Tower of Babel, a Lingua Franca, World Unity and One-World Government


Salvete, omnes!

In the Tower of Babel story, God is said to have confused our languages in order, implicitly, that we could not progress to a point where we would no longer rely on Him, either because of our own arrogance or through some other means.

Before the division of the languages, we were apparently (at least according to the story) a unified world people with (and because of, very likely) a unified language.

So, then, if God wished to divide the world’s people by confusing our languages so that we could not work together to such an extent that we would be able to do so much that we would no longer rely (enough?) on God, is uniting very much under our “lingua franca” (English, by in large) and becoming an increasingly global culture morally permissible by God? Would He really want us to unify as a global society in this way? After all, was that not essentially, though perhaps to an even greater degree than even now, what was the case before Babel? And the people were apparently already growing too arrogant (?), even in that early day.

And, projecting further into the future, would God, at least considering the Babel story, approve of a world government of some kind? Indeed, as I say, it would seem that He devided us so that we would not work together as a global society or be unified as essentially one culture and maybe even one government in future.

For the moment, here, we are only considering the Babel story. I do not wish to argue for or against a lingua franca, unified culture and/or government on other philosophical grounds outside of this. I am only interested in how one can justify these things in light of the Babel passage alone.

And, what of past empires that covered a vast part of the (known) world such as, for instance, the Roman, both pre- and post-Christian? I mean, the Roman Empire certain facilitated the spread of Christianity, but, cannot God use even what He disapproves of ultimately to accomplish good? Indeed, in the post-Christian empire, there seems to have been no effort made to reduce its size and/or divide it up because of the implications of Babel. I know of only one Church Father who came close to stating something like this should be done when he implied that non-Christians should not learn other languages because they could do more evil with more people. Still, perhaps Christians in this era simply were not thinking about the Babel passage and its implications regarding this subject? Indeed, as they understood it, a majority of the world had been subjected to Rome, to common widely-spoken languages (Latin and Greek) used for such things as business and commerce and to essentially a common form of government. Again, we’re not talking here about the ethics under which the Empire rose; I only wish to address its size/unity in light of the Babel passage. Indeed, what of other imperial powers that spread far and wide and unified very often under a common language(s) in light of the Babel passage? Would all these be approved of by God, even in light of the Babel passage? (Again, we’re not considering other factors right now, only the content and implications of the Tower of Babel.)

I suppose one could argue that the Church is, in some sense, an international/unified society (which used even to exist under a common language) under a pretty universal set of ecclesial laws. However, on the whole, it is relatively small considering the entire world population and pales in comparison to the massive amounts of people currently under the sway of our global society in this day and age. It also does not take into account non-Christians.

If you think God approves of a lingua franca, a unified world in culture/economics/etc. and/or a world government of some kind, how do you argue in favor of this, especially considering the Babel story?

I mean, I don’t know about you, but I enjoy being so connected with the world as I am very cosmopolitan in mindset. It seems to work relatively well, despite the downsides. Still, considering the Babel story, again, I wonder if my thinking is right on this issue.

Gratias vobis.


This is your fifth (!) thread on this subject. I think you’re overdoing this subject to death.

That is particularly true since it assumes - without basis - that we must interpret the babel story literally, and that “before babel we had 1 language” (of which there seems little if any proof).

So your conclusions are invalid, because your premises are inaccurate.

Seriously, how about resting these language threads? They don’t seem to be going anywhere.




Yep, and there are my usual attackers.

Now, can we get back to the actual question at hand, please?

I am assuming that at least the ideas God expresses in the passage are inspired and, thus, correct, i.e., the idea that God expresses about preventing humanity from progressing so much that we no longer rely (sufficiently?) on Him, in particular. Having a common language and common culture can contribute to vast amounts of progress, there is no doubt…, regardless of whether we actually had a common language before Babel.


No one has “attacked” you, and your claiming that we have is simply factually inaccurate. Disagreeing with you, or pointing out errors, is not an attack.


