Genesis 10:1–11:26

1THIS IS THE account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah’s sons, who themselves had sons after the flood.

2The sons of Japheth:

Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras.

3The sons of Gomer:

Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah.

4The sons of Javan:

Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittim and the Rodanim.

5(From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language.)

6The sons of Ham:

Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan.

7The sons of Cush:

Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah and Sabteca.

The sons of Raamah:

Sheba and Dedan.

8Cush was the father of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty warrior on the earth. 9He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; that is why it is said, “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD.” 10The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in Shinar. 11From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah 12and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.

13Mizraim was the father of

the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites,

14Pathrusites, Casluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites.

15Canaan was the father of

Sidon his firstborn, and of the Hittites,

16Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, 17Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, 18Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites.

Later the Canaanite clans scattered 19and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha.

20These are the sons of Ham by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.

21Sons were also born to Shem, whose older brother was Japheth; Shem was the ancestor of all the sons of Eber.

22The sons of Shem:

Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram.

23The sons of Aram:

Uz, Hul, Gether and Meshech.

24Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, and Shelah the father of Eber.

25Two sons were born to Eber:

One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan.

26Joktan was the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, 27Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, 28Obal, Abimael, Sheba, 29Ophir, Havilah and Jobab. All these were sons of Joktan.

30The region where they lived stretched from Mesha toward Sephar, in the eastern hill country.

31These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.

32These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.

11:1Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

3They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

5But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

8So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9That is why it was called Babel—because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

10This is the account of Shem.

Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father of Arphaxad. 11And after he became the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters.

12When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. 13And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.

14When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber. 15And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.

16When Eber had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg. 17And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived 430 years and had other sons and daughters.

18When Peleg had lived 30 years, he became the father of Reu. 19And after he became the father of Reu, Peleg lived 209 years and had other sons and daughters.

20When Reu had lived 32 years, he became the father of Serug. 21And after he became the father of Serug, Reu lived 207 years and had other sons and daughters.

22When Serug had lived 30 years, he became the father of Nahor. 23And after he became the father of Nahor, Serug lived 200 years and had other sons and daughters.

24When Nahor had lived 29 years, he became the father of Terah. 25And after he became the father of Terah, Nahor lived 119 years and had other sons and daughters.

26After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.

Original Meaning

Table of Nations (10:1–32)

THE ORGANIZATION OF the list of nations in chapter 10 is quasi-genealogical, but genealogy is not its purpose. Japheth is first. His sons are named (10:2), then the sons of two of his sons, Gomer (10:3) and Javan (10:4). In this manner, the list extends comprehensively to the second generation and selectively to the third. Ham’s line is addressed in verses 6–20. Of his four sons, three are traced into the third generation (Put is not), and one of Cush’s sons is traced into the fourth (Raamah, 10:7). Additionally, there are two expansions, one regarding Nimrod (10:8–12), who is only linked loosely to Cush, the other regarding the territory of the Canaanites (10:19). Shem’s descendants are delineated in verses 21–31. Of his five sons, only two are traced into the third generation (Aram, 10:23; Arphaxad, 10:24). Predictably, the line relating to Eber, the forebear of the Israelites, is then traced to the sixth generation from Shem. Two expansionary statements occur: the earth’s being divided in the time of Peleg (10:25) and the region occupied by the line of Joktan (10:30).

Nature of the names. The list of the sons of Shem, Ham, and Japheth contains seventy names, and we cannot believe for a moment that this is accidental. Seventy stands for totality and completion.1 More important, the concept of seventy nations is offered as the design of God.2 Yet at the same time, we cannot help but notice that the list certainly is incomplete in its presentation of the descendants of Noah and his sons. The author penetrated selectively into various lines in order to achieve his final number. We therefore must conclude that this list of seventy is representative of the totality. Of the seventy names, sixteen are second generation, thirty-five are third generation, three are fourth generation, two are fifth generation, and thirteen are sixth generation (the sons of Joktan). Nimrod, of undesignated generation, fills out the seventy. Divided by lineage, fourteen are from the line of Japheth, thirty from the line of Ham, and twenty-six from the line of Shem.

