Isa. 19
18 In that day five cities in the land of Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear by the LORD of hosts; one will be called the City of Destruction.

19 In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD at its border. 20 And it will be for a sign and for a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the LORD because of the oppressors, and He will send them a Savior and a Mighty One, and He will deliver them. 21 Then the LORD will be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will know the LORD in that day, and will make sacrifice and offering; yes, they will make a vow to the LORD and perform it. 22 And the LORD will strike Egypt, He will strike and heal it; they will return to the LORD, and He will be entreated by them and heal them.
23 In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians will serve with the Assyrians.

24 In that day Israel will be one of three with Egypt and Assyria—a blessing in the midst of the land, 25 whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.”

——-

I have a few questions about this passage:

1. Isaiah speaks positively about the linguistic unity of different nations. What bearing does this have on the kinist understanding of Babel—that it was a blessing for God to disperse the peoples? It seems rather common-sense, too, to say that linguistic unity is a blessing. This does not mean that forcing all the world to quickly abandon their preexistent linguistic diversity is a blessing, but in the long, run it appears that one world language would be a good thing in itself.

2. This passage pretty clearly notes how these nations will worship the one true God, Jesus Christ, pointing also to the fact that all nations will worship together, including trade and coming into the other nations. But what exactly does the passage mean when it says, “the Assyrian will come into Egypt and the Egyptian into Assyria”? Is it saying that their borders will be erased? Or that the nations will gladly allow citizens of other nations to become citizens of their own nations? Or that the nations will gladly allow citizens of other nations to reside with them, while still being “strangers”? Or that they will just have some amount of commerce? And how widespread should we expect this to be?

3. If each nation is allowed to “come into” the other, then would it be reasonable to say that there would still be an ethical proscription on miscegenation? I do not think there would be.

Confessor - 23 August 2010 08:08 PM

Isa. 19
18 In that day five cities in the land of Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear by the LORD of hosts; one will be called the City of Destruction.

19 In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD at its border. 20 And it will be for a sign and for a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the LORD because of the oppressors, and He will send them a Savior and a Mighty One, and He will deliver them. 21 Then the LORD will be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will know the LORD in that day, and will make sacrifice and offering; yes, they will make a vow to the LORD and perform it. 22 And the LORD will strike Egypt, He will strike and heal it; they will return to the LORD, and He will be entreated by them and heal them.
23 In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians will serve with the Assyrians.

24 In that day Israel will be one of three with Egypt and Assyria—a blessing in the midst of the land, 25 whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.”

——-

I have a few questions about this passage:

1. Isaiah speaks positively about the linguistic unity of different nations.

I do not see that the prophet is here speaking positively about the linguistic unity of different nations, but merely mentioning it as a circumstantial fact of the specific blessing of these cities of Egypt praising the Lord. Further, these cities of Egypt are not a distinct “nation” in the ethno-racial sense. Kinism does not espouse the doctrine that any entity which calls itself a nation must speak a distinct language from all others, nor the converse, that nations which share languages (such as Australia and the United States) are to be considered a single nation. This would be to treat the historical differences between these nations as unimportant, and to view linguistic characteristics as the primary factor in national determination. I cannot view this as consonant with the biblical doctrine of nations.

Confessor - 23 August 2010 08:08 PM

What bearing does this have on the kinist understanding of Babel—that it was a blessing for God to disperse the peoples?

One must not confuse false, imperial unity with the legitimate forms of national unity. One view (not without merit) is that the project of Babel was to undo ethno-national unities which preexisted it, not to create them. God’s dispersion of the peoples made nations again (and perhaps not for the first time). This is not the same thing as stating that all forms of dissolution or dispersion are a blessing. What was dispersed was a false, imperial unity. That dispersion created ethno-national entities, the intentional destruction of which through imperial unity is to seek to abrogate the work of God. That said, I’m unsure in what source of Kinist literature one might have culled that our doctrine is dependent on a particular reading of the story of Babel. I would be interested in what others believe that dependency to be. Certainly, Kinism does not (and could not) hold that dispersion is positive and unity is negative irrespective of what is unified and what is dispersed. Such a view would be a metaphysical abstraction.

