a christocentric understanding of linguistic diversity

7/27/2019 A Christocentric Understanding of Linguistic Diversity

1/12

A CHRISTOCENTRIC UNDERSTANDING OF LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY:

IMPLICATIONS FOR MISSIONS IN A PLURALISTIC ERA

BySamuel H. Larsen, D.Min., Ph.D.

Sam Patterson Professor of Missions and Evangelism

Reformed Theological Seminary

Jackson, Mississippi 39209

A Paper Presented to the Annual Meeting of theEvangelical Missiological Society and the Independent Foreign Missions Association

at Orlando, Florida

September 25-27, 2003


2/12

1

A CHRISTOCENTRIC UNDERSTANDING OF LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY:

IMPLICATIONS FOR MISSIONS IN A PLURALISTIC ERA

Samuel H. Larsen, D.Min., Ph.D.

Background

Among secular communication theorists, human biological evolution is commonly

assumed, and human language in its diversity is therefore presumed to have evolved from lower

animal forms such as salamanders through higher animal forms such as primates (E. T. Hall

1981, 192-193).

Redaction critics have generally viewed the Babel narrative of Genesis as mythological.

Their theories have not fared well in light of subsequent scholarship. For example, Gunkels

hypothesis that the narrative resulted from the blending of two ancient stories, one of a city and

the other of a tower, is no longer widely held because of the strong literary coherence of the unit

(Wenham 1987).

By contrast, many evangelical Bible scholars have taken the position that the diversity of

human languages is entirely attributable to Gods judgment at Babel (Genesis chapter eleven).

Linguistic diversity is therefore viewed negatively as a problem to be remedied rather than as a

divinely-intended expression of creativity. That view carries with it implications for both nation-

states and the Christian community. Homogeneity of language and culture often becomes an

ideal and goal.

Is there a Christocentric third way which is faithful to the biblical text, treating it as

true history, and yet which views linguistic (and hence cultural) diversity positively?

Preliminary Observations

On superficial reading of the English translation, Genesis chapter eleven might easily be

construed to mean that diversity of language and culture did not exist after the Flood of Noah

until the events of the Babel narrative. The text says, Now the whole earth had one language,


3/12

2

2

and the same words (Gen. 11:1, ESV), and the LORD said, Behold, they are one people, and

they have all one language . . . . Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that

they may not understand one anothers speech (Gen. 11:7, ESV). Therefore its name was

called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth (Gen. 11:9, ESV).

The events of the first day of Pentecost following Christs resurrection seem to indicate

that the condition imposed at Babel (diversity of language) is reversed as the Spirit of God works

through the Gospel (Acts chapter two). F. F. Bruce writes, The event was surely nothing less

than a reversal of the curse of Babel (Bruce 1974, 64).

The vision of John while on the island of Patmos provides us, through his eyes, with a

glimpse of heaven itself, where the multitude saved out of every ethnic and language group now

sing in unison to the Father and the Son (Rev. 7:9-10). To be able to do so, one might surmise,

requires them to share the language used in the song.

The implication drawn by many readers is that uniformity of language is finally restored

in heaven. If that is Gods ultimate goal, some further reason, should not Gods people work

toward it even now? Cultural and linguistic diversity is then viewed as a condition inferior to

cultural and linguistic uniformity. Referring to the Babel account, Allen Ross concludes, The

text thereby demonstrates that the present number of languages that form national barriers is a

monument to sin (Ross 1988, 234).

Biblical and Theological Reflection

There is, however, another way to interpret the wording of Genesis chapter eleven. The

term language (Heb. saphah, lip) may denote a fundamental language system (common

speech), whereas words (Heb. debarim) may denote shared or core vocabulary (Harris et al.,

1980). The plural form of the Hebrew word for one used with the term for words in Gen.

11:1 is found only four other times in the OT (Gen. 27:44, Gen. 29:20, Dan. 11:20, and Ezek.

