of losing all your friends and a host of relatives in the Flood and being confined in the Ark for a whole year, a man deserves a little R and R, and who can blame him for "letting his hair down”. “The loss of decency and honor which marks this first biblical story of strong drink is severer still in the second, the degradation of Lot (19:30ff)...Proverbs 31:4-5 is comment enough on the last passage, with the formidable support of Proverbs 23:29-35” (Kidner p. 103).

I think that Morris has a good point when he says that Noah had no intention of

9

drinking to excess. That seems like a fair assessment of Noah, I think he deserves that much. Yet he did drink to excess, and that will always be a problem associated with a beverage that immediately begins to attack your powers of judgment and self-control.

This section of Scripture teaches us that Satan often gets the best of us when we let our guard down or when "we" think that the battle is over (1 Corinthians 10:12).

“He who maintained his ground over against a wicked and godless world, neglecting watchfulness and prayer in a time of comparative safety, fell prey to a comparatively simple temptation” (Leupold p. 345). I think Aalders makes a good point when he says, “There are various opinions as to whether Noah knew, before this incident, that fermented grape juice could cause drunkenness. In our judgment, there is no basis for excusing Noah from responsibility for his actions.

At the same time, there is no substance to the charge that Noah was a secret drunkard. In any case, he must have found the wine to be tasty and this led him to drink too much of it” (pp. 202-203).

Genesis 9:22 “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without” “Saw….and told”: Morris notes, “The word ‘saw’ in this context implies ‘gazed at’--evidently with satisfaction...Ham's actions here...they expressed a long-hidden resentment of his father's authority and moral rectitude...beholding the evidence of his father's human weakness before his very eyes, he rejoiced, no doubt feeling a sense of release from all the inhibitions which had until now suppressed his own desires and ambitions. Thinking his brothers would share his satisfaction, he hastened to find them and tell them the savory news. Literally, the text means ‘he told with delight’” (p. 235). Ham was not simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, rather he reacted wrongly to a sad situation.

Ham has many "spiritual" descendants today. When we hear about the downfall or moral lapse of another Christian, are we eager to share the juicy news? Does it make us feel superior to them? Do we feel that we can relax in our own relationship with God or bend the rules also? There is nothing Christian about the above responses to sin, for love doesn't rejoice in unrighteousness (1 Corinthians 13:6).

Genesis 9:23 “And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their

10

shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father. And their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness”

Shem and Japheth did not share Ham's twisted joy. “Unlike Him, they do not talk; they only act” (Hamilton p. 323). “Notice how it is twice said that they went ‘backwards’, and that they covered and did not see ‘their father's nakedness’. This slower pace allows the listener not only to reflect on these son's modesty (and respect for their father), but to visualize the awkwardness of their task. Backing into a tent trying to cover their sleeping father without looking at him must have been quite a tricky operation!” (Wenham p. 200).

Whether one has a pure mind or not is seen in how they react to gossip and stories which describe the misdeeds of others. There is nothing amusing about sin, and there is nothing "delightful" or enjoyable about hearing that someone has disgraced themselves. A Christian can find no joy or satisfaction in such things. “Honor your father and mother”, still applies when they make mistakes. God doesn't demand parents to be perfect, before children are obligated to respect them.

Genesis 9:24 “And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him” “And knew”: “How Noah discovered what had happened to him is not related” (Wenham p. 201). “Usually would mean ‘and he knew’ but here it implies ‘knowing as a result of inquiry’, i.e., ‘he learned’, or ‘found out’” (Leupold p. 348). This verse seems to indicate that Noah “knew” that Ham had some problems prior to this event. “Youngest”: Some say "younger". Shem appears to have been the oldest son (10:21). Commentators either place Ham after Shem in the birth order (the brothers are usually mentioned in that order), or they place him as the youngest son.

The Curse Upon Canaan Genesis 9:25 “And he said, Cursed be Canaan. A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren” “And he said”: “Are Noah's first words in Scripture. He built a ship, gathered a

11

crew, weathered a storm, offered a sacrifice, and lived righteously, but the text never mentions any words that he spoke” (Hamilton p. 324). “Canaan”: The son of Ham (10:6), Noah's grandson. Obviously, God is delivering this curse through Noah. Hence this text is not describing a temper tantrum which Noah experienced.

Or, personal resentment and ill-will. Neither is Noah blaming Ham for his own drunkenness and the consequences.

Some have a problem with Noah cursing Ham's son, instead of Ham himself: (a) In cursing Ham's descendant, Ham was also affected, “For his breach of family, his own family would falter” (Kidner p. 104). (b) Canaan, who apparently was already born, may have been old enough and was already demonstrating character traits which were ungodly. From the rest of the O.T. it is clear that the family branch of Ham, coming from Canaan did a good job of making themselves accursed in the sight of God (Leviticus 18; Genesis 15:16; 19:5). “The son is not punished for the iniquity of the father. His own unfortunate moral depravity, which he himself develops and retains, is foretold” (Leupold p. 350).

“A servant of servants”: “Is a Hebrew superlative, implying something like ‘lowest of slaves’” (Leupold p. 350). “Unto his brethren”: That is, the descendants of Shem and Japheth. This curse only applies to one branch within the Hamites.

“Those who reckon the Hamitic peoples in general to be doomed to inferiority have therefore misread the Old Testament as well as the New” (Kidner p. 104). Sadly in the past advocates of slavery argued that it was God's will for the African races to be slaves because they are descended from Ham. “This was a very bad argument because Noah did not curse Ham but only Canaan, who was Ham's youngest son” (Watson p. 104). The fulfillment of this curse is seen in that: (a) The Canaanites were conquered and subjected by the Israelites (Joshua 9:23; 1 Kings 9:21). (b) Another branch of the Canaanites became the Phoenicians, in 146 B.C. they were defeated by the Romans and never rose to power again.

Genesis 9:26 “And he said, Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem. And let Canaan be his servant” “The God of Shem”: The nation of Israel would come from Shem. “Let Cannan be his servant”: Which actually happened (Joshua 9:23). The Canaanites would serve the Israelites, not because of some genetic inferiority, but because the

12

Canaanites made themselves accursed by their own immorality. They filled up the cup of God's wrath all by themselves (Genesis 15:16). This verse also revealed to the Israelite people the another reason why they were being given the land of the Canaanites.

Genesis 9:27 “God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem. And let Canaan be his servant” “God enlarge Japheth”: “Some people say that so-called ‘prophecies’ were written after the event by poet-historians who wanted to glorify their own country and ancestors...This prayer of Noah seems to prove exactly the opposite--that the Jews faithfully copied out even those prophecies which did not specifically flatter them.

The Jews are descended from Shem, but the only definite blessing here is upon Japheth...What Jew, writing in the time of Solomon or later, would have dared to invent a prophecy which seems to suggest that one day the Gentiles will be greater than the Hebrews?” (Watson p. 105). “He appears as the ancestor of sundry peoples to the west and north of Israel...They are people largely, but not exclusively, of Indo-European stock. As a generalization we may say that the Japhethites are the Gentiles” (Hamilton pp. 325-326). “Enlarge”: “Be open...cause to be open. ‘Grant ample territory’. For, in reality, his descendants do spread out over vast stretches of territory from India across all Europe and of a later date over the Western Hemisphere” (Leupold pp. 352-353). “Let him dwell in the tents of Shem”: Many see this as a promise that the descendants of Japheth (many Gentile races) would eventually share in the spiritual blessings given to Shem, i.e. the Church, the New Israel would compromise both Jews and Gentiles (Ephesians 2:11ff).

The Death of Noah

Genesis 9:28 “And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.