The division between the three does not represent language groups (because, for instance, Canaanite is Semitic). It should also be noticed that not all of the seventy are names of individuals. A number of them clearly name people groups (see esp. 10:15–17). Others are well-known as city names (e.g., Sidon) or geographic designations (e.g., Mizraim, Tarshish, Sheba), but possibly the list considers these to be the patronymic ancestors of those places. In Hammurabi’s genealogy a number of the names are tribal or geographical names, so this is not unusual in an ancient document.3 Nevertheless, kinship language is sometimes used in the Bible to reflect political associations (cf. 1 Kings 9:13). As a vertical genealogy, this list is simply trying to establish relationships of various sorts.

Japheth’s descendants can all be defined from an Israelite perspective as coming from across the sea (cf. the NIV’s “maritime peoples” in v. 5). A Babylonian world map from the eighth or seventh century illustrated the geographical worldview that many peoples were considered on the outskirts of civilization beyond the sea. Many of the names here are connected with the Mediterranean region (Dodanim, Elisha, and Kittim). Tarshish has generally been identified as a port in Spain, but that is still in the Mediterranean shipping lanes. Others are identified with sections or peoples in Asia Minor (Magog, Tubal, Meshek, Tyras, Togarmah) and even extending to the area to the east in the region of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea—Cimmerians (Gomer), Scythians (Ashkenaz), Medes (Madai), and Paphlagonians (Riphat).

As the Japhethites stretched east and west across the northern latitudes, Ham’s descendants lined the southern coast of the Mediterranean and both sides of the Red Sea. In the Canaanites it also extended partway up the eastern coast of the Mediterranean.

The descendants of Shem settled along the Arabian Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Tigris and Euphrates, and stretched west across the Syrian desert (Aram and his descendants). This group of seventy is not a reflection of the perspective of Noah’s descendants in the third or fourth generation; it is the perspective of Israel in the time of the author, Moses.

In this table of nations it is important to see that there is no discussion of anyone outside the known world of the ancient Near East in the middle of the second millennium. The text only seeks to account for the groups the Israelites are aware of and does not hint at a world beyond the ancient Near East. In other words, the author has not attempted to provide a comprehensive list of all the people(s) who were descended from the sons of Noah. Instead, he has addressed how all the known peoples and nations of his day are related to the sons of Noah.

Nimrod. One of the oddest aspects of this chapter is that after the author has carefully delineated the largely separate spheres of the three groups of descendants, the information he gives on Nimrod in verses 8–12 throws it all into disarray. As a son of Cush, he appears to be a Hamite, yet his entire kingdom is in Shemite territory. There was certainly nothing in the pronouncement at the end of chapter 9 that would have led us to expect that a Hamite would rule a Shemite kingdom.

Interpreters over the years have attempted to identify Nimrod with known historical figures, such as Tukulti-Ninurta I (an Assyrian king during the biblical judges period), or with Mesopotamian deities, such as Ninurta, a warrior god and patron of the hunt, who in one myth hunts down a number of fantastic creatures and defeats or kills them.4 In Genesis, however, Nimrod is clearly a human hero rather than divine or even semidivine. Late Jewish tradition (picked up occasionally by the church fathers) envisioned him as the builder of the Tower of Babel and the originator of idolatry, but these ideas have no basis in the text.

To achieve an identification of Nimrod, four criteria must be met. (1) The name must be accounted for either as a personal name or as a title. (2) The description, “mighty hunter,” must be explained. (3) One must offer historical validation of the geographical progress and extent of his kingdom. (4) Some explanation must be given of the connection to the line of Ham/Cush. The Tukulti-Ninurta option only scores well on the second criterion. On the first and third, not even half a match is achieved. The Sargon of Akkad identification succeeds only in the third, and even there we do not have a good fit. The identification with deities such as Ninurta or Marduk offers explanation only in terms of the first two criteria and require a mythological background.

The inadequacy of these theories to meet the criteria suggests that the floor remains open for new proposals. If we think of major people groups leading up to the time of Moses (since that appears to be what the list represents), we certainly cannot neglect the Amorite tribes, who had ruled the Tigris-Euphrates basin for most of the first half of the second millennium. In fact, the historical information in 10:10 indicates that the kingdom of Nimrod began in Babylon. In the second millennium, only two kingdoms can be said to begin at Babylon: the Old Babylonian Empire and the Kassite Empire. The latter never included Assyria. Thus, if we look for a kingdom that began in Babylon, spread across southern Mesopotamia, and eventually encompassed the major Assyrian centers in the north, there is no better candidate than the Old Babylonian Empire, whose principal king was Hammurabi (eighteenth century B.C.).

Hammurabi’s dynasty is not native Babylonian but Amorite. These Amorites are referred to in Akkadian texts as Mardu. In Genesis, Amorites are included in the list of the peoples of Canaan (10:16), not in the line of Cush. But in the ancient Near Eastern texts a distinction is made, still not fully understood, between the Akkadian designation amurru and the Sumerian designation MAR.DU—both translated Amorites but referring to different peoples. The former is used to refer to the Amurru kingdom in Syria in the Amarna period and is appropriately applied to the group listed among the peoples of Canaan. The latter is the designation used to refer to the people who controlled the Tigris-Euphrates basin from the nineteenth to the sixteenth centuries B.C. The origins of the Mardu are unknown, but they lie somewhere to the west of Mesopotamia. In the Ur III texts from around 2000 they are portrayed as nomadic peoples of the desert.5 It is therefore not impossible to associate them with the Hamitic line that dominated the west.6

To begin with, then, this hypothesis gives us a strong match on criterion three (kingdom extent) and an “unknown but possible” match on criterion four (Hamitic). The hunter criterion can be met in the same way that all of the other theories propose. While there are no common titles for any of the kings of Babylon or Assyria that identify them as hunters, the carved reliefs of the ancient Near East often depict this activity. There are no such reliefs for Hammurabi, but the motif is common enough. The final criterion concerns the name. Rather than trying to figure out how “Nimrod” could be a form of “Hammurabi,” I propose that the term “Nimrod” represents a title.

There are several possibilities here. For the main component of the name we can posit either MAR.DU (= Amorite) or AMAR.UD (= Marduk), with the former being more likely. In Hammurabi’s inscriptions, he is occasionally called LUGAL MARDU (King of the Amorites), but another word for king or lord is EN. A title such as EN.MARDU supplies all the necessary consonants that might result in the Hebraized Nimrod. Another alternative is the logogram NA, which is used in lexical lists and syllabaries as the equivalent of the Akkadian term amilu (“man”). This would yield NA.MARDU (“[chief] man of the Amorites”). It must be admitted that these are theoretical forms, but they are logically possible. The data presented here fall far short of proving that Nimrod is Hammurabi, but I believe that this theory fits the four criteria better than the other available identifications. It is logical to assume that Nimrod was well known to the audience, but until more information surfaces his identity must remain obscure to us.

Dividing of the earth. While prd (NIV “spread out”; KJV “divided”) in 10:32 has traditionally been taken to refer to the division of the nations after the Tower of Babel incident (11:1–9), other possibilities exist. It can, for instance, refer to a division of human communities into sedentary farmers and pastoral nomads. Or perhaps it documents a migration of peoples that drastically transformed the culture of the ancient Near East—one represented in a break-off group traveling southeast in 11:2. Given the lack of any further reference in the Bible to such an event using the same verb, we are left without the information needed to clarify the comment further. This is another example of where the original readers were likely well aware of what was being referred to, but the passage of time has left it obscure to us. It is not even clear whether the text presents it as a negative or positive development.