37:17), and in three of those passages is rendered few (Wenham 1987). For example, a child

may speak his or her parents language and use vocabulary common to them, without the childs


4/12

3

3

possessing as extensive an understanding in grammar, vocabulary, or concepts, or being able to

speak other languages known to the parents. Communication is still easily possible. Kiswahili is

a trade language in East Africa, and a second language to most Kenyans. Even very basic

grammar skills and a minimal vocabulary enable one to communicate with others from different

tribes (with their own distinct languages). Peter Berger (1967) argues that a sacred canopy of

shared essential language (common speech) and values within a society is necessary if unity

amid diversity is to be maintained. The Babel narrative, therefore, may also be understood to

mean that, amidst the diversity that was already emerging (culturally and linguistically),

humankind retained a shared way of understanding (i.e., one language system, Heb. saphah) and

a shared content or expression (i.e., a common core vocabulary, Heb. debarim). It was that

shared umbrella, or sacred canopy of social cohesion, that was removed by God in an act both

of judgment and of grace. Ross (1988, 230) writes, The human race, although united by origin,

is divided by language, territory, and politics as a part of Gods design to bring blessing to the

human race. The call of Abraham, with the explicit promise of blessing for the nations through

his line, immediately follows the Babel narrative and the connecting personal genealogy.

In support of such an interpretation of the Babel narrative are the developments recorded

in Genesis chapters four and ten. In chapter four, we are informed of the emergence of

individuals with technologies of metallurgy, musicology, and animal husbandry, among others.

Specialized technology implies specialized vocabulary and concepts. We name things and

processes as we discover or develop them, and human finitude precludes the assumption that

each human being can entirely know what every other human being has learned. Distinctive

disciplinary jargons and terminological shorthand are natural developments, not sinful in

themselves. Language diversity reflects diversity of interest and culture. Naming has to do with

dominion and with insight into the real nature of things. A name denotes identity, relationship,

or sovereignty. God calls the cosmos into being, and it responds by coming to be. Such call-

response implies relationship. God then names nature and Adam. Adam in turn names the

animals and Eve, reflecting Gods own naming of day and night, of sky and seas, and of Adam


5/12

4

4

himself. Cain names a city for his son (Gen. 4:17). All apparently name their children. The

process of naming implies more than simply assignment of symbols corresponding to modern

English nouns, because verbal expressions may also be part of naming. For example, Hagars

name for Yahweh was the Living One Who Sees Me (Gen. 16:13-14).

Ellis (1993) suggests, with Benjamin Whorf (1956), that language is not primarily

communication. Rather, he argues, categorizing is the fundamental activity of thought,

reasoning, and language. Language then has to do fundamentally with making sense of human

experience. Yet even before Adam named the animals, God had spoken to him, which implies

that the imago Dei included already all the foundational structures of thought, reasoning, and

language. The cultural mandate, as it has been called, of Genesis 1:26-28 was given to both

Adam and Eve, and therefore presumably took place following both Gods commandments to

Adam (Gen. 2:15-17) and the activity of Adam in naming the animals (Gen. 2:19-20). Adams

naming of the animals prior to the entry of sin into the world and prior to the creation of Eve

suggests not so much his creating the characteristics of each animal but rather his formulation of

a descriptive taxonomy. Hall (1977, 122) writes: Science and taxonomy go hand in glove. In

fact, implicit in every taxonomy is a theory of the nature of the events or organisms being

classified. In classifying the animals, Adam thereby created the first human culture, which he

would have passed on to Eve and their descendants. That culture, like Adams DNA, may well

have carried within it the potential for a wonderful variety of expressions within the boundaries

set by the Creator.

Just as the genetic potential for all races and physical traits, along with all natural talents,

was present in Adams DNA, so also the potential for diversity in conceptualization and

expression was also present. Hereditary aptitudes for pattern recognition, logic, mechanics,

mathematics, psychomotor skill, music and language were all part of the biodiversity built-in

within the genetic DNA of Adam and Eve. The individual experiences encountered by their

descendants, in Gods providence, provided occasions for their individual aptitudes to express

themselves. Not evolution, but Gods creative design for differentiation within the boundaries of


6/12

5

5

human kind best accounts for such diversity. Kreitzer (2003), in a helpful recent treatment of the

subject, argues cogently that, over time, geographical separation of human beings naturally

results in cultural-linguistic diversity, a diversity which was intended by God from the

beginning. Yet even apart from geographical distance, other more intrinsic factors, as previously

described, also can contribute to diversity of conceptualization and expression of human thought.

In Genesis chapter ten, the table of nations, we are told three times (vv. 5, 20, and 31)

that the descendants of Noah spread over the earth by their clans, their lands, their languages

[Heb. lashonotham, their tongues], and their nations. The process may have been well

underway by Pelegs time. Peleg was at least five generations from Noah (perhaps more if

begat, Heb.yalad, is taken to mean became the progenitor of), and lifetimes were longer

(not shorter, as claimed by many secular evolutionists) than at present. The global population by

Pelegs day must already have been substantial, which may imply that clans and language

distinctions were also well along in development, although they still shared a common speech

and identity as well. Pelegs name means division, and the text then explains, for in his day

the earth was divided (verse 25). Many commentators take the reference to allude to the Babel

narrative which immediately follows the list of nations. A plausible understanding of chapter

eleven is that, as the descendants of Noah began to multiply and spread out, and as language

distinctives proliferated, they consciously retained an essential intercultural core of vocabulary,

syntax, and worldview which made continued communication readily accomplished. Resisting

the command of God to fill the earth (Gen. 1:28), they sought to maintain for themselves a

common capital and anthropocentric identity (Gen. 11:4). God frustrated their man-centered

rebellion by removing the communicative common ground, plunging them into confusion and

conflict and driving them apart. Yet Gods judgment was also gracious, because

compartmentalizing sin is one way of restraining it, and because it resulted in the carrying out of

Gods creative purpose and of his blessing expressed in Genesis 1:28 (Gage 1984, 139).

Candlish has observed that the scattering of Genesis 11:9 apparently was not anarchical, but

rather followed a pattern:


7/12

6

6

The division of languages, therefore, was made subservient to an orderly distribution of

the families of each of Noahs sons. They were scattered abroad; but it was in a regularmanner, and upon a natural principle of arrangement--with a joint regard to kindred and

to language--according to their families and their tongues. (Candlish 1979, 176)

The Apostle Paul proclaimed to the Athenians the truth of the unity of human origins and Gods

sovereignty over the dispersion of the nations (Acts 17:26). VanGemeren further notes that the

resulting diversity was not itself sinful, nor did it represent the thwarting of Gods creative and

redemptive purposes. Commenting on Genesis eleven, he writes:

God willed the nations! The relevant passages (vv. 5, 20, 31) lead to only one

conclusion: geographical, political, and linguistic diversity is not sinful. God willed it

from the beginning (1:28). Multiplication, migration, population of the earth, and the rise

of civilizations are natural expressions of the blessings of God. The Table of the Nations

contains no comment or allusion to the natural superiority of any region, race, or political

entity. The more extensive attention given to the genealogy of Shem is for the canonical

purpose of showing in greater detail the relationship of Israel to Shem. For this reason

his genealogy is covered last (vv. 21-31) and repeated in a different form in 11:10-26.

(VanGemeren 1988, 80)

Genesis 1:28 provides an essential background for understanding Genesis 11:4 (lest we

be scattered over the earth). Gods creative purpose for humankind was that they should fill

the earth and subdue it (KJV). In Genesis 2:8 God planted a garden and placed Adam in it.

God pronounced the entire planet very good (Gen. 1:31), but the entire planet did not comprise

the garden. The question naturally arises, How could Adam and his descendants fill the earth

and subdue it without having to leave Eden? Prior to the Fall recounted in Genesis chapter

three, a sinless Adam could have done so by extending the boundaries of Eden, following the

pattern provided by God himself in the cultivated and divinely-ordered beauty and productivity

of Eden. The Fall resulted in Adams expulsion from Eden along with frustration of his attempts

to interact with his environment (Gen. 3:17-19). Nevertheless, Gods creative purposes

expressed in his blessing (Gen. 1:28) were not overthrown. Following Genesis 1:28, the post-


8/12

7

7

lapsarian promises of Genesis 3:15 and 12:2-3 bracket the Babel narrative and are redemptive

and messianic, providing pivot points for Gods global purpose for humanity as He unfolds that

plan in history, a history which describes the struggle between two seeds (Gen. 3:15). The

intervening Noahic narrative (chapters six through eight) powerfully illustrates the motif of

judgment and renewal, grace, and the salvation of (and through) a believing remnant. Yet

chapters ten and eleven which follow demonstrate that the ultimate source of the problem, the

corruption within human nature itself, is still present and capable of explosive malignant growth.