Genesis 9:29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years. And he died” Nothing is said about Noah "fathering other sons and daughters". The text clearly implies that the whole present human race is descended from Noah's three sons. If we accept the genealogies in Genesis as having no gaps, then Noah was still alive

13

when Abraham was born. In a no-gap genealogy, Abraham would have been born 292 years after the Flood (see Genesis 11:10-26).

Chapter 10

Genesis 10:1 “Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, {namely}, of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And unto them were sons born after the flood” “Note that these three streams of nations are not three ‘races’. Though some have thought of the Semites, Japhethites, and Hamites as three races (say, the dusky, the while, and the black races--or the Mongoloid, Caucasian, and Negroid), this is not what the Bible teaches...There are dusky and black people found among all three groups of nations” (Morris p. 244). “Of the three families of humanity, Japheth (2-5) and Ham (6-20) are dealt with first, to leave a clear field to the history of Shem in the remainder of the book” (Kidner p. 105). “Even higher critics have often admitted that the tenth chapter of Genesis is a remarkably accurate historical document.

There is no comparable catalog of ancient nations available from any other source...Here is the one link between the historic nations of antiquity and the prehistoric times of Noah and the antediluvians” (Morris p. 245). “It reminds us that the human race is one race. This fact is proved by the biological test: any man of any country can marry any woman of any other country and their children will be normal humans, able to have children and grandchildren” (Watson p. 106).

The descendants of Japheth

Genesis 10:2 “The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras” “Japheth”: “The name of Japheth himself…is found in the literature as Iapetos, the legendary father of the Greeks, and Iyapeti, the reputed ancestor of the Aryans in India” (Morris p. 247). “Gomer”: “Is generally identified (by Herodotus, Plutarch, and other ancient writers) with the district of Cimmeria, north of the Black Sea, a name surviving to the present in the form Crimea...the name probably being preserved both in Germany and Cambria (Wales)” (Morris p. 247). “Still in use

14

apparently for the Welsh (Cymry)” (Kidner p. 106).

“Magog”: MAY gog). Josephus says that Magog (or Gog) was the ancestor of the Scythians, who originally inhabited the Black Sea area. “Madai”: (MAY dye). It is virtually agreed that he was the ancestor of the Medes, who are found west of the Caspian Sea in the ninth century B.C. “Javan”: (JAY vuhn). The father of the Ionians and Greeks. “It is well established that the name Javan is the original form of Ionia, which was the same as Greece” (Morris p. 248). “A branch of the Greeks, for whom this is the standard name in the Old Testament (Daniel 8:21)” (Kidner p.

106). “Tubal”: “Is known in the Assyrian monuments as the Tibareni, and probably has been preserved in the modern Russian city of Tobolsk” (Morris p.

248). “Meshech”: (MEE shek). “In Greek sources they are called the Moschoi and Tibarenoi” (Wenham p. 217). Morris argues, “Clearly is preserved in the name Muskovi (the former name of Russia) and Moscow” (p. 248). “Tiras”: (TIRE us).

“May be the Etruscans” (Kidner p. 106). Who inhabited Italy.

The Sons of Gomer

Genesis 10:3 “And the sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah” “Ashkenaz”: (ASH keh nazz). Various views-Scandia and Saxon, Armenia, Germany, the Scythians. “Riphath”: (RIH fath). “Josephus identified Riphat with the Paphlagonians, who lived between the Black Sea and Bithynia” (Wenham p.

218). “Togarmah”: (toe GAHR muh). “It may be identified with the area between the upper Halys and the Euphrates. Again, this roughly fits geographically with the other peoples related to Gomer” (Wenham p. 218).

The sons of Javan Genesis 10:4 “And the sons of Javan: Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim” “Elishah”: (eh LIE shah). “Alashiya, the cuneiform name for the island of Cyprus” (Hamilton p. 333).