Confessor - 23 August 2010 08:08 PM

It seems rather common-sense, too, to say that linguistic unity is a blessing.

I must ask, common sense to whom? It begs the question. God brings about His purposes both from forms of unity and from forms of distinction. Linguistic unity can serve as easily as a pretext for consolidation in which other, more important distinctions are abridged. The argument seems to suggest that God’s purposes are only achieved through consolidations. But God’s purposes are served also through distinction. I would remind readers of Acts 17:26, which states: “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him.” This verse seems to indicate that boundaries (not merely territorial, but also in other characteristics), and even division among men serve God’s purposes.

Confessor - 23 August 2010 08:08 PM

This does not mean that forcing all the world to quickly abandon their preexistent linguistic diversity is a blessing, but in the long, run it appears that one world language would be a good thing in itself.

And yet such a recommendation appears not to preclude the idea of force, only of force that is too rapid. This I cannot fathom. Is it being proposed that nations (acting together) ought to implement a forced linguistic unity on the world? For what purpose, but some synthetic unity that God has until now not seen fit to accomplish temporally? And in what way is this project different in kind from the project of Babel, which God undid?

Confessor - 23 August 2010 08:08 PM

2. This passage pretty clearly notes how these nations will worship the one true God, Jesus Christ, pointing also to the fact that all nations will worship together, including trade and coming into the other nations.

I do not believe the passage is to be interpreted in the manner stated. It does not, in any apparent way, convey an imperative that, “all nations will worship together.” The passage refers to Egypt, Assyria, and Israel, and not, as suggested, all nations. Furthermore, I would like to understand where (from what essay or blog post) one might gather that Kinism denounces trade with other nations. There is much we do not know about the passage. We do not know if these prophecies are fulfilled in the past, perhaps manifested in the Coptic, Assyrian, and Hebrew Christians, or perhaps in the Abyssinian Jews who are thought to be descended from Ham. We do not know that trade is indicated here, but it might sensibly be inferred. We do not know that, beyond mere trade, a general permissiveness toward free immigration is in view. Nothing of the sort can be divined from these verses without tendentious force of the sense. What we do know, however, is that there there is no categorical instruction to dissolve national borders and distinctions (even were we able, through some horrific application of force, against the wills of the peoples themselves who would be involved). What we do know is that there is no command here for all nations to permit free immigration. What we do know is that this, and other verses, must be made to logically comport and agree with other scripture that is far more plain of meaning. The passages of scripture that are more difficult to interpret must be revealed in light of those which are more plain to the sense. The argument appears to have taken a prophetic utterance of Isaiah’s, and used it as a guide to interpret (and subjugate) every other article of scripture that indicates that national boundaries are ordained by God and perfectly acceptable in a biblical system of polity.

Confessor - 23 August 2010 08:08 PM

But what exactly does the passage mean when it says, “the Assyrian will come into Egypt and the Egyptian into Assyria”? Is it saying that their borders will be erased?

I see no reason to suggest this interpretation as the sole or even the most likely conclusion, or, were this to be so, that such is God’s plan for all nations. Please show us where the passage provides warrant that it should have a universal application, rather than the specific application that the plain sense indicates. Where the Biblical authors wish to address themselves to all nations, they routinely do so. Why not here?

Confessor - 23 August 2010 08:08 PM

Or that the nations will gladly allow citizens of other nations to become citizens of their own nations? Or that the nations will gladly allow citizens of other nations to reside with them, while still being “strangers”? Or that they will just have some amount of commerce? And how widespread should we expect this to be?

I would expect that international commerce would be quite widespread, which is not to say that commerce must be entirely unregulated, or be permitted to be conducted in ways that are destructive to the people of a nation. Again, where does Kinism indicate any abhorrence to trade with other nations on principle? The argument returns again to “the nations.” I fail to see where Egypt, Assyria, and Israel can logically be extended to “all nations.” This, again, forces an interpretation on the passage that the sense does not support, in my opinion.