The new heart (a motif which is subsequently developed in such OT passages as Deut. 30:6,

Psalm 51:10, Jer. 31:31-34, and Ezek. 36:25-27) is urgently needed, and is only made possible

through the promised Seed. Taken together, the passages generate a missiological framework. It

is in Christ that both redeemed humanity and creation itself are ultimately restored (cf. Rom.

8:19-23). It is not diversity which is removed, but confusion and conflict, both ecologically,

within creation, and relationally, within the community of the redeemed.

The New Testament tells us that believers are born spiritually into the family of God and

are endowed with a diversity of spiritual gifts (Eph. 4:4-16). Together, believers form one Body

in complementary unity. Indeed, gender also provides complementarity; Adam finds in Eve a

help meet for him (Heb., according to his aspects). God created man male and female and

together called their name Adam (Gen. 5:1-2). Believers are equal in their standing before

God (justification: in Christ Jesus, cf. Gal. 3:28) but are not identical in their appointed service

(function) within the believing community (1 Cor. 12:29-30).

In his vision of heaven, John witnessed a numberless multitude from every nation, from

all tribes and peoples and languages worshiping God (Rev. 7:9-10, ESV). The question arises:

How did he know? The answer may be that the Holy Spirit simply imbued John with that

insight. More likely, he could see and hear for himself. After all, John describes what they were

wearing and carrying and what they were saying. Now, it might be easy to tell differences of

facial appearance and stature, even though all wore white robes and held palm branches. More

problematic is the statement of languages. How could they speak in different languages and still


9/12

8

8

praise God in a loud voice with a common doxology? The answer may be that John heard them

expressing a concert of praise, wherein refrains of praise in the various languages reverberated in

succession or else came in and out at well-synchronized points as a modern descant might do, or

just as instruments would in an orchestrated symphony or as voices would in well-harmonized

parts of a choral anthem. If John were given, along with his vision, the restored ability to

understand those languages, he would surely have been deeply moved by what he saw and heard.

Indeed, that may be what he had earlier partially experienced at Pentecost, in the events recorded

in Acts two, where linguistic diversity was not erased, but affirmed, with the unifying truth of the

Gospel comprising the content of the message. Pentecost is, strictly speaking, more a healing of

Babel than it is a reversal of Babel. The Spirits outpouring at Pentecost resulted in true hearing,

as well as speaking, in the case of three thousand of those present, because the message was not

only linguistically comprehensible (v.6), but actually registered on some of those present (v.11).

They hearkened to Peters explanation and appeal. So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by

the word of Christ (Rom. 10:17 NASB).

The objection may be raised that there should be no distinctive or exclusive knowledge in

heaven, that all citizens of heaven should share knowledge and vocabulary. The answer seems to

be given earlier in the book of Revelation, when the one who overcomes is told that Christ will

give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one

who receives it (Rev. 2:17, ESV). Uniqueness, far from diluting unity, improves it. Why?

Because, quite apart from any effects of sin (which are no longer present in heaven), Gods

creatures are yet finite. Each one can comprehend only a tiny part of the fullness of the divine

majesty. Together, in complementary fashion, the Body of Christ understands more fully (Eph.

3:18), much as the perspectival vantage points of the four Gospel writers serve to complement

and reinforce one another. God creates the man and the woman and calls theirname Man

(Hebrew: Adam) (Gen. 5:1-2). The perspective of both genders is needed for humanity to be a

more complete reflection of the image of God. Uniformity of perspective would not have served

as well. Just as for human vision depth perception requires parallax, which in turn can only be


10/12

9

9

provided by multiple angles of sight, so also the testimonies of the Gospel writers are not

contradictory, but complementary. So, too, may be the languages of heaven.

Summary and Missiological Conclusions

The biblical data may not permit a conclusive verdict. However, a plausible explanation

of the Babel narrative interprets Gods judgment at Babel as bringing confusion and conflict,

while at the same time accelerating the process of human linguistic diversity and providing an

impetus for humanity to fill and subdue the earth.

Just as children learn gradually the vocabulary of their parents, but share from early

childhood the core language skills needed to communicate, so human beings of differing

languages still can and do communicate with one another, as long as they share at least a basic

core of understandings and expressions, some lingua franca, by which they may express

themselves. Without such a common medium of communication, the difficulty of reaching

shared meanings becomes nearly insurmountable.