“Tarshish”: (TAR shish). Possibly early settlers of Spain and North Africa. “Most scholars have identified Tarshish (the Old Testament city), with Tartessus, a mining

15

village in southwestern Spain” (Hamilton p. 333). “Kittim”: (KIT im). “Inhabitants of Cyprus and its neighboring coasts” (Kidner p. 106). “Dodanim”: (DOE dah nim), also called Rodanim (1 Chronciles 1:7). Early settlers on the island of Rhodes.

Genesis 10:5 “Of these were the isles of the nations divided in their lands, every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations” “Isles of the nations”: “Or coastlands--for the distant parts of the earth, and particularly the west” (Kidner p. 106). “Divided”: That is, after the events described in 11:1-9.

The sons of Ham

Genesis 10:6 "And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan” “Geographically, these are chiefly the nations from Canaan southwards; but they are not simply the African races” (Kidner p. 106). “Cush”: (kush). “Two peoples seem to have born this name: the Ethiopians and the Kassites, east of Assyria” (Kidner pp. 106-107). “Mizraim”: (MIZ ray im). The ancestor of the Egyptians and the customary name for Egypt in the Old Testament. “It is dual in form because of the division of Egypt into two parts, Upper and Lower” (Hamilton p. 336). “Put”: Somaliland, the Libyan region?

The sons of Cush

Genesis 10:7 “And the sons of Cush: Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabteca. And the sons of Raamah: Sheba, and Dedan” “This passage shows most of this stock bordering the Red Sea:...all in Arabia, reading from south to north” (Kidner p. 107).

Nimrod

16

Genesis 10:8 “And Cush begat Nimrod. He began to be a mighty one in the earth” “The etymology of Nimrod is uncertain. Most writers have connected it with the Hebrew verb ‘to rebel’” (Hamilton p. 338). “Arab traditions relating to Nimrod are obvious from such titles as Birs-Nimrod, the name for the ruins of Borsippa, and the well-known Nimrud of Calah” (Davis p. 142). “A mighty one in the earth”: “Looks out of antiquity as the first of ‘the great men that are in the earth’, remembered for two things the world admires, personal prowess and political power” (Kidner p. 107). “The Hebrew word which our translators have rendered ‘mighty warrior’ really says no more than that he was a mighty man, a man of great power. His power, in turn, came into expression in his effectiveness in establishing a strong, extensive kingdom” (Aalders p. 225).

Genesis 10:9 “He was a mighty hunter before Jehovah. Wherefore it is said, Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before Jehovah” “Hunter”: This may mean: (a) He was fearless and hunted wild and dangerous animals. (b) He hunted men, i.e. to enslave them, in pursuing and conquering other peoples. “Before Jehovah”: Marking God's estimate of this man's skill.

“This expresses neither approval or disapproval; it expresses only that what Nimrod did was significant (c.f. Jonah 3:3)” (Davis p. 142). “Wherefore it is said”: Either a traditional proverb or a quotation from a written source. “According to their inscriptions, the kings of Mesopotamia were especially fond and proud of their achievements in building and fighting, and some boast too of their hunting exploits” (Wenham p. 222).

Genesis 10:10 “And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar” “The beginning of his kingdom”: The "chief part" of his empire or the start of his empire. This verse describes great empire comprising a complex of cities centered at Babylon. “Babel”: “Known to the Babylonians as Bab-ilu (‘the gate of God’)” (Davis p. 142). “Situated on a branch of the Euphrates, southwest of Baghdad” (Hamilton p. 339). “Erech”: (EH wreck). The Babylonians and Assyrians called it

17

Uruk or Arku. Located forty miles northwest of Ur and a hundred miles southeast of Babylon. It was the legendary home of Gilgamesh, hero of the Babylonian flood story. “Accad”: (ACK add). Also spelled Akkad. “The city gave its name to the Akkadian empire, essentially synonymous with the Sumerian empire” (Morris p.

