Clay McConkie, in his 2007 book, A Man Named Peleg, gave the following overview of the possible interpretation of Gen 10:25 and the division of the earth:
A
Variety of Interpretations
several meanings have been given
to the statement that the earth was divided in the days of Peleg. All of these
relate in one way or another to the etymology of Peleg’s name, which in the
Hebrew language signifies watercourse and division.
Whatever it was that happened in
those days, it was an important even, enough so that Peleg was named after it.
The scripture in 1 Chronicles, almost identical to the one in Genesis except for
the word because, states very clearly the reason for such a name.
“And unto Eber was born two sons:
the name of the son was Peleg because in his days the earth was divided; and
his brother’s name was Joktan.” (1 Chronicles 1:19)
The important question, of course,
is what is meant by the word divided. What happened in ancient times to
prompt such an unusual term or expression? Moreover, is the event something
that should be considered literally, or just figuratively or symbolically? Such
a brief reference in scripture obviously creates a difficult problem, and as a
consequence there are at least eleven different explanations or theories that
present a possible solution.
1) The most popular theory, and
the one most prevalent in the literature, is that divided means a
division of people. This meaning is suggested early in the tenth chapter of
Genesis, just prior to the account of Peleg and Joktan’s birth. Referring to
Japheth, the son of Noah, the scripture reads as follows: “By these were the
isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; everyone after his tongue, after
their families, in their nations.” (Genesis 10:5)
Later, only a few verses following
the passage in connection with Peleg, the word divided is again used in
the same way: “These are the families of the sons of Noah,” the scripture
states, “after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the
nations divided in the earth after the flood.” (Genesis 10:32)
Any normal reading of Genesis in
regard to these passages would likely result in one conclusion, namely that the
division of the earth in the days of Peleg pertained to a division of people
both linguistically and geographically. Especially with divided being
used three times in fairly rapid succession, the implication is that in all
three instances, the same kind of event is involved, a separation and
scattering of population, with the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel
being a principle factor.
2) Another interpretation of the
word in question is that it refers to the time when Peleg and Joktan separated
and went their different ways. When the latter left his homeland to migrate
southward into the Arabian Peninsula, for example, he took his thirteen sons
with him, and there they became the leaders of thirteen different tribes.
Peleg, in the meantime, apparently remained in the Mesopotamian area, with the
result of being that a significant division occurred among the people, more specifically
within the family of Eber.
Since Eber is traditionally
considered to be the progenitor of the Hebrews, the separation of his two sons
who are mentioned by name in the Bible certainly could be interpreted as a
dividing point, Peleg continuing on in the patriarchal line, and Joktan establishing
a well-known ethnic group called the Joktanide Arabs, Like Isaac and Ishmael
later one, and also Jacob and Esau, these two brothers represented important
milestones in history, each playing a vital part in the development of nations in
the Middle East.
3) A third explanation of the word
divided pertains to a political and geographical division of territory.
It might have involved the establishment of certain types of territorial limits
or municipal boundaries, but whatever it was, if it actually happened during
Peleg’s time, it evidently had an important impact on a large population of
people.
4) In contact to these theories,
there is also the idea that the division of the earth referred more accurately
to irrigation and agriculture. The etymology of Peleg’s name, in fact, has to
do with water as well as division. Associated with the origin of the word are
such meanings as watercourse, canal, and channel, and the earth in those early
days might have been thought of as being divided when people in Mesopotamia
began building extensive irrigation canals.
5) Another meaning of the word divided
is that it was the conclusion of the great Flood during the time of Noah.
Instead of water rapidly draining off from the earth, as recorded in the Bible,
it is suggested that it subsided more slowly, continuing until the days of
Peleg at which time the division of land into islands and continents finally became
complete.
6) Along with the explanations,
some minor ones also exist, including a (a) a mystical interpretation
pertaining to the separation of the sexes, (b) the point in the development of
man when he realized that his material or physical nature was separate form his
inner spiritual self, (c) a separation of mankind into different groups because
of quarrels and dissensions, even before the Tower of Babel, and (d) a dividing
point in history when people’s life spans became significantly shortened. (Clay
McConkie, A Man Named Peleg: An Exploration Into the days of Peleg [Springville,
Utah: CFI, 2007], 9-12, emphasis in bold added)
Unfortunately, McConkie’s fundamentalist-leaning hermeneutic comes
out in the following:
7) Finally, and in addition to all
of these, there are still two other theories that pertain to a division of the
earth, both relatively minor as far as their prevalence in the literature is
concerned, yet one of them possibly being the explanation that comes closest to
the truth. The first refers to a breakup in the earth’s original landmass as
described in the theory of continental drift, while the other involves a gigantic
deluge of water, a second flood in close succession to the one before it, which
inundated large sections of land and created present-day islands and continents.
(Ibid., 12)
And the second of the two theories, and the one McConkie himself advocates,
is
the idea of water coming in upon
the earth via rainfall and underground sources, at least one of these and maybe
both, inundating large areas of land and causing a mammoth division of territory.
It was very similar to what happened earlier during the great Flood, except now
the incoming water was far less extensive. Whereas complete inundation might
have occurred in the first instance, only a partial one took place in the
second.
It was also a deluge that was
separate and distinct from the one just before it. And although the idea of two
major floods occurring so close to one another might at first seem improbable,
there are good reasons for believing that such a thing definitely did happen.
In comparison with continental
drift, therefore, this kind of explanation is much more likely to avoid an
unnecessary confrontation between scientific theory and the Bible, as well as
present a logical view of what actually took place. It is also an idea which is
more tenable as far as the etymology of Peleg’s name is concerned. (Ibid.,
14-15)
To be fair to McConkie, he does write the following against the
“continental drift” theory of Gen 10:25 and admits that one should not naively
dismiss science as many are wont to do when one’s interpretation of
scripture conflicts with modern science:
There is a time problem, however,
in associating the drifting continents with what took place during the days of
Peleg. Scientists estimate that landforms started moving sometime between 200 and
300 million years ago, whereas Bible chronologists place Peleg’s time at about
2250 BC, or possibly a few centuries earlier according to a different
chronology.
Of course, it would be said that
in this instance, due to divine intervention, things happened much more
quickly. There are those places in scripture, for example, that suggest that
rapid changes in geology sometimes occur but are later attributed to longer
passages of time.
Also one might say that science has
been wrong before and in this case it could be wrong again. And yet in regard
to this particular situation, it probably would be well to avoid conflict
between an important biblical event and a popular scientific idea. Besides,
another explanation and one that is much more applicable to the time of Peleg
definitely exists. (Ibid., 13-14, emphasis added)
