Genesis 10 is generally seen as a “map” of the world that shows us the territorial and political realities of the time it refers to. But it goes back to the last part of the previous chapter (9:18-29), namely the strange story of Noah’s three sons and Noah’s genealogy. The real concern of the story of Noah’s three sons is the contrast between the brothers. Shem clearly represents the Semites and anticipates Israel, while Japheth is Shem’s/Israel’s ally against Canaan (often thought to be Philistine). These two function as the ones who honor the father in this story, while the youngest brother, Ham, represents the one who dishonor the father. The interest in the contrast between Ham and the other two is a political concern to take issue with Canaan. The emphasis is on the blessing of Shem-Japheth (Israel) and the curse of Ham (Canaan). But even more important than anticipating the political divide between Israel and Canaan, it also reflects a deeper theological contrast between the two. Walter Brueggemann explains: “Beyond providing political foundations, the larger intent of our text is to sharpen the theological contrast between Israel and Canaan. Israel understands that life is premised on grace and not on the manipulation of the powers of life and well-being… Canaan is not to be understood as an ethnic grouping but as a characterization of all those who practice alternatives to obeying the sovereignty and trusting the graciousness of God. The indictment of Canaan in our text is a rejection of a whole way of life which presumes the mystery of life can be taken into human hands and managed.” Ham/Canaan represents the dehumanizing aspect of humankind’s inability to care for creation (which is how Ham dishonored his father), while the other two (Israel) represents the attempt to care and protect (which is how the older brothers honored the father in his dilemma).
Chapter 10 is organized around the three son’s mentioned in the story above. Which means that the basic organizing principle for the world of that time is not racial, ethnic, linguistic, or even territorial, but political. It reflects the political networks of relationships of that time. Again (as in the latter part of chapter 9), the main attention goes to Ham/Canaan (10:6-20). In terms of Israel’s friends and enemies, Palestine was regarded as being in the Egyptian network of influence, and therefore it is not an ethnic rejection but a political rejection based on the political realities of that time. The attention given to Shem’s history will come back later in chapter 11, because this is the point in the unfolding of this drama that the connection is already made toward Abraham as the “father” of Israel’s history. From a theological perspective, this means that all nations derive their existence from the life-giving power of God (blessing), and that a refusal to be faithfully responsive to Him will have consequences (curse). This divide plays out in the political realities of Israel in relationship with her friends and enemies represented by the contrast between Noah’s two older sons and his younger son.
Genesis Journal 