Bridging Contexts

TABLE OF NATIONS. In general, the purpose of Genesis 10 is to show the continuation of the blessing. People continue to be fruitful and multiply, but also they are filling the earth. Beyond these basics, however, the list offers a specific picture of the world. The preceding survey makes it clear that the author has been selective. What intentions drive his selectivity?

One observation is that the list is made up of those nations, peoples, and territories that are pertinent to Israel. In the world of the second millennium, knowledge of the peoples and countries of the world was considered just as much an indication of wisdom as the knowledge of plants and animals. The wisdom displayed in this taxonomy of known peoples is not just an academic exercise. The point is that all of the known nations and peoples resulted from the blessing God had established from the beginning. National and ethnic diversity was not an aberration. There is no room for the concept that there is one pure race while others are tainted, somehow the result of sin or corruption.

This text does not offer an explanation of why there are different races or of how different races came to be, and such information cannot be inferred from the text. As always, we must allow the Bible to set its own agendas rather than trying to force it to address our special interests. While the Bible has nothing to say about how ethnic distinctions came to be, it does have definitive statements about how we are to regard them: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

Tower of Babel. The Tower of Babel is the climax to the primeval history of Genesis 1–11. Although last in the sequence of offense narratives, it represents a different sort of offense than the other narratives. At the same time, it sets the scene for the shift into the patriarchal covenant narratives.

Offense sequence. The previous narratives have traced an advance of sin: from the initial disobedience of Adam and Eve, through family violence and repression in society, to the all-pervasive corruption that led to the Flood. This sequence represented a constant movement away from God and a corruption of human conduct. The offense of the builders of the Tower of Babel now takes a dramatically different turn. It is no longer humanity that is being corrupted; it is their view of deity that is being distorted and twisted beyond recognition. Already morally and socially destitute, they have embarked on a path that will make them theologically destitute. The people at Babel have lost any realistic sense of who God is. The Babylonian religious system has created a façade to disguise the inner contradictions represented by restricted and competing deities.

In Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman, Willy Loman spends his whole life weaving around himself an artificial aura of success. At the end of his life, as the scope and reality of his deception becomes evident, his son observes that his father has never really known himself. In the same way, the Babylonian religious system has created a distorted, artificial, and ultimately self-contradictory picture of the gods. As a result, these people can never really come to know God because only the distorted image shows.

Of course, the pagan polytheism in the ancient world is not unique to Babylon. It is the heritage of all of Israel’s neighbors. That is exactly the point: This diluted view of God becomes ubiquitous. At the core of this view is the belief that the gods have needs. Worship and human response to the gods in general are directed toward meeting those needs. The gods need to be fed, clothed, and housed. They are pampered, patronized, and manipulated. The heart of paganism is not found in the perversity of rituals but in the degradation of deity. When gods are distinguished only by their power instead of by their character, transcendence, and autonomy, they become like puppets filled with nitroglycerin—make them do whatever you want however you can, but be careful not to jar them too much or they may explode.

The disposition of the ancient Near Eastern gods was entirely human, or even worse. They were capricious and under no obligation to be moral, ethical, or fair; integrity could never be assumed. Furthermore, since the gods did not reveal what pleased them or angered them (how could they when it could change tomorrow?), people were left to guess what they wanted. Logic was not sufficient to discern what pleased a deity. One frustrated worshiper, after considering a whole list of cultic acts designed to appease the anger of deity, confesses his uncertainty about whether they will do any good:

I wish I knew that these things were pleasing to one’s god! What is proper to oneself is an offence to one’s god; what in one’s own heart seems despicable is proper to one’s god. Who knows the will of the gods in heaven? Who understands the plans of the underworld gods? Where have mortals learnt the way of a god?21

This trend continued into the classical period of Greece and Rome, where it eventuated in the inevitable denial of these unsatisfactory gods. It is said of Greece that it is not that the people were abandoned by their gods because they had become so wicked; rather, they abandoned their gods because their gods had become too wicked.22 This inclination is also recognized and expounded in Romans 1:21–32:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

In contrast, Yahweh, the God of Israel, gave extensive revelation of what he expected, and it was in line with his own character. He made it clear that he had no needs (Ps. 50:7–15) and could not be manipulated.

The narratives of the Fall through the Flood have recounted the advance of sin. The Tower of Babel relates the advance of paganism. Paganism is a term that is often avoided today in religious discussions. In a pluralistic world it is viewed as derogatory because it elevates Christianity over what experts in comparative religion proclaim to be culturally legitimate tribal practices and beliefs. Let me be clear, then, that I use the term not as a crass jab at other religious beliefs but as a description of reductionism applied to the divine. We all have at least a seed of paganism within us that is reflected when we view God as limited, when we try to get him to respond to us on our terms, when we view him as needing us or our abilities, or when we try to make him do what we want him to when we want him to. Chesterton’s observations are still to the point:

The term “pagan” is continually used in fiction and light literature as meaning a man without any religion, whereas a pagan was generally a man with about half a dozen. . . . Pagans are depicted as above all things inebriate and lawless, whereas they were above all things reasonable and respectable. They are praised as disobedient when they have only one great virtue—civic obedience. They are envied and admitted as shamelessly happy when they had only one great sin—despair.23

Such paganism does not refer to a specific religion as much as to a concept of deity. Genesis 11 marks its formal inception, though its seed is inherent in our sin natures. Sin makes us inclined toward paganism; Babel institutionalized it.

Transition to the patriarchal covenant narratives. In the introduction I proposed that the purpose of Genesis 1–11 was to show the need for the covenant. This connection is evident given the particular views of the offense of the builders of Babel and the purpose of the covenant presented in this commentary. When the offense of the tower builders is seen as a corruption of the concept of deity and the covenant is seen as God’s program of revealing himself to the world through Abram and his family, the pieces of Genesis fit together and its structure becomes transparent.

When the concept of God becomes as distorted as it has by Genesis 11, the only path to reclaim humanity is for God to reveal himself anew. Who would want to enter into relationship with the gods as portrayed in the ancient Near East? Who could love a god like Marduk or Ishtar? The first step on the path to reclamation and redemption is revelation. The Tower of Babel narrative shows how necessary a program of revelation has become. We will pursue this concept further in the context of chapter 12.

Contemporary Significance

GOD ABUSE. BY nature we are all pagans caught in the Babel syndrome. When we think we can manipulate God by praying in Jesus’ name to achieve selfish purposes, our paganism is showing. When we “claim promises” as a means of making God do what we want him to do, our paganism is showing. When we come to think we are indispensable to God because of the money we donate, the talents we have, the ministries we engage in, or the worship we offer, our paganism is showing. When we treat God as a child to be cajoled or a tyrant to be appeased, the Babel syndrome is surging in our veins. We want a manageable “God-lite.” We want to be able to harness his power for our own benefit, no strings attached. Our society has confronted child abuse and spouse abuse, but this is “God abuse.”

One of the manifestations of this today is in the scam of media preachers who convince millions that prosperity is simply a form of “divine payola.” This extension of the Babel Syndrome says God can be bought. Give money to this ministry and claim the promises of God for limitless prosperity. Another example is in those who see depression, ulcers, gall stones, and any other physical ailment up to cancer and AIDS as indications of a lack of faith or of divine judgment. Additionally, when we rail at God for the suffering in the world and turn angrily away from him at the death of a loved one, we show that we continue to struggle with a seriously deficient view of God. These are the “legacy” of Babel.

Needy gods can only be oppressive gods. In the film The Matrix, the gods are cast in the role of computers. They have taken control of the world and run it with an iron fist. People are kept alive in a comatose state in glass bubbles that simulate the womb. But nerve impulses are fed to the brain to make them think that they are living normal lives. The only reason they are kept alive at all is that the machines feed on them for their own sustenance. This is how some have come to view deity.

