Ask the Pastor — What of Babel and Pentecost?

Dear Pastor,

I’m confused a bit. I’m hearing some people who call themselves Theonomists saying that the division of languages at Babel was not a curse. So, in light of that I’m wondering if you could help me out on that issue.

“Is the division of language and geographical location in Genesis 11 to be considered a curse? ”

Peter Bryans
_________________

Dear Peter,

Thank you for writing to ask.

First, you have to recognize that the Theonomic and Reconstruction movement has changed a great deal in the short time since Rushdoony’s death. What is happening is that Rushdoony and Theonomy is being reinterpreted through a Libertarian grid. The consequence of that is great division in Rushdoony’s legacy of  Theonomic / Reconstruction heritage. For my part, I believe that RJR is being overturned.

As to the question at hand I would say that the confusion of the languages and the scattering of the peoples recorded in Genesis 11 was a curse. Consider the parallels with Eden that one finds in the Babel account. God had given a specific command (fill the earth) just as Adam and Eve were given a specific command (keep the Garden).  In both cases the sin was one of denying God’s requirement of the Creator creature distinction.  In both cases the consequence of sin is alienation between the people in question (Adam contra Eve and The people of Babel contra one another.) In both cases we learn that God investigates the matter and in both cases those who had violated the commandment were “cast out,” and so cursed.

So, if we consider Adam and Eve cursed as a result of their sin then the juxtaposed narrative of Babel suggest that the scattering and confusion of tongues was indeed a curse, temporally considered.

Now at to Pentecost God reinforces the theme of Unity in diversity. Yes, understanding is facilitated by the speaking of tongues but the understanding of the Gospel proclaimed is a understanding of the Gospel that reinforce distinct Nationhood. Many are those who will say that “Pentecost reverses Babel.” I think that inaccurate Peter. I think it more accurate to say that “Pentecost sanctifies Babel,” or alternately “Pentecost takes the sting out of Babel in the context of Christianity.”

I hope that helps Peter.

Bret

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

6 thoughts on “Ask the Pastor — What of Babel and Pentecost?”

  3. Since you have invoked a permutation of my name and have engaged an important question I raised in conversation with another individual, please allow me to clarify a few points.

    I do not consider myself to be a Theonomist in the contemporary sense of the term as I believe Rushdoony’s understanding of God’s Law is marred by some substantial issues. I also do not consider myself to be a Libertarian in my political views. I am a Westminster Establishmentarian with Covenanter leanings in the Scottish Presbyterian tradition.

    I am glad to see that you agree that God’s actions in Genesis 11 are to be understood as a judgment and curse upon idolatrous man. Your assertion that the blessings of the New Covenant consitute an affirmation of ethnic division seems very stretched to me. Which ethnic/national/racial divisions? The divisions which existed in the first century have morphed into very different divisions in our present time. Where do we start in distinguishing legitimate divisions or do we merely affirm the de facto divisions which exist at any one point in time?

    Bryan Peters
    Johnston, Iowa

    Reply

    1. Bryan,

      First off, I did not assume you were either theonomic or Libertarian. I had other purposes for throwing in that bit.

      Bryan writes

      “Your assertion that the blessings of the New Covenant constitute an affirmation of ethnic division seems very stretched to me.”

      Of course I assert this. I am Reformed. Reformed folk hold to a hermeneutic of continuity. It is very odd of you as a Reformed to assume a hermeneutic of discontinuity. That is very Baptist of you. Why should you think that God who ordains ethnic division in the OT would reverse that in the NT? Where in the NT does God say, “I changed my mind on ethnic and national people groups. The death of Christ eliminated race, nations and people groups as corporeal realities? Really Bryan… who is the one stretching here?

      Bryan wrote,

      Your assertion that the blessings of the New Covenant constitute an affirmation of ethnic division seems very stretched to me. Which ethnic/national/racial divisions?

      Bryan, you offer me more of a riddle here than a question. You imply the impossibility of ascertaining ethnicity, nationality and race and yet you, as the questioner, takes for granted the reality of ethnicities, nations and races in asking the question. If you, and most others know your own ethnicity etc, your implying the impossibility of identifying those divisions is just jejune. If you assume the reality of races in order to impugn them, you are engaged in existential pretzel logic.

      The NT has no problem identifying ethnicities, Nations, and races. The Lord Christ speaks of “Nations” in Mt. 28. Dr. Luke identifies Nations in the Acts record. In Revelation St. John speaks of Nations repeatedly and even as they exist in the New Jerusalem.

      Which ethnic/national/racial divisions? The divisions which existed in the first century have morphed into very different divisions in our present time. Where do we start in distinguishing legitimate divisions or do we merely affirm the de facto divisions which exist at any one point in time?

      Here, Bryan you are practicing the “Loki’s wager” fallacy. Loki’s Wager, is a form of logical fallacy. It posits the unreasonable insistence, in this case, on your part, that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.

      Bryan,

      Where do we start in distinguishing legitimate divisions or do we merely affirm the de facto divisions which exist at any one point in time?

      In reading various histories one thing that strikes me is the continuity of ethnicities spanning millennia. I read A Mighty Fortress: A New History of the German people, and the author, Steven Ozment provides a glimpse of the continuity of the German identity well before Christ came. Political boundaries have shifted extensively, but we can still reasonably identify the major ethnic groups that exist today. Europe was populated by Southern Mediterraneans, Celts, Germans, Scandinavians, Alpines, Slavs, etc., and these groups go back to just after Noah. It seems you are conflating political boundaries for ethnic distinctions.

      Bryan writes,

      “The divisions which existed in the first century have morphed into very different divisions in our present time. “

      Oh? How so? This looks like the fallacy of petitio principi to me.

      Even so …. on this score consider what I wrote earlier,

      In reading various histories one thing that strikes me is the continuity of ethnicities spanning millennia. I read A Mighty Fortress: A New History of the German people, and the author, Steven Ozment provides a glimpse of the continuity of the German identity well before Christ came. Political boundaries have shifted extensively, but we can still reasonably identify the major ethnic groups that exist today. Europe was populated by Southern Mediterraneans, Celts, Germans, Scandinavians, Alpines, Slavs, etc., and these groups go back to just after Noah. It seems you are conflating political boundaries for ethnic distinctions.

      Finally Bryan, keep in mind that the very existence of Covenant constitutes an affirmation of ethnic division

      Bryan Peters
      Johnston, Iowa

      Reply

  4. I still would like to see you break this theonomic libertarian hijacking
    down for us Bret as only you do. But I have been thinking about it since
    I read your statement. Here is my brief conclusion.

    The libertarian, Austrian economics school of thought found at Lew Rockwell and the Von Mises Institute, though a much favorable form of
    gov. if depraved man could stick to it, is still not the answer.

    Salvation by politics, no matter the system is still looking to a system
    to do only what Christ can do for individuals, families, churches, and
    then the state. Only salvation in Christ will produce godly folk who are
    even close to being able to run a godly gov.

    Rushdoonys princpal of bottom up, personal salvation before political salvation can be achieved I believe is what you refer to as the overturning of theonomy by the libertarian. Placing libertarian politics, above the law of God.

    Is that close?

    Reply

    1. Grey

      Note the first part of this lecture where Calvinism and Libertarian are equated. This man is supported Chalcedon and used to work for American Vision.

      He is a nut.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *