The Table of Nations: The “Also Pe oples ” 1 Kenneth A. Mathews Kenneth A. Mathews is Professor Introduction early as Jewish midrash: “Ham and a dog of Divinity at Beeson Divinity School, On November 7, 2000 Alabama’s citizens had sexual relations in the ark. Therefore Samford University. Dr. Mathews is also cast their votes for the forty-third Presi- Ham came forth dusky, and the dog, for adjunct professor of Old Testament at dent of the United States, electing George his part, has sexual relations in public” The Southern Baptist Theological Semi- W. Bush the first president of the new cen- (Gen. Rab. 36.5). F. A. Ross (1796-1883) nary. He has written numerous articles tury. That vote, however, was not the only argued in his Slavery Ordained of God and two books, including volume one significant ballot, and maybe not the most (1857) that there was an inherent correla- on Genesis in the New American Com- important, made by the people of Ala- tion between the geographical distribu- mentary series. He is now working on bama. Although only symbolic in action, tion of the races and their relative cultural volume two. the passage of Amendment 2 to the Ala- standing (Gen 10:1-32). By coupling his bama Constitution of 1901 repealed the interpretation of Genesis and A. H. obsolete ban of interracial marriage, sig- Guyot’s Earth and Man (1849), in which naling the end of another vestige of legal Guyot sought to explain a people’s physi- racial segregation that had marked every cal environment and their social and aspect of life in the deep South for three moral development, Ross contended that centuries.2 The law was not enforceable, the peoples south of the equator were since it contradicted the fourteenth ethnically inferior to those located in Asia amendment of the United States Consti- (Shem) and Europe (Japheth). The topog- tution, but the Alabama Constitution raphy itself conveys the superior features remained the last state constitution to of the Europeans: “That Europe, indented have this prohibition on the books. by the sea on every side, with its varied During the era of racial slavery, apolo- scenery, and climate, and Northern influ- gists for the status quo often appealed to ences makes the varied intellect, the ver- the Bible, including Genesis, as their satile power and life and action, of the religious and cultural authority. Unfortu- masterman of the world.”3 nately, they misunderstand Genesis 10:1- Racial segregationists during the civil 32, popularly known as the “Table of rights movement of the twentieth century Nations.” Also, the prelude to the Table often appealed to Acts 17:26, which relies of Nations (9:20-29), describing Noah’s on the Table of Nations, when asserting curse against his grandson Canaan and the permanent separation of the races: his blessing on Shem, became a perverted “From one man he [God] made every commentary on the inferior status of the nation of men, that they should inhabit black African peoples, “the lowest of the whole earth; and he determined the slaves shall he [Canaan] be” (9:25), and times set for them and the exact places their descendants. That the curse meant where they should live.” Christian inter- Ham’s descendants were inferior as a race preters who advocated segregation and forever stigmatized by dark skin maintained that the true unity that all color was an interpretation known as Christians have is their spiritual oneness 42 in Christ, but racial amalgamation con- history, traditions, and culture, such as tradicted the ordinance of God that familial descent, language, and religious established the separation of the races.4 and social customs. “People” (‘am) is the By neglecting this creation ordinance, common term used by God in referring racial integration opposed the wisdom of to the Israelites; with the possessive forms Providence. (e.g., ‘ammi, “my people”) the expression Although the vast majority of inter- captures the personal, relational aspect of preters today reject bizarre racial interpre- Yahweh and Israel, the covenant commu- tations of passages (e.g., Gen 4:11; 9:25; nity (e.g., Exod 3:7).6 W. von Sodom com- 10:1-32), occasionally a hint emerges that ments that Israel alone in the ancient Near in biblical times there were pure racial East developed a word for itself that entities, especially the Israelites. As the conveyed “unequivocally” that it was a argument goes, the Jews, by maintaining people.7 “Israel” understood itself as a a pure race, preserved a pure religion. In people identified and bound by their this essay we will show that ancient devotion to God, not foremostly by terri- peoples were no more pure in race than tory, language, or even common deriva- modern communities and that race as tion. They primarily