Although we do not want to think of God in such parasitic terms, we leave ourselves no options. We want to be able to control and manipulate God. Control and manipulation can only be successful when there are needs to be met or withheld. Needs plus power equals oppression. We cannot have it both ways: a docile God brimming with power that is available to our every whim. This is more akin to Aladdin’s genie of the lamp (“phenomenal cosmic power, itty-bitty living space”) than to God.

In Genesis 11 the Bible does not explain how to fix the problem, it only alludes to the problem. But there are biblical strategies to help us develop and maintain an “industrial-strength” concept of God that is appropriately and biblically transcendent. We need to let God be God. We can do this by becoming aware of the ways in which we dilute God:

1. We dilute God by redistributing his power.

2. We dilute God by restricting his autonomy.

3. We dilute God by regulating his power.

Redistributing power. In the ancient world, most of the power was kept in the divine realm but was shared out among various gods. This sharing out of power demonstrated itself when God’s people placed their reliance on something other than the Lord. They relied on Baal for good crops, their livelihood. They relied on the Queen of Heaven (Ishtar) for their families. They relied on political alliances with other nations (and other deities) for their security. People rely on what they think has power. Reliance is a state of mind.

There are more recent examples of people distributing God’s power in the divine realm. In past history, the church distributed God’s power to the saints and Mary. In modern philosophy, the New Age movement distributes divine power to the angels or to a pluralistic view of religion, where Buddha or Allah share power with Christ. Even in our Christian circles we find those who still mix in horoscopes and transcendental meditation, both of which acknowledge power in the divine realm that is outside of God.

In general, however, our inclination is to drain power from the divine realm. In the church we are often guilty of diluting God by distributing the power from the divine realm to the natural realm or the human realm. If we were to use government forms as an analogy, this would be like trying to turn a benevolent dictatorship into a democracy (shifting power to the people). Christians tend to sort of keep God around like the British monarchy—good for show, but with little power. We may think government works best that way, but that is not how God works.

We can tell where we distribute power by observing what we tend to rely on. Sometimes we rely on things like government or technology to solve our problems or to bring us success and comfort. Most of all, we rely on ourselves: our hard work, our ingenuity, our network. Relying on God asks us to take risks by not hedging our bets. How would our lives look different if we let God be God—if we didn’t drain off his power? I think we would take more “obedience risks.”

• Perhaps we would finally step out in faith and decide to serve God on the mission field.

• Perhaps we would step out of our comfort zone and find places to serve in the church where our skills and gifts are needed.

• Perhaps we would raise the level of our giving despite the uncomfortable awareness that it might mean giving up some indulgences we have grown accustomed to.

• Perhaps it would mean taking a stand for godliness in a difficult situation at work.

• Perhaps it would mean stepping out of the façade we have created for ourselves and away from the security it gives us.

These are just a few examples. Remember what Psalm 37:5 says about reliance: “Commit everything you do to the LORD. Trust him and he will help you” (NLT).

Restricting his autonomy. Most of the functions of idols in the ancient world did not concern what the deity did for people but what people did for the deity. After an idol had been made out of all the highest quality materials, there was a grand procession into the temple (repeated yearly) and rituals such as the “washing of the mouth” and the “opening of the mouth,” which brought the deity to reside in some sense in the idol. Thereupon the people were able to take care of the god’s needs through the idol; it could be housed, dressed, fed the best foods, and pampered in every way, because when the god’s needs were met, he was happy and would bring blessing, protection, and prosperity to the people. Idols were only useful if the god had needs. As people met the needs of the god, they considered the god to incur obligations to them.

Even though we do not use idols in our worship, we can easily lead ourselves to think that God is obligated to us. Anytime God is viewed as under obligation, his autonomy is limited. If we think that God owes us something because of the money we give, the service we render, the praise we sing, the pew we warm, the prayers we say, or the pseudo-promises we claim, we are guilty of diluting God. In some Middle Eastern countries, native people will aggressively seek out ways to ingratiate themselves to tourists, expecting compensation in return. This is called “bakhsheesh,” and it can become annoying as people constantly seek to make you obliged to them. God must feel something like that toward our petty attempts to put him in our debt.

We must recognize that anything we do for God cannot be viewed as putting him in our debt but is rather only a small payback for the incalculable debt we owe him. God freely and genuinely tells each of us, “I love you”—but if we expect him to say “I need you” or, worse yet, “I cannot do it without you,” be prepared for a letdown. C. S. Lewis has observed that God’s love is born neither of his need nor of our deserving. God has no need of anything that is created, whether it be the greatest angel or the smallest grain of dust. A populated world or an empty one add the same to him: nothing.

Lewis’s phrase is that we are all “infinitely superfluous.”24 We love God because we need him. We cannot make the mistake of thinking God loves us for the same reason.

Regulating his power. God’s power is an awesome thing. We dilute God when we try to tap into that power in order to redirect it for our own purpose or benefit. We are called to be the channel of that power. This becomes a problem when, instead of letting his power work through us or in us to carry out his plans, we want him to do our bidding. This was the error of Simon Magus of Samaria, who wanted the power of the Holy Spirit to enrich his reputation and fill his pockets (Acts 8:9–23). We are delighted for God’s power to work wonders in our lives but reluctant to allow his power to cleanse and purify us.

• Improve my health, Lord, but don’t try to make demands on my attitude.

• Help me to get this promotion and raise, but don’t try to change my habits.

• Work your changes for me, God, not in me.

On judgment day, many will tell me, “Lord, Lord, we prophesied in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and performed many miracles in your name.” But I will reply, “I never knew you. Go away, the things you did were unauthorized” (Matt. 7:22–23, NLT)

God’s solution. The remedy for a diluted view of God is to get a renewed vision of his sovereignty, transcendence, and power. I think of the grumbling, discontented Israelites who were brought to the foot of Mount Sinai and given a renewed vision of God. But it was not the thunder and lightning that brought about the long-term solution, as impressive as they were. It was God’s self-revelation in his law that laid the foundation for having a proper view of God. In fact, the first three commandments coincide with the three categories we have addressed above:

• “You shall have no other gods before me” warns against redistributing God’s power by disallowing any competition.

• “You shall not make for yourself an idol” warns against restricting his autonomy by disallowing the means by which his needs are met.

• “You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God” warns against regulating his power by disallowing the use of the divine name to gain unauthorized access to his power.

If we desire to prevent ourselves from settling for the paganism of a watered-down version of God, we must reconnect with God’s revelation of himself in the Bible. When we read the Bible daily, it is not so we can get a mystical thought for the day. Too many of us treat the Bible as if it were a newspaper horoscope, giving clues about what we should or should not do that day. We need to reclaim the Bible as God’s self-revelation. We should be reading it to find out what God is like.

Our spiritual growth is dependent on, among other things, developing an increasingly informed understanding of who God is and bringing more and more of our lives into orbit around him. These two must work together. Someone can have a sophisticated understanding of God but refuse to orient her life toward God. God’s claims are ignored and prevented from impacting attitudes, choices, and lifestyle. Another person may have a strong commitment to put God and his claims in the center of his life and worldview but suffer from a deficient or distorted view of God. His misinformation can leave him sincere but sincerely wrong, dedicated but misguided.

Reading God’s Word is essential to becoming informed. Purposeful engagement with God is essential to maintaining God-centered orbits in our worldview. When we read the Bible each day, the main question we should be asking is, “What does this help me to understand about God?” instead of “What does this tell me to do today?” or “What decision should I make about X?” The paganism in each of us drives us to be self-absorbed. God’s revelation draws us to himself. We only need to yield.