Study Notes Spoken with Blood: The Fall, Part 2 June 12, 2016 The following study helps do not attempt to cover 6 chapters of Genesis, but rather focus on the more often misunderstood and misapplied passages concerning the Table of Nations and the Tower of Babel. GENESIS 10:1 – 11:26 10:1–11:9 The account of Shem, Ham and Japheth This section comprises two sections: the Table of the Nations (10:1–32) and the Tower of Babel story (11:1–9) and serves three purposes. First, it defines Israel’s relationship to the other nations. Secondly, it explains the diversity of languages. Thirdly, it shows the nations sinning yet further and provoking more divine judgment. It thus prepares for yet another divine attempt to rescue mankind through the call of Abraham. 10:1–32 The Table of Nations This remarkable text sets Israel within the context of the world known to the OT writers. It lists seventy nations (probably a symbolic round number; cf. the seventy sons of Jacob who ​ went down to Egypt, 46:27), which represent all the peoples of the world, and is not an exhaustive list of all groups known in ancient Israel. It reads a bit like a family tree, but it may be that not all the relationships described are genealogical. In the ancient world, treaties and covenants led to people calling themselves brothers or sons of their treaty­partner. What the Table of Nations describes is the relationship between the different peoples, however they may have originated historically. But this is not a lesson in historical geography. As always in Genesis, the list was included for a theological reason—to relate the chosen line of Shem to the other non­elect lines. The genealogy of the non­elect is always placed before the chosen line: Cain before Seth (chs. 4–5), Ishmael before Isaac (ch. 25), Esau before Jacob (chs. 36–37). The choice of Shem and the rejection of Ham has already been intimated (9:25–27), and this is confirmed in this chapter. Among the Shemites are found the Arameans, with whom the patriarchs had very close relationships and from whom they sought wives for their sons. Among the Hamites are found not just all the Canaanite peoples but Israel’s other great enemies, Egypt (Mizraim), Babylon and Assyria. The Japhethites comprise more distant peoples from the north­eastern Mediterranean seaboard, with whom Israel seems to have had few contacts, either hostile or friendly. It should be noted that the biblical classification into Semitic, Hamitic and Japhethite peoples does not coincide with the modern classification of people by languages. Some of the Hamites (e.g. the Canaanites) spoke Semitic languages, and ​ 1 More study helps at www.daretoventure.org Study Notes among the Shemites is Elam, who spoke a non­Semitic language. The biblical divisions reflect much more the differences between those Israel felt were her allies and those who were her enemies. 10:2–5 The Japhethites. Not all these peoples can be identified, and only those which can be confidently identified are discussed here. But those that can be identified seem to represent those furthest from Israel geographically, either in the far north or the far west. For detailed discussion of their identities see IBD or the commentaries of Sarna or ​ Wenham. Gomer represents the Cimmerians; Magog was somewhere in the north (Ezk. 38:2); ​ Madai represents the Medes in northern Iran, Javan the Ionian Greeks, and Tubal, Meshech ​ ​ and Tiras have been identified with Turkey. 3 Ashkenaz represents the Scythians, and ​ ​ ​ Togarmah was a district north of Carchemish. 4 Elishah was probably in Crete. Tarshish ​ ​ ​ was a Mediterranean city, possibly Carthage. Kittim is identified with Cyprus and Rodanim ​ ​ with Rhodes (the Dodanim, the alternative reading, may come from the Aegean). V 5 anticipates the dispersal of the nations described in 11:1–9. 10:6–20 The Hamites. The length of this section indicates its importance. Among the descendants of Ham are some of Israel’s closest neighbours and fiercest enemies. 6 Cush was the region south of Egypt. Mizraim is identified with Egypt, and Put with ​ ​ ​ Libya. Canaan is defined further in vs 15–19. 7 The sons of Cush appears to refer to a region ​ ​ ​ in southern Arabia. 8–12 Mesopotamian culture is traced back to Ham via Cush, which is not a flattering pedigree, but it anticipates the explicit criticism of Babylon’s pretensions in 11:1–9. Nimrod ​ cannot be definitely identified, but his interests in fighting and hunting were typical of great Mesopotamian kings. The cities he founded are nearly all well known in that region. 