perceived a “nation” commonly defined today was not of spe- (goy) as a political term, describing a geo- cial interest to ancient peoples, nor to the political state in a specific locale whose Hebrews. Also, we will examine why the citizenship consists of interconnected Bible prohibits some kinds of integration communities.8 between the Hebrews and outsiders, such Peoples of the ancient Near East per- as intermarriage. Finally, we will com- ceived family derivation, shared history, ment on the inclusiveness of God’s traditions, and customs as the primary redemptive plan for the ages as mani- means of distinguishing ethnic groups. fested by Israel and the church. “Race” as we think of it was not impor- tant for ancient peoples, including the The Table of Nations and Israel Hebrews, and rarely appears in ancient Since some segregationists believed the texts or the Bible (e.g., Jer 13:23). Typically, division of the nations in chs. 10-11 the Hebrews, like the peoples of the showed that God intended for the races ancient Near East, identified foreigners in to remain separate, we will look at the terms of their language, locale, religion, character of the Table of Nations. Before or customs (e.g., Num 21:29; Isa 33:19; doing so, we will comment on the bewil- Amos 1:5). dering terms that contemporary discourse employs when discussing ethnic groups.5 The Table of Nations The terms “race” and “ethnic” are First, the Table of Nations employs an often used synonymously today, but each eclectic standard for establishing the holds a different nuance. In the case of relationships it describes, providing var- “race” we are speaking of inherited physi- ied sorts of information, by listing “clans,” cal traits that characterize peoples, such languages,” “territories,” and “nations” as cranial shape, facial features, and skin (10:5, 20, 31, 32; cf. v. 18).9 Individuals’ color. “Ethnic” (ethnos) or “people group” names (e.g., Nimrod [10:8], Peleg [10:25]), identifies an affiliated people who share territorial entities (e.g., Canaan, Mizraim, 43 10:6), and tribes and nations (e.g., Kittim erary effect of this arrangement implies [10:4], Jebusites [10:16]) appear. “Sidon that the chosen Shemite lineage (11:10-26), the firstborn,” for example, is ambiguous, resulting in the family of Abraham (11:26), perhaps referring to a person or to the is the response of divine grace to the Phoenician city by the Sea (10:15,19). The Tower of Babel’s tumult. By creating a expressions “father of” (yalad, e.g., 10:8, nation with Abraham, Yahweh provided 13, 15) and “sons of” (bene, e.g., 10:1,2) are the means for blessing the nations (12:3b; familial terms that may be used meta- 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). phorically to signify peoples or places Third, the collection of names is affiliated by political and economic ties ethnogeographic in emphasis,10 establish- (cf. 1 Chr 2:51, “Salma the father of ing the broad geographical domains of Bethlehem”). An example of a family term the groups that make up each branch. The commonly substituted for a political tie Japhethites, peoples who were most is “daughters” (benot) which describes remote to Israel’s history, were primarily villages that encompassed and depended located in Asia Minor and Europe. Egypt, on an urban center (NIV’s “surrounding Mesopotamian locations, and parts of settlements,” Num 21:25; Josh 15:45; 1 Chr Arabia were Hamitic descendants, and 2:23; Neh 11:25). the Shemites included parts of Meso- Second, the Table of Nations exhibits a potamia and Arabia, and the region of form of genealogy popular in Genesis, Syria. The Hamite and Shemite peoples, known as “branched” or “segmented” who receive more attention in the Table, (e.g., Cainites, 4:17-24). The branched had frequent contact with the Israelites in genealogical pattern includes the names their history. From the perspective of the of more than one descendant for each gen- Israelites emerging from the wilderness, eration cited. The Table arranges the this blueprint of the surrounding popu- names into three sections according to the lations prepared them for their future role number of Noah’s sons (9:18-19): Japheth as a burgeoning member of the commu- (vv. 2-5), Ham (vv. 6-20), and Shem (vv. nity of peoples. 21-31). The “linear” type of genealogy Fourth, the seventy names listed in the presents only one name per generation, Table are representative of all nations, not e.g., the Sethites (5:1-32) and the Shemites a comprehensive list (cf. 10:5, “From these (11:10-26). [named Japhethites] the maritime peoples In the case of Shem, both forms of spread out”). The count of seventy as a genealogy occur, providing an illustration multiple of seven and ten indicates of each type (10:21-31; 11:10-26).