HUMANS HAVE THE
TENDENCY TO MAKE NEW GODS
An Essay on False Gods, Private
Interpretation, Religious Schism, Political Power, and the Persecution of Truth
Humans
have a persistent tendency to make gods that are not God, to establish forms of
worship that God has not commanded, and to defend religious ideas that
originate not from the truth of God but from their own knowledge, imagination,
ambition, fear, and desire for power.
The
Holy Scriptures reveal that this tendency is not merely an ancient problem
involving carved images, golden calves, or pagan altars. It is also a problem
of the human heart, which can construct an image of God according to its own
understanding and then demand that other people recognize, follow, and worship
that image. Deuteronomy 32:16–17 declares, “They provoked him to jealousy with
strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. They sacrificed
unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came
newly up, whom your fathers feared not.” These words expose a recurring
spiritual danger: people may introduce new objects of devotion, new religious
authorities, and new doctrines that depart from the God who revealed Himself.
The
issue is not simply whether people use the name of God, Jesus Christ, or the
Bible. The deeper question is whether what they believe, teach, and practice
agrees with the truth and will of the God they profess to worship.
The
Bible provides a particularly serious declaration of God's rejection of religious
practices that human beings attribute to Him without His command. Jeremiah 19:5
records God's words concerning the high places of Baal: “which I commanded not,
nor spake it, neither came it into my mind.” Jeremiah 7:31 similarly states
that the people built the high places of Tophet and burned their sons and
daughters in the fire, “which I commanded them not, neither came it into my
heart.” Jeremiah 32:35 repeats the condemnation of the abomination committed in
the name of Molech. These passages demonstrate that a religious act does not
become acceptable to God merely because its practitioners regard it as sacred
or associate it with divine worship.
A
person may sincerely perform a religious practice and yet be doing something
God never commanded. Therefore, sincerity alone cannot establish truth, and
religious tradition alone cannot prove divine approval. The name of God must
not be used to authorize what God has rejected.
This
principle reaches beyond physical idols. A man may cease to worship a statue
yet continue to construct an image of God within his own imagination. He may
fashion a Jesus who approves his ambitions, a gospel that protects his
position, a doctrine that justifies his conduct, or a religious institution
that serves his interests. In this sense, the making of gods is not limited to
producing an object out of gold, silver, wood, or stone. It can also occur when
people reshape the identity, character, commandments, and will of God to suit
their personal preferences.
The
idol becomes an idea, a doctrine, a religious system, or an authority that
people defend as though it were the unquestionable voice of God. Such a danger
becomes especially serious when human interpretations are elevated above the
Scriptures and when people are taught to obey religious leaders without
examining whether their teachings agree with the Word of God.
The
account of King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel chapters 2 and 3 illustrates how
spiritual truth can become entangled with political power. After Daniel
revealed the king's dream, Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged the greatness of
Daniel's God. Daniel 2:47 records the king's declaration: “Of a truth it is,
that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of
secrets.” In Daniel 2:48–49, the king rewarded Daniel with authority and
elevated his companions Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to positions of
responsibility. Yet the king's acknowledgment of Daniel's God did not prevent
him from establishing his own golden image. Daniel 3:1 declares,
“Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold,” and verses 4–6 describe the
command that all peoples, nations, and languages must fall down and worship it
under the threat of death in a burning fiery furnace.
Here
the king's personal authority became the foundation of a compulsory system of
worship.
The image was made by the king, established by the king, and enforced by the
king. His command did not make the image the true God; neither did his
political power make the worship of that image righteous.
The
account of Nebuchadnezzar further reveals that religious persecution can arise
when a ruler's demand for conformity is challenged by people whose allegiance
belongs to a higher authority. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to
worship the image despite the threat of execution. Their declaration in Daniel
3:17–18 is decisive: “If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us
from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O
king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy
gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” Their obedience to
God was not dependent upon the outcome of their trial. They refused to
exchange their allegiance to God for physical safety, political favor, or the
approval of the multitude. Their example demonstrates that a government,
religious institution, or powerful individual may demand worship, conformity,
or unquestioning loyalty, but such demands do not become righteous merely
because they are backed by authority. The question is whether the demand
agrees with the will of God.
King
Jeroboam provides another example of the creation of a religious system
motivated by insecurity and the fear of losing power. First Kings 12:26–27
records his concern that the people might return to the house of David if they
continued going to Jerusalem to worship the LORD. Instead of trusting God and
governing according to righteousness, Jeroboam considered how he could prevent
the people from transferring their allegiance to another king. First Kings
12:28–29 states, “Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold,
and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy
gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” He established
one calf at Bethel and the other at Dan. First Kings 12:30 then declares, “And
this thing became a sin.” Jeroboam also established houses of high places and
appointed priests who were not of the sons of Levi, as recorded in verse 31.
Thus, his political insecurity produced a religious arrangement designed to
preserve his kingdom. Rather than allowing the people to follow the worship
prescribed by God, he offered them a more convenient system that served his own
interests. This account warns us that religious innovations can be driven by
the desire to retain authority, control people, secure loyalty, and prevent the
loss of influence.
