I will explain more on this later. But it is late. Until then, you might check out First Word’s series of posts on Ken Ham’s book, if you haven’t already.

The distinctions which are removed in the new covenant are more particular than descent, inheritance, or human typology. Such distinctions involve circumcision, food taboos, ritual cleanliness, land, and the Temple cult. Under the new covenant, physical circumcision as a distinctly male Hebrew rite is replaced with baptism for all; food taboos are abolished; ritual cleanliness is no longer relevant; the redemptive work of God is expanded from the Holy Land to include the whole world; and the geographic temple is replaced with the body of Christ, which can be manifest in any nation.

The fact that the above distinctions are abolished does not mean that descent, inheritance, and human typology are abolished. Typology – the way in which groups humans display distinctive physical and social characteristics – clearly still exists. Descent and inheritance are still relevant in that the family has a redemptive role to play, and parents and children still have obligations to each other. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that God cannot or does not still render blessings or curses upon groups of people. For example, just because Israel no longer can claim covenantal particularity does not mean that God has forgotten her. Paul says in Romans that though most were blinded, a remnant would be saved after the Gentiles are brought in, on the basis that they are loved on account of the patriarchs. Whatever the fulfillment of that might be, you must agree that God is seeing things in “racial terms” and is not being “colorblind.”

Finally, we see a surprising site in Revelation 21: “nations” in the plural sharing in the new creation. This echoes OT prophecies that picture the nations, distinctly, sharing in the blessings of God. He will prepare a feast for all “peoples,” says Isaiah, when He at last defeats death; and so forth. The NT picture of redemption does not involve stripping us down to the bare level of individuality so we can squeeze into the kingdom. We are physical, social, dependent beings belonging to a set of different collectives, each with its own place in a hierarchy and its own sphere of responsibility, both now and forever. We pray foremost for our people to attain perpetuity through grace; we then pray that they would prosper and enjoy peace now.

1. The most important lesson of Genesis 10-11 is what SF said: that the dispersion at Babel was not new. It simply forced upon Nimrod’s experiment what had already begun much, much earlier.

2. The debate about all nations being brought into the covenant is between those who view it in a racial sense and those who view it in a spiritual sense. (There may also be a third sense in which the covenant is open to all but only one race binds to it in large numbers. This seems to align closely with history.)

3. If racial, the CI folks are correct, and your question about how to identify the 70 nations becomes rather important. While you and I are reading the verses you listed in the same way, CI would say that the “other nations” (the goyim) are the lost tribes of Israel and their blood descendants. But how they identify these people today is beyond me.

4. If spiritual, the “distinction removed” is what gave Israel importance (the tabernacle, temple, and high priest). This would still not justify miscegenation, however, because it is not necessary for dissimilar nations to be physically unified in order to be spiritually unified. In fact, we would have to conclude that physical amalgamation is to be avoided if we have learned anything at all from Babel. But this is the whole point: the lesson has not been learned by most Christians today.

A few notes that may be pertinent:
– Primary focus of covenant prior to Christ’s death and resurrection is on national Israel. (Deut. 32:8-9, 10:14-15; Acts 14:16)
– All nations brought in, and the distinction removed, in Christ. (Eph 2:14-17; Gal. 3:28, 6:15; Col. 3:11; Ps. 2:8, 72:8)

Obviously, for the Bible-believing Christian, there is at least a sense in which distinctions have been removed; the question here is whether there is also a continuing sense in which the distinctions are not (to be) removed. If the answer is affirmative, then isn’t it important to identify the 70 nations so that faithfulness to God’s law can be maintained?

Yes, I find much of what Martin writes compelling too. I first learned of him about 7 years ago when he wrote a short paper called “I Will Send Rain Upon the Earth.” His book grew out of that fascinating and irrefutable paper. The whole edifice of what he calls covenantal creationism grew out of what he understands Scripture to be saying about the Flood. I think there are some cracks in the edifice, and it ultimately veers into what has been identified by the church at large as a heresy (hyper-preterism), but along the way there are some gold nuggets.

Since I take the first two chapters of Genesis to be both poetic and historical, I can’t say for certain that Adam was the father of ALL now living. But this is how it has been understood by the church, and I don’t dispute it.

Still, you list many good points to consider, and another one is the wife of Cain. The Bible very nonchalantly mentions that he found one when he was banished, and joined himself to a foreign people. But if Adam was the first and only man on earth, it means that a sibling must have left the clan much earlier, before Seth was even born. They lived a long time in those days, but not long enough to make any of this very practical. Keep in mind that even before his son Enoch was born, there were enough people to help Cain build and populate a city. It’s possible that all of these people came from Adam, and many people have crunched the numbers to prove it, but it has always seemed improbable because this number-crunching assumes that a woman would have 500 child-bearing years, and produce hundreds of children. I find this very hard to believe for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that we are not like ants and bees, and God does not intend for two parents to share their attentions with that many, just as He does not intend for siblings to marry. Noah lived just as long as Adam but had only three children.

Archaeology supports the idea that the Flood was vast and catastrophic but regional. I also agree with you that there are gaps inferred in Genesis 10.

And I hope everyone reading this pays close attention to what you wrote here: “Deuteronomy 32:8, which is likely at least somewhat of a basis for what Paul is saying in Acts 17:26, seems to imply that the idea of separate nations and peoples goes back to the sons of Adam himself and was not a novel concept invented at the Tower of Babel. If my estimation is correct, then Babel was more of a reaffirmation of an existing order rather than the new creation of separate nations and identities.”