253). “Calneh”: (KAL neh). The exact location is unknown. “Shinar”: (SHIGH nahr). “The land of southern Mesopotamia, later known as Babylonia or Chaldea...Secular historians usually refer to the area as Sumer” (Nelsons pp. 983984).

Genesis 10:11 “Out of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah” “He went forth”: That is, Nimrod. Micah 5:6 refers to Assyria as the "land of Nimrod". “Into Assyria”: “Sumerian civilization spread from south to the north” (Wenham p. 224). “Nineveh”: Its ruins are opposite the modern city of Mosul, and is roughly 200 miles north of Babylon. “Rehoboth-Ir”: (rih HOE buhth ur).

Literally, “city-squares”. A suburb of Nineveh? “Calah”: “Is identified with modern Nimrud, twenty-four miles south of Nineveh” (Wenham p. 224).

Genesis 10:12 “And Resen between Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city)” “Resen”: “Possibly it was part of the sprawling urban complex around Nineveh” (Hamilton p. 340). “The same is the great city”: Probably not Calah nor Resen, but the whole complex which surrounded Nineveh.

The sons of Mizaraim Genesis 10:13 “And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim” “Ludim”: (LOU deam). Early name for Libya? Others say the ancestor of the Lydians of Asia Minor. “Anamim”: (AN uh men) (rockmen). People who lived around Cyrene (North Africa)? “Lehebim”: (lih HAY bim). Ancestor of the Libyans? “Naphtuhim”: (naf TOO heem). “The people of Memphis (i.e. middle

18

Egypt)” (Hamilton p. 340).

Genesis 10:14 “and Pathrusim, and Casluhim (whence went forth the Philistines), and Caphtorim” “Pathrusim”: (puh THROO zim). “Inhabitants of Pathros, or Upper (i.e. Southern) Egypt” (Hamilton p. 340). “Casluhim”: (KASS lyoo him). “Whence went forth the Philistines”: “Secular writings generally place the origin of the Philistines on the island of Crete, and identify Caphtor as Crete. It seems probable that these two sons of Mizraim, ancestors of the Casluhim and Caphtorim, kept their families together, later migrating to Crete and still later, in successive waves, to the eastern shore of the Mediterranean to the land later known as Philistia” (Morris p. 254).

“Caphtorim”: (KAF tawr). “The island or maritime region from hence the Philistines originally came (Deuteronomy 2:23; Jeremiah 47:4; Amos 9:7). The most probable location is Crete” (Nelsons p. 207).

The sons of Canaan

Genesis 10:15 “And Canaan begat Sidon his first-born, and Heth” “Sidon”: “A well-known Phoenician city on the Mediterranean coast, some twenty-eight miles south of Beruit. Throughout the 2nd millennium it was the leader of Phoenician cities” (Hamilton p. 341). “The Phoenicians certainly regarded themselves as Canaanites” (Wenham p. 225). “Heth”: The ancestor of the Hittites.

Between 1500-1200 B.C. they completely controlled what is now modern Turkey.

The present town of Boghazkoy was once the capital of this mighty empire.

Genesis 10:16 “and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite” “Jebusite”: Dwellers in and around Jerusalem, before it was captured by King David (Joshua 15:63; 2 Samuel 5:6-8).

“Amorite”: “The Amarna letters call all these tribes the ‘Amurru’” (Morris p. 255).

“Mari on the Euphrates was one of their capitals” (Hamilton p. 341).

19

“Girgashite”: Very little is known of them. They appear on various Canaanite tribal lists (15:21; Deut. 7:1; Josh. 3:10; 24:11).

Genesis 10:17 “and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite” “Hivite”: “Their main centers seem to have been well north of Lebanon and Syria (Josh. 11:3; Judges 3:3). “Sinite”: Morris notes, “The Biblical mention of a people in the Far East named ‘Sinim’ (Isaiah 49:12), together with references in ancient secular histories to people in the Far East called ‘Sinae’, at least suggests the possibility that some of Sin's descendants migrated eastward...It is significant that the Chinese people have always been identified by the prefix ‘Sino’ (e.g. SinoJapanese War; Sinology, the study of Chinese history). The name 'sin' is frequently encountered in Chinese names in the form ‘Siang’ or its equivalent” (p. 256).