The
sin of Jeroboam is especially instructive because he did not merely build an
idol; he reorganized the people's religious life around his political
objective. He altered the place of worship, introduced golden calves, and
appointed priests according to his own arrangement. He made religious service
convenient for the people while directing it away from the order God had
established. In this way, convenience and institutional stability became substitutes
for obedience. A system may attract multitudes, establish ceremonies,
appoint leaders, and maintain an appearance of holiness, yet these outward
accomplishments do not prove that it has the approval of God. When
religious arrangements are created principally to protect the position of their
founders, the service of God becomes subordinate to the preservation of human
power. The people may believe they are worshipping the God who delivered Israel
from Egypt, but their worship has been redirected through objects and
arrangements that God did not authorize.
The
root of this problem is also addressed by Jesus Christ Himself. Matthew 22:29
records His answer: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of
God.” Mark 12:24 repeats the same rebuke. This declaration identifies two
serious deficiencies: ignorance of the Scriptures and ignorance of the power of
God. A person may possess religious vocabulary, quote selected passages,
participate in worship, and claim to represent Christ while failing to
understand the Word and the divine power to which that Word bears witness. Knowledge
of religious language is not necessarily knowledge of God. Neither is human
intelligence, academic achievement, institutional rank, or public influence a
substitute for spiritual understanding. When people do not know the
Scriptures rightly, they may use isolated verses to support ideas that
contradict the broader testimony of God's Word. When they do not know the power
of God, they may replace divine authority with human reasoning, emotional
excitement, ceremonial performance, or displays of religious influence.
This
is why the making of false gods can occur even among people who claim to be
Christians. The danger is not confined to those who openly worship pagan deities.
It can also appear when people use the name of Jesus Christ to promote
teachings and practices that are inconsistent with His commandments. Second
Corinthians 11:4 warns of those who preach “another Jesus,” offer “another
spirit,” or proclaim “another gospel.” Paul's warning is significant because
the false teaching may retain familiar religious names while changing the
substance of the message. A person can speak of Jesus while presenting a
distorted image of His character and will. A preacher can speak of the
gospel while directing people toward personal glory, material gain, domination,
or allegiance to a human personality. The name may remain unchanged, but the
message and spirit being promoted may differ from what the apostles preached.
Consequently, the mere repetition of the name of Jesus cannot establish that
a teaching is true.
The
warning in Matthew 7:20–23 reinforces this point. Jesus says in verse 20,
“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” In verses 21–23, He declares
that not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, and that
some will appeal to their prophesying, casting out devils, and wonderful works
performed in His name. Yet His answer to them will be, “I never knew you:
depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” This passage challenges the assumption
that religious activity, spiritual claims, miracles, or public recognition
automatically prove divine approval.
The
Lord directs attention to doing the will of His Father and warns that religious
accomplishments can coexist with iniquity. A ministry may have a large
following, an impressive reputation, and many public demonstrations of power,
yet those things alone cannot establish its standing before God. The ultimate
standard is not the reputation a person has constructed but the truth,
obedience, and righteousness that God requires.
Private
interpretation presents another danger when human beings make their own
understanding the final authority over the Word of God. Second Peter 1:20
states, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
private interpretation.” This verse must be understood within its immediate
context, including verse 21, which explains that prophecy did not come by the
will of man but that holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost. The passage warns against treating prophecy as the product of an
isolated human will. It does not mean that every difference of
interpretation automatically constitutes rebellion, nor does it prohibit
careful study of Scripture. Rather, it calls for humility before the divine
origin and authority of the Word. The danger emerges when an individual
elevates personal opinion into an unquestionable divine decree, refuses
correction, and demands that others submit to an interpretation merely because
it has been declared by a religious leader or institution.
When
private opinions are institutionalized and defended as absolute truth without
sufficient submission to Scripture, divisions may multiply. One group
establishes its own doctrinal boundaries; another rejects those boundaries and
establishes different ones. Each may claim exclusive possession of
righteousness, holiness, spiritual authority, or divine approval. Over time,
disagreements can develop into denominational schisms, personal hostility,
accusations, and contests for followers.
The
problem is not that every distinction between Christian traditions is
necessarily false, nor that all denominations are equally mistaken. The
problem arises when human loyalties, pride, and institutional interests become
more important than the pursuit of truth, humility, correction, and the will of
God. People who profess to belong to one Lord can become divided by
competing constructions of His identity and commandments. When the desire to
defend one's own religious system becomes stronger than the desire to be
corrected by the truth, religion itself can become an instrument of strife.