As has been pointed out numerous times, what you think the passage means is not what the passage means. No matter how many threads or how hard you want it to mean what you want.

You have posted several threads on other topics which I pray were of help to you, however I fear that if you continue to start the same thread over and over the moderators are not going to look favorably on it. Just something to consider.


I am not sure how a lingua franca is linked to the story of Babel. Having a lingua franca is useful in many sense to allow for communication, commerce etc. It also changes from era to era depending on many things. But even with an identified lingua franca, people still have their own language, culture etc. I am not sure how you link a lingua franca with a movement towards a unified culture.
How are you defining a culture? People can speak the same language and not have the same culture. I am not aware of any global movement towards a unified culture, economics etc. Even if that’s a goal, how would this even be achieved? A large portion of the world is engaged in economic turmoil and wars. I think we have much more to sort out before we can even start to think about such an abstract concept as a unified culture.


Don’t worry, if God seriously opposes global unity, He will stop it; we don’t need to anticipate Him.

If world unity were even possible.






Personally I think arrogance is the underlying problem here. However, it has also forwarded some major advances in technology inter alia. But when one examines them carefully, there are tools of universality, for example, math and chemical symbols, music notations, anatomical identifiers, etc, which have provided the means necessary to make those advances. Verbal and vernacular communication alone provides in many cases a false sense of security. That can easily lead to a corruption of faith inter alia.

Is this what you’re driving at, MMM?


Pentecost was the reversal of the Tower of Babel. God came to the apostles so they could speak to all nations and gather them back together in one universal Church.

Even have a common language, Latin.


Since we’ve answered it 4 times already, what is the point?

I will suggest you focus on your understanding of Scripture. Your assumptions are misplaced. Once again, the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not literal. The story transcends all times and all places, but not in the way you imply. You also continually try to frame things as “correct” and that is not the right frame of reference. These stories are allegorical.

As with most all Old Testament stories, they communicate truths and archetypes. They are fulfilled in the New Testament. The OT must always be read in light of the new.

Pentecost is the fulfillment of the Babel story and the Church is the ultimate unity of society. We are united through the Holy Spirit.


Excellent point.


That’s what they say but It doesn’t mean that the Tower of Babel can’t be repeated.


Even if you dont take it literally, God still punished them for trying to ‘reach heaven’ on their own, without him…I would say our modern world has gone far beyond what the people did back then ( trying to reach heaven without God).

What I cannot get past, is that God intervened in this manner to begin with…and yet thru out our history, he has never done this again??


Maybe we are in a better position to understand what we find?


In what ways are you referring to?

If you are saying we are more intelligent today and understand more of the world and the way things work (science) in modern times versus times past…Im not sure I agree with that, if you look thru all of history, at the time, the scientific ‘experts’ all thought they too understood everything and had all the answers, but history has shown, they are usually proven wrong eventually.

It was not that long ago when modern medicine thought ‘bleeding’ a person was a cure all for just about anything, more recently, it was common sense that using radium was great for all kinds of ailments, I could go on and on with some past scientific beliefs that were proven to be wrong…I have a feeling many of our ’ facts’ and common beliefs today will share the same fate.


Don’t mean we have to understand it all, we are just better equiped to understand what we may ‘find’ to a man 4000 years ago a volcano was a punishment from God. Today its a natural part of the earth’s processes.

We are better equipped to deal with a change in the ‘facts’ than when the Babel ‘incident’ occurred.


That can get a little ‘gray area’ though, yes, we do seem to think we understand more of science and the way things work today and why they work in these ways, but keep in mind, every other past generation also thought the same thing, and Im sure 100 years from now, they will think the same thing and wonder how all the experts in the early 2010s could have taken these things as fact.(in the same exact way people today look back at some of the science ‘facts’ of 1900).

I think its important to remember we are living in a day and age when the modern world is trying their best to dis-credit God and his creation, so maybe we should be taking our modern science ‘facts’ with a grain of salt, maybe they are giving us data and ‘facts’ that further their agenda (No God), versus what is actually true?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit