The purpose of the table of nations is twofold. First, it identifies all the nations and ethnic groups on earth as being descended from Noah and his wife. In this sense all human beings everywhere are brothers and sisters, part of the same family, all together made in the image of God, whether Jew or Greek, male or female, king or slave. This emphasis provides a profound basis to confront the xenophobia, sexism, and class distinctions that were rife in ancient times, as they are in our own.
Yet on top of that fundamental unity is a fundamental distinction that divine election brings. Only one of Noah’s sons is the bearer of the line of promise: Shem. And only one family from Shem will continue that line until it finds its immediate focus in Abraham (11:26). That divine election is preserved precisely in the distinction of Abraham and his offspring from all other families on earth, which is why genealogies connecting God’s people to their ancestral families subsequently become so important to the Israelite community (cf. Josh. 22:14; 1 Chronicles 1–9; Ezra 10:16). The other nations will find blessing only through submitting themselves to Abraham and his seed (Gen. 12:1–3; Acts 3:25).
Ultimately it is in Christ that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Along with kosher food, the need for genealogies that identify a kosher ethnicity have been done away with, for Abraham’s descendants are those who share his faith in Christ, not simply those who come from him physically (Rom. 4:16).
This fundamental division in humanity—ultimately, into those who have faith in Christ and those who do not—is alluded to in the reference to the division in the time of Peleg (Gen. 10:25), a division that comes to the fore in the Tower of Babel narrative that follows (11:1–9). There the city founded by Nimrod demonstrates its penchant for false worship. Babel’s worship seeks to create an artificial unity based on human religiosity without regard to the true God, a worship that elevates man and seeks to make a name for itself, rather than humbly seeking God and glorifying his name. That quest for blessing by that path is inevitably fruitless, since only the true God has the power to bless his people.Genesis 10
Or he began to be a mighty man on the earth
Or from where
Or the brother of Japheth the elder
Peleg means division
10:1–5 This passage begins a new section according to the toledot formula: “These are the generations of . . .” (Gen. 10:1; cf. comment on 2:4–7). In this case the toledot outlines the family history of Noah’s sons—that is, the various lines that come from Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Their descendants are all born after the flood (10:1), since there were only eight people on the ark: Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their respective wives (1 Pet. 3:20). The genealogy does not begin with Shem, even though he is the oldest (cf. Gen. 10:21); as the line of promise, his line is held back so that it can lead into the story of Abraham. Instead the genealogy starts with Japheth, the second son. As a segmented genealogy, its purpose is to express relative kinship between nations and peoples and to define who is “not far from the kingdom of God” (the Shemite line; cf. Mark 12:34) in contrast to those who are more distant (the lines of Japheth and Ham). At the same time, there is no bar preventing anyone from coming as an individual and being added to God’s kingdom, and Isaiah anticipates the day when both Japhethite and Hamite nations will come flocking to Israel’s God (Isa. 19:21–23; 66:19–20).
The Japhethite family seems to have settled in a wide sweep from the Aegean Sea in the west to the area north of the Caspian Sea in the east, on the most distant horizon of Israelite vision. There is an awareness that many of these different groups have their own distinct languages, which anticipates the result of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11.
Of the seven sons and seven grandsons of Japheth it is possible to identify many of these people groups from other ancient sources. Gomer (Gen. 10:2) represents the warlike gimirrai, who originated in the Crimea but were pushed southward across the Caucasus by the Scythians at the end of the eighth century BC. Magog is similarly in “the uttermost parts of the north” in Ezekiel 38:6, which need not refer to anywhere further north than the nations surrounding it in Genesis 10. The Madai are more familiar to most Bible readers as the Medes (cf. Esther and Daniel). Javan represents the Ionian Greeks and later became a term more generally used for the inhabitants of Greece. Tubal and Meshech likely refer to the Tabal and Mushku peoples of central and eastern Anatolia, who appear in cuneiform texts from the first half of the first millennium BC, while Tiras may perhaps be related to the Etruscans.
To match the seven sons of Japheth seven grandsons are also listed, from the lines of Gomer and Javan. Gomer’s offspring are located in Asia Minor: Ashkenaz represents the Scythians, who lived between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea; Togarmah is known in Assyrian as Tilgarimmu, located in Armenia; while Riphath (“Diphath” in 1 Chron. 1:6 ESV mg.) is otherwise unknown. Meanwhile, Javan’s offspring occupy coastal areas and islands of the Mediterranean: Cyprus (“Elishah” = Alashiya from Egyptian and cuneiform texts of the 2nd millennium; also “the Kittim” = inhabitants of Kition/Larnaca), Spain (“Tarshish” = Tartessus?), and Dardenia or Rhodes (“Dodim” or “Rodim”; 1 Chron. 1:7).