Genesis 10:18 “and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite. And afterward were the families of the Canaanite spread abroad” “Spread abroad”: Morris notes, “it does seem that two sons of Canaan, Heth...and Sin are the most likely to have become ancestors of the Oriental peoples...it is reasonable to conclude that the Mongoloid peoples (and therefore also the American Indians) have come mostly from the Hamitic line” (p. 256).

Genesis 10:19 “And the border of the Canaanite was from Sidon, as thou goest toward Gerar, unto Gaza. As thou goest toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim, unto Lasha” “Sodom and Gomorrah”: When this was written, these two cities had been long destroyed.

The Sons of Shem

20

Genesis 10:21 “And unto Shem, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, to him also were children born” “And unto Shem”: “The ground has been cleared for the family of peoples which will be the Old Testament's main concern” (Kidner p. 108). “Father of”: Actually, in this case, Shem was his great-grandfather (10:24). Yet Eber is mentioned right off the bat, because Eber constitutes the promised line for the Messiah (Luke 3:35).

“Eber”: “It is from ‘Eber’ that the term ‘Hebrew’ has apparently been derived” (Morris p. 258). Abraham is called a "Hebrew" (14:13), indicating that he is a descendant of Shem. “Eber, the apparent source of the word Hebrew seems to be named from the verb 'to pass over or through'” (Kidner p. 109). “The elder brother of”: Some argue that the text should read, “Japheth the elder”, yet the ASV reflects the modern consensus translation, that is, Shem was the oldest brother. Some argue that Genesis 11:10 leaves room for a son to be born before Shem, i.e. Shem was 97-98 years old when the flood happened. Compare with Genesis 5:32.

Genesis 10:22 “The sons of Shem: Elam, and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram” “Elam”: “The most eastern country named in this chapter. It lay east and northeast of the Euphrates and of Mesopotamia” (Hamilton p. 344). “Asshur”: Also the name given to the capital of Assyria. “Was evidently the founder of the Assyrians” (Morris p. 259). In light of 10:11, the latter Assyrians appear to have been a mixture of both Semitic stock and Hamitic culture. “Aram”: The father of the Aramaeans, the same as the Syrians. Their language (Aramaic) was the common language adopted by many nations in the ancient world.

Genesis 10:23 “And the sons of Aram: Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash” “Uz”: Compare with Job 1:1. Some say this is a region in Arabia.

The Sons of Eber Genesis 10:25 “And unto Eber were born two sons. The name of the one was Peleg. For in his days was the earth divided. And his brother's name was Joktan”

21

“In his days was the earth divided”: The division that happened in Genesis 11:1-9.

“It would seem that Peleg received his name from the incident of the confusion of speech. The word 'peleg', in Hebrew, indeed does mean to divide or split” (Aalder p. 237). “Nimrod, as Noah's great-grandson through Ham, was in the same generation as Eber, Noah's great-grandson through Shem. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that the division at Babel took place when both Nimrod and Eber were mature men” (Morris p. 261). “Joktan”: “The names of his sons point to Arabian groups” (Hamilton p. 345).

Closing Observations “It is not without interest that such a table of nations is unique of Old Testament literature. Neither the hieroglyphic nor the cuneiform worlds produced a parallel document. The theological value of the Table is that it affirms Israel as part of one world governed by one God...Yet, Genesis 10 emphasizes Israel's commonality with the other nations more than it does its uniqueness. What the chapter affirms is that all of humanity, in spite of geographical and linguistic differences, share a common origin...Acts 17:26” (Hamilton p. 346).

22