John Calvin Commentary Genesis 10

These are the generations. If anyone wishes to examine more accurately the genealogies related by Moses in this and the following chapter, I do not condemn their effort. And some interpreters have successfully applied their diligence and study to this point. As far as I am concerned, let them enjoy the reward of their labors.

However, it will suffice for me to allude briefly to those things I consider more useful to note, and for which I suppose Moses wrote these genealogies. First, in these mere names we still have some fragment of the world's history; and the next chapter will show how many years intervened between the date of the deluge and the time when God made His covenant with Abraham.

This second beginning of humankind is especially worthy of being known; and the ingratitude of those is detestable, who, having heard from their fathers and grandfathers about the wonderful restoration of the world in such a short time, still voluntarily became forgetful of God's grace and salvation.

Even the memory of the deluge was entirely lost by most people. Very few cared by what means or for what purpose they had been preserved. Many ages afterwards, since humanity's wicked forgetfulness had rendered them callous to God's judgment and mercy, the door was opened to Satan's lies. Through his artifice, it came about that heathen poets spread futile and even noxious fables, by which the truth concerning God’s works was corrupted.

God's goodness, therefore, wonderfully triumphed over human wickedness by granting an extension of life to such ungrateful, brutal, and barbarous beings. Now, to captious people (who nevertheless do not think it absurd to refuse to acknowledge a Creator of the world), such a sudden increase of humankind seems incredible, and therefore they ridicule it as fabulous.

Indeed, I grant that if we choose to evaluate what Moses relates by our own reason, it might be regarded as a fable; but those who do not pay attention to the Holy Spirit's design act very perversely. For what else, I ask, did the Spirit intend, other than that the offspring of three men should be increased, not by natural means or in a common manner, but by the extraordinary exercise of God's power, to replenish the earth far and wide?

Those who regard this miracle of God as a fable because of its magnitude should find it even harder to believe that Noah and his sons, with their wives, breathed while on the waters, and that animals lived nearly a whole year without sun and air. This, then, is a gigantic madness: to ridicule what is said concerning the restoration of the human race, for in that, the admirable power of God is displayed.

How much better it would be, in the history of these events—which Noah saw with his own eyes, and not without great admiration—to behold God, admire His power, celebrate His goodness, and acknowledge His hand, no less filled with mysteries in restoring the world than in creating it?

However, we must observe that in the three genealogies Moses provides, not all the heads of families are listed; but only those among Noah's grandsons who were the princes of nations are recorded. For when anyone excelled among his brothers in talent, valor, diligence, or other endowments, he obtained a name and power for himself, so that others, resting under his protection, freely conceded priority to him.

Therefore, among the sons of Japheth, Ham, and Shem, Moses lists only those who had become famous and by whose names peoples were called. Moreover, although no certain reason appears why Moses begins with Japheth and moves second to Ham, it is probable that the first place is given to Japheth's sons. This is because, having wandered over many regions and even crossed the sea, they had moved farther from their homeland. Since these nations were less known to the Jews, he therefore alludes to them briefly.

He assigns the second place to Ham's sons, knowledge of whom was more familiar to the Jews because of their proximity. But since he had determined to weave the history of the Church in one continuous narrative, he postpones the descendants of Shem, from whom the Church descended, to the last place.

Therefore, the order in which they are mentioned is not one of dignity, since Moses puts those first whom he wished to pass over quickly as being obscure. Besides, we must observe that the children of this world are exalted for a time, so that the whole earth seems as if it were made for their benefit, but their transient glory vanishes. Meanwhile, the Church, in an ignoble and despised condition, as if creeping on the ground, is nevertheless divinely preserved, until at last, in His own time, God will lift up her head.

I have already stated that I leave to others the scrupulous investigation of the names mentioned here. The meaning of some of them is clear from Scripture, such as Cush, Mizraim, Madai, Canaan, and the like.

Regarding some others, there are probable conjectures; for yet others, the obscurity is too great to allow any certain conclusion. Furthermore, the fabrications that interpreters present are, in part, greatly distorted and forced, and in part, dull and without any reasonable basis.

Undoubtedly, it seems to be an act of frivolous curiosity to search for certain and distinct nations in each of these names. When Moses says that the islands of the Gentiles were divided by Japheth's sons, we understand that the regions beyond the sea were distributed among them. For Greece and Italy, and other continental lands—as well as Rhodes and Cyprus—are called islands by the Hebrews because the sea lay between. From this we infer that we are descended from those nations.

And Cush begat Nimrod. It is certain that Cush was the prince of the Ethiopians. Moses relates the remarkable history of his son Nimrod, because he began to be eminent to an unusual degree. Furthermore, I interpret the passage this way: the condition of people was moderate at that time, so that if some excelled others, they still did not domineer on that account, nor assume royal power for themselves. Instead, being content with a degree of dignity, they governed others by civil laws and had more authority than power.

For Justin, from Trogus Pompeius, declares this to have been the most ancient condition of the world. Now Moses says that Nimrod, as if forgetting he was a man, took possession of a higher position of honor. Noah was still living at that time and was certainly great and venerable in the eyes of all.

There were also other excellent men; but their moderation was such that they cultivated equality with their inferiors, who showed them spontaneous rather than forced reverence. The ambition of Nimrod disturbed and broke through the boundaries of this reverence.