These names are not to be thought of as an exhaustive survey of the people groups of the area; the text suggests that others—the “coastland peoples” (Gen. 10:5)—will also come from them. But the names and groupings demonstrate some real knowledge and understanding of the geography and history of the Mediterranean world.
10:6–20 After Japheth’s sons come the sons of Noah’s youngest son, Ham (v. 6). These are focused in a wide sweep to the south and west of the Mediterranean. Four sons are attributed to Ham: Cush (Upper Egypt), Egypt (more precisely Lower Egypt), Put (Libya), and Canaan, who was introduced in the previous chapter. Links between Egypt and the Canaanite city-states prior to Israel’s conquest are well attested. The identification of Canaan in both biblical and ancient sources fluctuates between a people and a geographical location.
Cush’s genealogy goes two generations deep (seven descendants in all, encompassing a number of people groups known from the Arabian peninsula). The peoples who occupied places such as Seba and Sheba were very wealthy during biblical times due to their control of trade routes from Africa and further afield at a time when oceangoing ships were a very limited and unreliable form of transport.
Mizraim (Egypt) also has seven descendants, who become the focus in verses 13–14. The identities of most of these peoples is uncertain, though several have an Egyptian or North African connection. The Ludim are associated with Cush and Put in Jeremiah 46:9 and Ezekiel 30:5, while the Pathrusim are connected with Pathros (“Southland” in Egyptian and therefore another word for Upper Egypt). The Caphtorim (Akkadian kaptaru) originated in Crete but spread from there to colonize various coastal areas of the Mediterranean (Deut. 2:23), which explains their identification with the Philistines, or “Sea Peoples” (cf. Jer. 47:4; Amos 9:7).
Meanwhile, Canaan is attributed no fewer than eleven offspring (Gen. 10:15–19), highlighting their importance from an Israelite perspective. Sidon is attributed firstborn position (v. 15), with no mention of Tyre, which later becomes a more significant city, attesting to the antiquity of the listing. The Sidonians are later usually distinguished from Canaanites (e.g., Josh. 13:4), though their lands are adjoining. The Hittites (sometimes “sons of Heth”; Gen. 23:3 ESV mg.) are a smaller tribal group resident within Canaan, not the much larger Hittite empire of Asia Minor and northern Syria. The Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, and Hivites, along with the Hethites, were all peoples living in the land at the time of Joshua’s conquest, though this exact combination does not occur anywhere else (Josh. 3:10 is perhaps the closest). The Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, Zemarites, and Hamathites (Gen. 10:17–18) do not appear in the conquest narrative, however, perhaps because these were coastal and border towns that remained outside Israelite control.
The importance of the land of Canaan to this genealogy is shown by a brief mention of its borders (v. 19). This description is not as detailed as the later borders defined in Numbers 34:2–12 or Ezekiel 47:15–20, simply comprising a brief delineation of the limits on the western side (from north to south, from Sidon to Gaza) and then on the eastern side (from south to north, from Sodom and Gomorrah to the unknown Lasha). Some have suggested that these borders broadly match those of the Egyptian province that emerged following a treaty between the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II and the Hittite King Hattusilis III (c. 1280 BC).
In the middle of the passage the focus shifts to Nimrod, who is assigned the parentage of many of Israel’s later enemies in Mesopotamia, especially Assyria and Babylon (Gen. 10:10–12). It is not coincidental that the chief opponents of the line of promise are found among the descendants of Ham, the cursed youngest child of Noah. Nimrod is unusual in the entire list in that his importance is as an individual rather than as a people group, though he founds a number of key cities. He also uniquely receives a brief biographical sketch, describing characteristics that he is undoubtedly assumed to pass on to the cities that he founds.
Nimrod is described as a “mighty man” (Hb. gibbor; v. 8), that is, a warrior, and a “mighty hunter [gibbor tsaid] before the Lord” (v. 9). These two images immediately conjure up visions of the portrayals of Assyrian kings and gods in their monumental reliefs, such as those from Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh, now housed at the British Museum. Both kings and gods are portrayed as hunting lions and bulls, as well as engaged in warfare, so Nimrod certainly epitomizes the later Assyrian and Babylonian image of masculine power. Whether Nimrod can be identified with a known figure from Babylonian history, either human or divine, is much more uncertain; his attributes were not restricted to any one individual but were widespread throughout that society. In this he resembles the “men of renown” in Genesis 6:4—hardly a positive comparison.
