Genesis 10

My Notes Authors

My Notes Authors Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown - Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible 10. the beginning of his kingdom—This kingdom, of course, though then considered great, would be comparatively limited in extent, and the towns but small forts. John Calvin - Commentaries **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 proteron_316316 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.

My Notes Authors Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown - Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible 11. Out of that land went forth Asshur—or, as the Margin has it, “He [Nimrod] at the head of his army went forth into Assyria,” that is, he pushed his conquests into that country. and builded Nineveh—opposite the town of Mosul, on the Tigris, and the other towns near it. This raid into Assyria was an invasion of the territories of Shem, and hence the name “Nimrod,” signifying “rebel,” is supposed to have been conferred on him from his daring revolt against the divine distribution.

My Notes Authors

My Notes Authors

My Notes Authors Matthew Henry - Commentary on the Whole Bible Observe here, 1. The account of the posterity of Canaan, of the families and nations that descended from him, and of the land they possessed, is more particular than of any other in this chapter, because these were the nations that were to be subdued before Israel, and their land was in process of time to become the holy land, Immanuel’s land; and this God had an eye to when, in the meantime, he cast the lot of that accursed devoted race in that spot of ground which he had selected for his own people; this Moses takes notice of, Deut. xxxii. 8, When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. 2. By this account it appears that the posterity of Canaan were numerous, and rich, and very pleasantly situated; and yet Canaan was under a curse, a divine curse, and not a curse causeless. Note, Those that are under the curse of God may yet perhaps thrive and prosper greatly in this world; for we cannot know love or hatred, the blessing or the curse, by what is before us, but by what is within us, Eccl. ix. 1. The curse of God always works really and always terribly: but perhaps it is a secret curse, a curse to the soul, and does not work visibly, or a slow curse, and does not work immediately; but sinners are by it reserved for, and bound over to, a day of wrath. Canaan here has a better land than either Shem or Japheth, and yet they have a better lot, for they inherit the blessing.

My Notes Authors

My Notes Authors

My Notes Authors

My Notes Authors Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown - Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible 21. Unto Shem—The historian introduces him with marked distinction as “the father of Eber,” the ancestor of the Hebrews. Matthew Henry - Commentary on the Whole Bible Two things especially are observable in this account of the posterity of Shem:— I. The description of Shem, v. 21. We have not only his name, Shem, which signifies a name, but two titles to distinguish him by:—