13–14 Few of these tribes or peoples can be surely identified. Pathrusites refers to the ​ southern Egyptians. The Philistines were Israel’s great rivals for control of Canaan (1 Sa. ​ 4–31). The Caphtorites are Cretans. ​ ​ 15–19 Special attention is given to the inhabitants of Canaan whom Israel expected to displace. Sidon was the oldest Phoenician coastal city. The Hittites (cf. 23:2–20) are ​ ​ ​ different from the well­known Hittites in Turkey. The Jebusites were the residents of ​ Jerusalem. The Amorites, Girgashites and Hivites are often­mentioned Canaanite peoples. ​ ​ The Arkites Hamathites were the inhabitants of well­known cities in Syria. ​ ​ … ​ ​ The borders of Canaan reached from Sidon in the north to Gaza in the south and Sodom (by the Dead Sea) in the east. A more precise definition of Canaan’s borders is in Nu. 34:2–12. 10:21–31 The Shemites. Since Abraham was descended from Shem, Israel felt a special affinity for these peoples. However, few can be clearly identified, though many seem to be Aramean or Arabian tribes. That Ham was Noah’s youngest son is clear (9:24), but whether Japheth or Shem was ​ ​ the eldest depends on how this verse is translated (see the NIV mg.). Elam was in ​ ​ south­western Iran. Asshur, unlikely to be a reference to Assyria, was possibly a Sinaitic tribe (Nu. 24:22). The Arameans lived in Syria, and presumably the sub­groups listed here 2 More study helps at www.daretoventure.org Study Notes lived in that region. In so far as they can be identified Joktan and his descendants seem to ​ have lived in southern Arabia. 11:1–9 The Tower of Babel This short tale brings the history of the period before the patriarchs to a horrifying conclusion. The new start given to the human race by Noah had already been jeopardized by his drunkenness and Ham’s indiscretion; and in the Table of the Nations the effects of the curse on Ham’s descendants has already been hinted at. Indeed, 10:5, 18–20 and 31–32 have already anticipated the division by languages and the dispersal of the nations, but now Genesis deals with this explicitly. Human sinfulness now burst all limits as man tried to trespass on God’s realm by building a skyscraping temple. This prompted another great judgment affecting the whole human race. Mankind was scattered across the face of the earth and linguistic diversity, which impedes cooperation between peoples, was introduced to prevent any further human efforts to storm heaven. Thus the stage was set for yet one more fresh start for mankind in the call of Abraham. The tower of Babel, however, is not just another of the sin­and­judgment stories that make up chs. 1–11. All through these chapters we can see an implied critique of the polytheistic world­view of Israel’s contemporaries. Genesis’ retelling of the history of creation and the flood presents a completely different view of God and his relationship to the world from that found in ancient oriental mythology. But so far the critique of these ideas has been, by and large, implicit; here in ch. 11 it becomes explicit. Babylon was famed for its temple tower or ziggurat, whose foundations were in the underworld and whose top was in the heavens. No, says Genesis, so far from reaching heaven, Babel’s tower could hardly be seen from there—the Lord had to come down to see it (5). Babel means ‘gate of god’, and Babylon considered itself closer to god than anywhere else on earth. It regarded itself as the religious, intellectual and cultural capital of the ancient world, the showpiece of human civilization. ‘Rubbish’ says v 9, Babel does not mean ‘gate of god’ but ‘confusion’ or ‘folly’, and far from human wisdom, Babylon’s ruined ziggurat, shows human impotence before the judgment of God. Put in modern terms the building of the city and tower may be seen as a human bid for self­achieved security on the basis of technological progress. ‘Man proposes, but God disposes.’ 11:10–26 The account of Shem The brief genealogy of Shem is quite similar to that in ch. 5, though the patriarchs’ ages are somewhat shorter, and it does not explicitly state the total length of life of each one. It serves to link the history of Abraham to world history and thus provides a bridge between the proto­history of chs. 1–11 and the patriarchal stories of 12–50. Though we know nothing more about the men listed here, Lk. 3:34–36 reminds us of their importance, for from them descended the offspring of Abraham in whom all the families of the earth would 3 More study helps at www.daretoventure.org Study Notes 1 be blessed. THE REBELLION OF THE NATIONS Genesis 10:8–12; 11:1–9 The paragraph in Genesis 10 which describes the exploits of Nimrod has been linked in Jewish tradition with the tower of Babel episode recounted in Genesis 11:1–4.