Precisely correct. It’s amazing that Christians still dwell on false conceptions about Babel, but this explains why they are essentially trying to act like Nimrod, even in our own time. God will never allow what these lying preachers are trying to bring about. It will all end in bloodshed as cosmopolitan “nations” self-destruct. They never learn from history.

You’re wise to not be dogmatic on these things. Leave that to lunatics like Ken Ham and Doug Phillips and the Morrises. These are the sort of men who will accuse you of worshiping a different god for merely questioning these things. As Ken Ham has stated clearly, he has no “interpretation” of Genesis. His view of it is the only correct view, according to his majesty.

I’d be interested to hear more of your thoughts on whether or not the Flood could be considered a local event. I have studied what Tim Martin has had to say on this subject and I must admit that I find much of what he says to be compelling. As an aside I do reject outright Martin’s “full preterism” as well as the notion that Adam is not the universal ancestor of all humanity.

I do find the case for a local flood to be somewhat compelling, although I’m not dogmatic on the issue. The universal language that is used to describe the flood is used similarly elsewhere without “global” connotations. We read later on in Genesis about how the famine in Egypt during Joseph’s time was “global” and that “all countries” came to Egypt to buy grain. Lot’s daughters complain that there was not a man in the earth for them to go into after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The plague of locusts in Exodus is said to blot out the sky. Acts 2 states that all countries were present on the day of Pentecost. The universal language of the Flod is similar to the language Christ uses during the Olivet discourse, such as “all flesh” would die unless God shortened those days. These are a few examples of how the Bible uses universal language in historical narrative when there is clearly a local context.

It seems to me that the context of Genesis 2-9 is the country of Eden, which would have included the Garden of Eden. This territory is identified in ch. 2 by the four rivers listed. This seems to me to be the geographical context of much of the narrative that takes place the early chapters of Genesis. The first chapter of Genesis does not give a specific geographical reference because God’s creation is truly universal. Anyway, this would explain how Cain was exiled out of the earth after slaying his brother. He was simply exiled from the geographical locale he considered home. The earth is used in the context of the flood in a the sense of refering to people and not geography anyway since the earth’s corruption refers to the wickedness of the people and not the planet.

I believe that there are hints of the Flood being restricted in terms of anthropology as well. Genesis 6:4 states that the Nephilim were in the earth in those days (before the Flood) and also after that (after the Flood). Also we find Cain’s genealogy in ch. 4 which lists Cain’s various descendants in the present tense (present to Moses’ contemporaries?). In other words, it seems that Moses is identifying to his audience distinctive characteristics whereby Cain’s descendants were identified in those days. Finally, the scope of the Flood is given in the midst of specific genealogical data. Genesis 5 enumerates Adam’s progeny specifically through Seth which seems to hint at the special role that Seth and his descendants will play in world history. Genesis 10 picks up where Genesis 5 leaves off and enumerates the descendants of Noah. Again this seems to imply to me that the Flood is given in the context of Seth’s lineage. The other sons and daughters of Adam and Eve who had migrated to the far flung areas of the globe are not included.

Another final piece of evidence is that nations are typically identified by there place in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. The recurring exception to this are the gigantic people usually refered to as Rephaim, but also referred to Nephilim again in Numbers 13. The Nephilim/Rephaim don’t seem to fit in well to the Table of Nations. There is also the extra biblical anthropological evidence to consider. The Egyptians described the racial characterists of many different people shortly after the time when the Flood was supposed to have occured. These characteristics have remained virtually unchanged to this day. How did race develop so quickly after the Flood? Perhaps it had already been developing for several generations prior to this. Deuteronomy 32:8, which is likely at least somewhat of a basis for what Paul is saying in Acts 17:26 seems to imply that the idea of separate nations and peoples goes back to the sons of Adam himself and was not a novel concept invented at the Tower of Babel. If my estimation is correct, then Babel was more of a reaffirmation of an existing order rather than the new creation of separate nations and identities.

Given the data presented in the Table of Nations it is easiest to conclude that the Flood primarily affected the Meditteranean race, ie. the caucasians. We can identify the people described relatively well to this day in the Table of Nations. Japheth comprises most of the people of European descent. Shem comprises most of the people deriving from the ancient near East. Ham comprises many of the people of north Africa and some of the people in the near/middle east.

It is difficult to figure out exactly how South Asian dravidians, East Asian mongoloids, African Negroes, and North American aborigines fit into this picture. Some will say that the colored races primarily descend from Cush the son of Ham since Jeremiah describes Cushites or Ethiopians not being able to change their skin color. It’s assumed that they would contrast with the “milk white” skinned Isrealites that Jeremiah describes in the book of Lamentations. It should be pointed out the many of the north african tribes and nations are described in various places as “mingled people” in the old testament. This plays it self out historically as well. Historically Ethiopia was known as Abyssinia, which R.P. Oliver points out means “land of the mulatto.” If this reasoning is correct, this would mean that Cush was not the source of some of his descendants darkness or duskiness, but rather that they became mingled with dark-skinned people over time.

I think that this explains a lot about the existence of races and in the world without jumping to extreme conclusions about Adam not being an ancestor of all humans or some humans not really being human or being able to be saved. Salvation is for all Adam’s progeny. One also does not have to accept the suppositions of full or radical preterism in order to adopt this view. Sorry I’ve been so long winded. This is not characteristic of me. I submit this for your perusal since I have so much regard for your opinion. As I said I am not dogmatic on the issue and am certainly open to being persuaded.

Thanks,
Scarborough Fayre