Study

a Bible passage

Click a verse to see commentary

Select a resource above

10. The Table of Nations

¹ This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah’s sons, who themselves had sons after the flood.

The Japhethites

² The sons Sons may mean descendants or successors or nations; also in verses 3, 4, 6, 7, 20-23, 29 and 31. of Japheth:
Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshek and Tiras.

³ The sons of Gomer:
Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah.

⁴ The sons of Javan:
Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittites and the Rodanites. Some manuscripts of the Masoretic Text and Samaritan Pentateuch (see also Septuagint and 1 Chron. 1:7); most manuscripts of the Masoretic Text Dodanites ⁵ (From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language.)

The Hamites

⁶ The sons of Ham:
Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan.

⁷ The sons of Cush:
Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah and Sabteka.

The sons of Raamah:
Sheba and Dedan.

⁸ Cush was the father Father may mean ancestor or predecessor or founder; also in verses 13, 15, 24 and 26. of Nimrod, who became a mighty warrior on the earth. ⁹ He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; that is why it is said, “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD.” ¹⁰ The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in Or Uruk and Akkad—all of them in Shinar. That is, Babylonia ¹¹ From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Or Nineveh with its city squares Calah ¹² and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city.

¹³ Egypt was the father of
the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites, ¹⁴ Pathrusites, Kasluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites.

¹⁵ Canaan was the father of
Sidon his firstborn, Or of the Sidonians, the foremost and of the Hittites, ¹⁶ Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, ¹⁷ Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, ¹⁸ Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites.

Later the Canaanite clans scattered ¹⁹ and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboyim, as far as Lasha.

²⁰ These are the sons of Ham by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.

The Semites

²¹ Sons were also born to Shem, whose older brother was Or Shem, the older brother of Japheth; Shem was the ancestor of all the sons of Eber.

²² The sons of Shem:
Elam, Ashur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram.

²³ The sons of Aram:
Uz, Hul, Gether and Meshek. See Septuagint and 1 Chron. 1:17; Hebrew Mash.

²⁴ Arphaxad was the father of Hebrew; Septuagint father of Cainan, and Cainan was the father of Shelah,
and Shelah the father of Eber.

²⁵ Two sons were born to Eber:
One was named Peleg, Peleg means division. because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan.

²⁶ Joktan was the father of
Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, ²⁷ Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, ²⁸ Obal, Abimael, Sheba, ²⁹ Ophir, Havilah and Jobab. All these were sons of Joktan.

³⁰ The region where they lived stretched from Mesha toward Sephar, in the eastern hill country.

³¹ These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.

³² These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.

10. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel. Moses here designates the seat of Nimrod’s empire. He also declares that four cities were subject to him; it is however uncertain whether he was the founder of them, or had thence expelled their rightful lords. And although mention is elsewhere made of Calneh,³¹⁴³¹⁴ Amos 6:2. yet Babylon was the most celebrated of all. I do not however think that it was of such wide extent, or of such magnificent structure, as the profane historians relate. But since the region was among the first and most fruitful, it is possible that the convenience of the situation would afterwards invite others to enlarge the city. Wherefore Aristotle, in his Politics, taking it out of the rank of cities, compares it to a province. Hence it has arisen, that many declare it to have been the work of Semiramis, by whom others say that it was not built but only adorned and joined together by bridges. The land of Shinar is added as a note of discrimination, because there was also another Babylon in Egypt, which is now called Cairo.³¹⁵³¹⁵ ^“Quam hodie Cairum vocant.” — “Babylon was a habitation formed by the Persians, which may with probability be referred to the time of the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses. A quarter retaining the name of Baboul or Babilon, in the city commonly called Old Cairo, which overlooks the Nile at some distance above the Delta, shows its true position.” — D’Anville’s Ancient Geography, vol. 2 p. 152. — Ed But it is asked, how was Nimrod the tyrant of Babylon, when Moses in the following chapter, Genesis 11:1 subjoins, that a tower was begun there, which obtained this name from the confusion of tongues? Some suppose that a hysteron proteron³¹⁶³¹⁶ ὕστερον πρότερον, is when that which really comes last in the order of time, is for some reason put first in the order of narration. — Ed is here employed, and that what Moses is afterwards about to relate concerning the building of the tower was prior in the order of time. Moreover, they add, that because the building of the tower was disastrously obstructed, their design was changed to that of building a city. But I rather think there is a prolepsis ; and that Moses called the city by the same name, which afterwards was imposed by a more recent event. The reason of the conjecture is that probably, at this time, the inhabitants of that place, who had engaged in so vast a work, were numerous. It might also happen, that Nimrod, solicitous about his own fame and power, inflamed their insane desire by this pretext, that some famous monument should be erected in which their everlasting memory might remain. Still, since it is the custom of the Hebrews to prosecute more diffusely, afterwards, what they had touched upon briefly, I do not entirely reject the former opinion.³¹⁷³¹⁷ A reason why the former of these opinions is to be preferred will be found in a note at page 313, where it is stated that the division of tongues had already taken place, before these nations were settled. — Ed.