Week 5: Genesis 10:1-32

Week 5: Genesis 10:1-32

At A Glance:

Author: Moses or J & P mix

Form: Genealogy

Themes: The unity of all peoples on earth from one family.  The repopulation of the earth.  The foundation of future nations.

Summary:  This chapter is a remarkably good classification of various peoples known to ancient Israelites.  It tells how all the varying nations came from the 3 sons of Noah.  As will be seen the descendants of Ham become recurring enemies of the descendants of Shem.  Until this time the emphasis has been on God’s command to multiply, this “Table of Nations” emphasizes God’s command to fill the earth.  The genealogy separates the descendants of the three sons by language, land, and nation. 

Commentary:

10:1-32 – I feel the best way to help understand what the author(s) of this text are trying to portray would be to display a map of the known cities named from this “Table of Nations”:

This is a good representation of the nations and lands that Shem, Ham, and Japheth expand into.  Below is a good flow chart for the names of the sons descendant from Noah’s boys:

Japheth represents mostly Indo-European languages, Ham the Hamitic speaking peoples of northern Africa, and Shem the Semitic peaking people of Mesopotamia. 

10:8-12 – This additional fact about the man Nimrod stands out from the rest of the Table of Nations.  Some scholars see this as an addition to the text from the J source probably added by the master redactor.  It provides much theological importance.  The emphasis on Nimrod as a “mighty hunter”, “mighty man” and the Septuagint translates “giant” led to a Hebrew tradition that he was not simply a hunter of beasts but of his fellow men.  He builds the foundations for the future kingdoms of Babylon and Assyria the kingdoms that will eventually capture and exile the northern kingdom of Israel in 722BC and the southern kingdom of Judah in 586BC.  According to Josephus Nimrod stirred within men a rebellion against God teaching that happiness must come from themselves not from the Lord.  If this legend about Nimrod is true this would make him the first heretic after the great flood naming him the human father of idolatry. 

10:21-31 – Shem becomes the father of all Semitic people including Israel.  The name Eber may be related to “Hebrew”.

Final Thoughts:

            The Table of Nations lists a total of 70 names (if you don’t count Noah & his sons).  The number 70 represents the totality of something.  It is used later in Gen 46:27 and Ex 1:5 to represent the total number of the Israelites.   This numbering makes emphasis of the totality of all the nations as known by the ancient Israelites.  From one surviving family comes salvation through the Jews, and also great wars and oppression. 

            I’m reminded of a couple of things while reading this genealogy.  First I’m reminded that all peoples of the earth are essentially one human family.  We may not all be baptized brethren but we are brothers and sisters of the human race none-the-less.  I think this is evident in the midst of great tragedy like a Tsunami or earthquake on the other side of the world.  Watching the destruction from the safety of our homes thousands of miles away from any real danger our hearts reach across the distance to those brothers and sisters who are suffering.   We feel compelled to respond.

            In contrast when life is comfortable we look at our brothers and sisters who are different from us in culture and ideology with contempt.  Conflict occurs between those who have and those who have not.  This contrast between contempt and compassion occurs on the macro-scale of the human family but also on the micro-scale of our individual families.  When tragedy strikes our families even members who are estranged often find forgiveness or at least the setting aside of differences for focus on the common good.  However we all grow up differently.  We develop ideologies that not only differ from our family but can be opposed to the ideologies of other family members.  If we are not careful to focus on our common house we can become like Nimrod who failed to recognize his brethren in his hunting of them for dominion over them. 

            This brings me to my second thought.  Given our different ideologies from the macro-scale to the micro-scale those who are powerful, more articulate, charismatic, clever, or outspoken can be tempted to dominate over those who have opposing ideologies.  In our rationalizations we tell ourselves that it is better for them to believe the way I believe because ultimately I am right.  Using our might in words or force we impose our ideologies (however correct they maybe) on someone who does not accept them.  We become like Nimrod hunting down our own family.  This is not preaching against evangelization but rather against proselytizing. 

            Evangelization is a presentation in word and deed of the good news.  That good news is Jesus!  We evangelize when we invite others into deep relationship with Jesus in our words and actions.  Evangelization is about invitation.  During his earthly ministry Jesus invited people into relationship with him.  People responded in one of two possible ways: they followed him, or they rejected him.  Jesus did not force his Gospel to those who rejected him, but rather respected their freewill.  Jesus is often depicted as sad or amazed at their unbelief but he allows them to reject him still.  Proselytizing has to “win over” the one in opposition.  Those who proselytize are not content in walking away sad or in amazement of disbelief but will often railroad the opposing view.  I believe that proselytizing pushes people away from Jesus more than invites them to consider him. 

            To summarize my thoughts from the Table of Nations:  We are one human family different in culture and ideology, but united through our common creator.  When we interact with one another we can either invite others in our words and deeds or we can breed contempt in our words and deeds.  Don’t be a Nimrod.

            Please feel free to share your additional thoughts and insights on this passage…