This
tendency is not limited to religious leaders. Political interests can also
exploit religious differences, using faith to mobilize followers, consolidate
authority, stigmatize opponents, or justify coercion. The history of
Nebuchadnezzar's image demonstrates the danger of compelling people to
participate in a ruler's preferred form of worship. Jeroboam's calves demonstrate
how insecurity can motivate the construction of an alternative religious
system. Together, these accounts show how worship can be manipulated when
political power seeks to control the conscience of the people. Religious
persecution occurs when people are threatened, punished, excluded, or deprived
of their freedom because they refuse to accept the beliefs or practices imposed
upon them. Such persecution may be committed by political rulers, religious
authorities, or groups that consider their own position so unquestionable that
dissent must be suppressed. The biblical lesson is that authority does not make
falsehood true, and coercion does not transform an unauthorized act of worship
into obedience to God.
The
tendency to make false gods also helps us examine the hostility that can arise
between religious believers and atheists. Atheism, understood simply as the
absence of belief in God, is not itself proof of hatred or persecution;
atheists hold different views and behave in different ways. Nevertheless, some
atheists may display hostility toward religious believers, ridicule their
convictions, or attempt to suppress religious expression. From a biblical
perspective, such conduct can be examined as another manifestation of the human
tendency to elevate one's own judgment above the claims of others. A person who
rejects the existence of God does not thereby become a worshipper of a literal
idol, and disbelief alone does not establish that someone is persecuting God.
However,
when anyone—religious or nonreligious—treats personal conviction as an
unquestionable authority, denies others the same freedom of conscience, or
seeks to silence them through intimidation, the underlying problem becomes the
elevation of human will over the rights and dignity of others. The same standard
must be applied consistently: religious people must not persecute atheists, and
atheists must not persecute religious people. Belief cannot be made genuine by
force, and truth cannot be established by intimidation.
The
biblical challenge, therefore, is not to replace one form of coercion with
another, but to distinguish the worship God has commanded from the systems
human beings construct for themselves. The people of God are called to
testify to the truth, not to manufacture obedience through threats. Jesus
Christ taught His disciples to bear witness to Him, and the apostles proclaimed
the gospel through preaching, teaching, and the testimony of their lives. The
refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to worship Nebuchadnezzar's image demonstrates
the importance of conscience before God. Their example does not authorize
believers to force their convictions upon everyone else; it demonstrates that
they themselves would not surrender their obedience to God under threat of
death. Their faithfulness exposed the limits of political power and revealed
that the king's command could not determine the truth.
Ultimately,
the human tendency to make new gods is a warning against allowing personal
imagination, ambition, insecurity, and pride to redefine the divine. Deuteronomy 32:17
speaks of “new gods that came newly up.” Jeremiah 19:5 condemns practices God
declared He had neither commanded nor spoken. Daniel 3 reveals a golden image
imposed through political authority. First Kings 12 exposes a religious system
established to preserve a king's power. Matthew 22:29 warns against error
arising from ignorance of the Scriptures and the power of God. Second
Corinthians 11:4 warns against another Jesus, another spirit, and another
gospel. Matthew 7:21–23 reminds us that calling Jesus Lord and performing
religious works do not, by themselves, prove obedience to His will. These
passages converge upon one essential warning: human beings must not confuse
what they have created with what God has revealed.
The
true measure of worship is not the number of followers, the magnificence of a
building, the influence of a leader, the antiquity of a tradition, the novelty
of a doctrine, or the force with which a belief is defended. The decisive
question is whether the worshipper is seeking to know and obey the true God
rather than fashioning a god in his own image.
When
people cease to submit their thoughts, motives, doctrines, and actions to the
truth, they risk turning religion into an instrument of self-exaltation. When
they allow political ambition to govern worship, they risk making an idol of
authority. When they insist that their own interpretation cannot be corrected,
they risk making an idol of their understanding. And when they persecute others
merely because those others do not share their convictions, they reveal how
readily human power can displace humility, justice, and love.
Therefore,
let every person examine not only the idols made by ancient kings but also the
idols that may be established within the heart, the pulpit, the institution,
the political order, and the human imagination. Let religious leaders beware of
using the name of God to protect their own interests. Let believers examine
their doctrines in the light of Scripture and remain willing to receive correction.
Let political authorities protect freedom of conscience rather than compel
worship. Let atheists and religious believers alike reject intimidation and
persecution. Above all, let no human being presume that whatever he invents,
approves, or commands must therefore be the will of God.
The
God of Scripture is not made true by human recognition, nor is His will
determined by human ambition. The responsibility of humanity is not to create a
god that agrees with its desires, but to seek the truth, distinguish what God
has commanded from what He has not commanded, and walk in righteousness without
making the worship of God an instrument of pride, domination, or persecution.
In summary, humanity has a persistent tendency to
create gods, doctrines, and religious systems according to its own imagination,
ignorance, ambition, and desire for power rather than according to the revealed
will of the true God. From the golden calves of Jeroboam to Nebuchadnezzar’s
golden image, the Scriptures demonstrate how false worship can arise from
private interpretation, political insecurity, and the distortion of divine
truth. This same tendency contributes to religious schism, false claims of
spiritual authority, and persecution between people who profess different
beliefs, including hostility toward believers by some who reject God.