Let us grant that some nations may “gladly” do this. What of the nations who do not wish to “gladly” engage in their own erasure? Do they sin? Or is the will of their citizenry to be considered in what is and is not permissible to do regarding their national identity? In the argument you present (whether your own or another’s), there seems to be a subtext that distinction and difference among peoples is an inherent evil that is to be abrogated. Some sort of spiritual impediment. Need I remind that no greater period of expansion of the Gospel was ever experienced than that which took place during the rise of nationalistic states? Nationalism seems to have been no impediment to God whatsoever? I fail to see where it is an imperative that men solve a problem which to God is not a problem. The existence of distinct nations appears to be so little a problem to God, that, apparently, per the book of Revelation, the nations (plural) will worship God in heaven. If we destroy the nations through the draconian regimes of unity your argument seems to countenance, such as coercive linguistic unity, through biological unitarianism, through cultural monadism, then from whence will these “nations” derive that we see worshiping God in heaven? It is clear that national identity is not merely temporally expedient to God, but a feature of eternity. Leibniz proved exhaustively the identity of indiscernables. If total indistinctness, utter unity, and mere numerical multiplicity is the paradigm of heaven, then there need be no more than a single man in heaven. If heaven is composed of atomistic individuals, then “nations” will not be present in heaven.  All relevant scripture is to be brought to bear on this question, not a merely a prophetic verse in Isaiah torn out of its context.

The existence of individual nations did not arise while God slept. The nations are not God’s mistakes which must be erased by men. The existence of national distinction is, we see from their existence in history, a part of God’s plan. The argument appears to suggest that God erred in creating them, or that distinction and difference is an inherent evil. Let us assume, then, that all distinction and difference is an evil. Again, if complete and utter unity is the desideratum to which we ought to aspire, why would there need to be more than a single man in God’s plan? Why would we permit individual difference, if we are not to permit national difference?

Confessor - 23 August 2010 08:08 PM

3. If each nation is allowed to “come into” the other, then would it be reasonable to say that there would still be an ethical proscription on miscegenation? I do not think there would be.

The major premise is false, therefore the conclusion cannot be logically true. We have shown that the passage in question does not extend to “all nations,” but rather applies to specific nations in a specific temporal context. We have also shown that there is no warrant to the conclusion that the passage indicates free and open immigration, and certainly not a universal imperative to implement such a regime. The ethical proscription of miscegenation does not proceed from generalities drawn from the story of Babel. It proceeds from the direct commandment of God, as well as from the absence of any proscription, either direct or logically necessary, against the organization of states on a ethnic or racial basis.

Mr. Marshall,

Thank you for responding. I would like to focus my attention on one thing which you wrote:

The ethical proscription of miscegenation does not proceed from generalities drawn from the story of Babel. It proceeds from the direct commandment of God, as well as from the absence of any proscription, either direct or logically necessary, against the organization of states on a ethnic or racial basis.

Can you please cite the Scriptures which directly condemn miscegenation? I remember reading a post of yours on this forum from before which denied that any Mosaic principle worked to ban interracial marriage today, so I am curious to hear your answer.

Confessor - 26 August 2010 08:17 PM

Mr. Marshall,

Thank you for responding. I would like to focus my attention on one thing which you wrote:

The ethical proscription of miscegenation does not proceed from generalities drawn from the story of Babel. It proceeds from the direct commandment of God, as well as from the absence of any proscription, either direct or logically necessary, against the organization of states on a ethnic or racial basis.

Can you please cite the Scriptures which directly condemn miscegenation? I remember reading a post of yours on this forum from before which denied that any Mosaic principle worked to ban interracial marriage today, so I am curious to hear your answer.

Our interpretation of the statute that forbids unequal yoking follows that of Rushdoony, and thus in a ministerial capacity, we would consider that the necessary logical inferences from that statute militate against interracial marriage, or any other form of grossly unequal pairing. While the primary consideration in coupling is religious, there is no prohibition against other considerations being weighed, so long as they are based on what can be shown to be a necessary inference from a direct command of God. Furthermore, the 7th Commandment (which forbids adultery) has a far broader meaning than the narrow application given by the typical modern evangelical apologist for globalism and cultural-biological amalgamation, and was understood to mean any form of proscribed coupling, referred to generally as “adulteration” -which in ancient Israel would have been understood to have included marriage outside one’s tribe, for which reason Abraham is at such enormous pains to obtain for Isaac a bride from his tribe, and not from the local population.