The description of Nimrod as a mighty hunter “before the Lord” (10:9) is particularly challenging to interpret. Some have taken it as positive affirmation of Nimrod, while others render it in the opposite direction—“a mighty hunter against the Lord,” an interpretation influentially advanced by Augustine. Although the etymology of Nimrod’s name is not explored in the text, it could easily be read as “Let us rebel,” which would fit with the links between his account, the subsequent narrative of the Tower of Babel (11:1–9), and the general role of Babylon throughout the biblical text. Yet even his rebellion is “before the Lord,” under his oversight and control rather than that of the gods of Assyria and Babylon.
Nimrod’s kingdom begins in the land of Shinar, a place associated invariably with idolatry and false worship in the Bible (cf. Isa. 11:11; Dan. 1:2), where he founds the cities of Babylon (Babel), Uruk (Erech), Akkad, and Calneh (Gen. 10:10); from there he moves on to found Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Kalkhu (Calah), and Resen; the description “the great city” recalls the similar description of Nineveh (and its environs?) in Jonah 1:2. Nimrod is thus credited with establishing the heartland of the later Assyrian and Babylonian empires, places that will later be associated with infamy from an Israelite perspective. Indeed, the dark shadow of Mesopotamian aggression is already being felt in Canaan as early as Genesis 14, following the pattern that Nimrod first sets for those aggressors.
10:21–32 Lastly we come to the line of promise, the descendants of Shem. This is why his genealogy has been saved until last, even though he is the firstborn (Gen. 10:21). Shem is described as the father of all those descended from Eber (v. 21). There is an obvious connection between the name Eber (Hb. ʿeber) and the people group “the Hebrews” (ʿibrim), the term outsiders typically used to identify Israelites (Gen. 14:13; 39:14; Jonah 1:9). In Genesis 10, however, Eber is the father of many more descendants than simply Israelites, and the term “Hebrew” may originally have denoted a wider referent than merely the Israelites.
The word ʿeber can mean “region beyond,” especially in terms of rivers (cf. Gen. 50:10; Num. 21:13); in Akkadian sources the land to the west of the Euphrates was called ʿeber nari, often with reference to Syria, which plausibly explains the name. Attempts have often been made to connect the title “Hebrew” with the Habiru, a wandering group of rebels and mercenaries who appear in various ancient Near Eastern sources throughout the second millennium BC, but these attempts have not been compelling.
Unlike the genealogies of Japheth and Ham, which are wide but no more than a couple of generations deep, the genealogy of Shem traces multiple generations, although (of necessity) incompletely. Shem’s five sons are the foundation for the family, including well-known peoples such as the Elamites, the Assyrians, and the Arameans (Gen. 10:22). Later narratives indicate a particularly close relationship between Abraham’s family and certain Arameans, even though they are not especially close in the genealogy (cf. Gen. 25:20; 28:5).
Arpachshad is the son of Shem through whom the promise will descend, in spite of his curiously non-Hebrew sounding name (10:24). The latter part of the name may be linked with the “Chaldeans” (kasdim), who occupied part of Babylon and came to dominate it in the days of Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar. In the context of the genealogy, however, his role is simply to father Shelah, who fathers Eber (cf. above on “Hebrew”), who is himself the father of Peleg (v. 25). Unusually for a person forming a link in the chain of a linear genealogy, Peleg is given a biographical note that—like the earlier description of Nimrod—anticipates the Tower of Babel in 11:1–9: “In his days the earth was divided” (10:25).
As the line of promise, Peleg’s line will not be picked up until later, after the Tower of Babel narrative (Gen. 11:18). Instead the present genealogy focuses on the non-elect line, through Joktan. The descendants of Joktan, where they can be identified, belong to southwest Arabia, an unexpected place to find Semitic connections. Ophir was famous for its gold (1 Kings 9:28), as was neighboring Havilah (Gen. 10:29; cf. 2:11). The extensive listing of sons, many representing unidentifiable places and people groups, highlights the importance of Joktan (and thus also Peleg) as the generation in which there is a decisive parting of the ways (10:25). These are Israel’s “separated kinsmen,” but the emphasis is more on “separated” than on “kinsmen.”
This point is drilled home by the conclusion of this part of the genealogy in verse 32: “From these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood.” The line of promise is extending down through the generations, even as mankind is fruitful and multiplies from a single family into a massive family of nations according to God’s command (9:1). Yet as the example of Nimrod shows—soon to be reinforced by the narrative of the Tower of Babel—that expansion and spreading out may often be driven by a violent and rebellious spirit.