Moreover, since it clearly appears that in this sentence of Moses the tyrant is branded with an eternal mark of infamy, we may therefore conclude how highly pleasing to God is a mild administration of affairs among men. And truly, whoever remembers that he is a man will gladly cultivate the society of others.

With respect to the meaning of the terms, ציד (tsaid) properly signifies hunting, as the Hebrew grammarians state, yet it is often taken for food. But whether Moses says that he was robust in hunting or in violently seizing prey, he metaphorically intimates that he was a furious man and was more like beasts than men. The expression Before the Lord seems to me to declare that Nimrod attempted to raise himself above the order of men, just as proud men are carried away by vain self-confidence, so that they look down on others as if from the clouds.

Wherefore it is said. Since the verb is in the future tense, it may be explained in this way: Nimrod was so mighty and imperious that it would be proper to say of any powerful tyrant that he is another Nimrod. Yet Jerome's version is satisfactory, that from this it became a proverb concerning the powerful and the violent, that they were like Nimrod. Nor do I doubt that God intended the first author of tyranny to be held in odium by every tongue.

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 their founder or had expelled their rightful lords from there. And although mention is made elsewhere of Calneh, Babylon was the most celebrated of all.

I do not, however, think that it was of such wide extent or magnificent structure as the secular historians relate. But since the region was among the first and most fruitful, it is possible that the convenience of its location would afterwards invite others to enlarge the city.

Therefore, Aristotle, in his Politics, removing it from the rank of cities, compares it to a province. Consequently, many declare it to have been the work of Semiramis, though others say she did not build it but only adorned it and connected it with bridges.

The land of Shinar is added as a note of distinction, because there was also another Babylon in Egypt, which is now called Cairo. But it is asked, how was Nimrod the tyrant of Babylon, when Moses, in the following chapter (Genesis 11:1), adds that a tower was begun there, which obtained this name from the confusion of tongues?

Some suppose that a hysteron proteron is employed here, and that what Moses later relates 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 building a city.

But I rather think there is a prolepsis, and that Moses called the city by the name it later received as a result of a more recent event. The reason for this conjecture is that the inhabitants of that place, who had engaged in such a vast work, were probably numerous at this time.

It might also be that Nimrod, intent on his own fame and power, inflamed their insane desire with the pretext that some famous monument should be erected in which their memory might remain forever. Still, since it is the custom of the Hebrews to elaborate later on what they had briefly touched upon, I do not entirely reject the former opinion.

Out of that land went forth Asshur. It is credible that Asshur was one of the posterity of Shem. And the opinion has been commonly accepted that he is mentioned here because, when he was dwelling in the neighborhood of Nimrod, he was violently expelled from there. In this manner, Moses would mark the barbarous ferocity of Nimrod.

And truly, these are the accustomed fruits of greatness that does not keep within bounds, from which has arisen the old proverb: ‘Great kingdoms are great robberies.’ It is indeed necessary that some should preside over others; but where ambition and the desire of rising higher than is right are rampant, they not only bring with them the greatest and most numerous harms, but also verge closely upon the dissolution of human society.

Yet I rather adopt the opinion of those who say that Asshur is not, in this passage, the name of a man, but of a country that derived its name from him. Thus, the meaning will be that Nimrod, not content with his large and opulent kingdom, gave free rein to his cupidity and pushed the boundaries of his empire even into Assyria, where he also built new cities.

The passage in Isaiah 23:13 alone is opposed to this opinion, where he says, Behold the land of the Chaldeans, the people was not, Asshur founded it when they inhabited the deserts, and he reduced it to ruin. For the prophet seems to say that cities were built by the Assyrians in Chaldea, whereas previously, its inhabitants were wandering and scattered as in a desert.

But it may be that the prophet speaks of other changes in these kingdoms, which occurred later. For, at the time when the Assyrians maintained sovereignty, since they flourished in unbounded wealth, it is credible that Chaldea, which they had subjected to their rule, was so adorned and increased by a long peace that it might seem to have been founded by them. And we know that when the Chaldeans, in their turn, seized the empire, Babylon was exalted on the ruins of Nineveh.

Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber. Moses, being about to speak of the sons of Shem, makes a brief introduction, which he had not done for the others. Nor was it without reason; for since this was the race chosen by God, he wished to sever it from other nations by some special mark.

This also is the reason why he expressly styles him the father of the sons of Eber, and the elder brother of Japheth. For the benediction of Shem does not descend to all his grandchildren indiscriminately, but remains in one family. And although the grandchildren of Eber themselves declined from the true worship of God, so that the Lord might justly have disinherited them; yet the benediction was not extinguished, but only buried for a season, until Abraham was called, in honor of whom this singular dignity is ascribed to the race and name of Eber.

For the same cause, mention is made of Japheth, in order that the promise may be confirmed: God shall speak gently unto Japheth, that he may dwell in the tents of Shem. Shem is not here called the brother of Ham, inasmuch as the latter was cut off from the fraternal order, and was debarred from his own right.

Fraternity remained only between them and Japheth; because, although they were separated, God had promised that he would cause them to return from this dissension into union. As it respects the name Eber, those who deny it to be a proper name, but deduce it from the word which signifies to pass over, are more than sufficiently refuted by this passage alone.