If the Babel narrative is understood to mean that God at that event removed from

humanity the shared core of meanings, the one language and same words used in common, the

outcome would have been loss of ability to cooperate and a resulting accelerated dispersion.

That interpretation does appear to fall within the possible ways of understanding the text and

merits further exploration.

Missiological implications of such an understanding of Babel are significant. For one

thing, cultural and linguistic diversity is then seen as a blessing rather than as a curse. God is

more fully glorified in harmonious unity within diversity than he is in a bare singularity resulting

from uniformity. Complementarity, rather than conformity, is the more glorifying to God.

Harmony is essential, however, for without it diversity leads to chaos. Moises Silva observes

that

We need not infer that linguistic uniformity is a goal of redemption, but surely the abilityto understand each other and thus to praise God in unanimity is very much part of his

saving grace to us. (Silva 1996, 217)


11/12

10

10

Creative ways of preserving diversity while promoting harmony in worship and service to God

are then positive values and goals for the Church.

A second missiological implication which follows from the first is that the message of the

Gospel must be, and is, translatable into every human language. The ascended Christ, having

received the promised Holy Spirit in our humanity (Hebrew, in Adam, Psalm 68:18) as our

covenant head, poured out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Eph. 4:8), as recorded in Acts chapter

two, not in order to overturn the judgment pronounced at Babel but in order to bring healing

from it (Richardson 1953, 126). The Holy Spirit, in turn, causes the word of God to be effective

as it is communicated to those who hear, even across cultural-linguistic barriers. Bible

translations which respect the cultures and languages of the recipients are therefore both

legitimate and necessary. Diversity of styles of worship are also appropriate, subject to the

boundaries God himself has given in the Bible.

Theologically, it is only in Christ, the Head, that the whole body (Church) finds its

completeness and builds itself up together in love. Believers honor their Creator by recognizing

their finitude and the way that they complement one another within the community of faith. Yet,

even together, the Body of Christ is incomplete apart from the Head, Christ himself. In his

human nature, he is one of us (incarnate and finite), and yet, in his divine nature, he belongs to

the Triune Godhead (divine and infinite). The Church is his body, the fulness of him who fills

all in all (Eph. 1:23). Through their spiritual union with Christ, believers are, even now,

enthroned in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6).

In Christ our Head, the whole Body, with all its diversity (including language) fits

together and finds integration and identity. It is Christ who gives his people their common

purpose and kinship, bringing relational healing. Yet healing is also associated with hearing

(John 12:37-41). Missions must never substitute humanization for proclaiming Christ, for he is

the heart of the Gospel. Christ, and Christ alone, is the center of creation, of redemption, of

mission, and of eschatological glory.


12/12

11

11

WORKS CITED

Berger, Peter. 1967. The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion. Garden

City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Bruce, F. F. 1974. Commentary on the book of the Acts. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B.

Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Candlish, Robert S. 1979. Studies in Genesis. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications.

Ellis, John M. 1993. Language, thought, and logic. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern UniversityPress.

Gage, Warren A. 1984. The gospel of Genesis: Studies in protology and eschatology. Winona

Lake, Ind.: Carpenter Books.

Hall, Edward T. 1977. Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. 1980. Theologicalwordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press.

Kreitzer, Mark. 2003. Toward a covenantal understanding of ethnicity: An interdisciplinaryapproach. Ph.D. diss., Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, Miss.

Richardson, Alan. 1953. Genesis 1-11: The creation stories and the modern world view.London: SCM Press Ltd.

Ross, Allen P. 1988. Creation and blessing: A guide to the study and exposition of the book of

Genesis. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Silva, Moises. 1996. Biblical perspectives on language. In Foundations of contemporary

interpretation: Six volumes in one, ed. V. Philips Long, Tremper Longman III, Richard

A. Muller, Vern S. Poythress, and Moises Silva (204-217). Grand Rapids, Mich.:

Zondervan Publishing House.

VanGemeren, Willem. 1988. The progress of redemption: The story of salvation from creation

to the new Jerusalem. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

Wenham, Gordon J. 1987. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary (vol. 1), ed. David A.

Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Dallas, Tex.: Word Books, Publisher.

Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee

Whorf. Ed. John B. Carroll. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.

a christocentric understanding of linguistic diversity

Documents