What does “Nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them” mean?

Genesis 11:6 (ESV)

6 And the LORD said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.

In short

Nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them means

humanity’s assertion of independence away from God will continually grow unless God intervenes.

When the people in the land of Shinar build a tower toward heaven, God sees that nothing they propose to do will now be impossible for them, unless God alters their circumstances. God does this by confusing their language. What does it mean that nothing they propose would be impossible for them?

To help us understand the meaning of the clause we can look to Job 42:2 where Job states something similar. After God articulates his supremacy, Job responds with a similar clause stating, I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. Job’s point is that the purpose of God’s will cannot be thwarted. If we apply this meaning to Genesis 11:6, the clause means that nothing will prevent humans from asserting their will. Of course, since God is perfect, if humans assert their will such that it aligns with God’s will, their plans will flourish. We see that this is not the case in the context of Gen 11:6; rather, God has commanded the people to be fruitful and multiply and instead they assert their independence from God by gathering in one place to build a tower.

We get further clarity on what it means that nothing they propose would be impossible by noticing parallels between Genesis 11:6 and Genesis 3. In chapter 3, Adam and Eve assert their independence by disobeying God and eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The assertion is one of destruction, because God is both offended and because they have stepped outside of his will. In order to prevent them from carrying on in their diminished state, God prevents them from eating from the tree of life (Gen. 3:22). Similarly, in Genesis 11:6 the humans have asserted their independence to their own destruction. God sees that they will continue to assert their will, in the sense that nothing will prevent them from continually removing themselves from the care of God’s will unless God intervenes. And God does so by confusing their language.

Nothing they propose to do will now be impossible for them means that unless God graciously intervenes, they could assert the independence of their will without limit.

Interpretation 1:
Humanity’s assertion of independence (self-sufficiency) away from God will continually grow, unless God intervenes.

Summary:

God created humans to flourish according to his perfect will. The people who built the Tower of Babel asserted their independence over against God’s will by disobeying God’s desire for them to spread and multiply. Since the people did not live according to God’s will, they offended God and prevented their own flourishing. God saw that unless he intervened in the process, the people would endanger their existence by disconnecting themselves from God.

God endowed humans with special capacities to plan and deliberate. Since God is the source of life and all that is good, when humans plan and deliberate according to God’s will, they live according to God’s design and flourish. Of course, God also gave humans freedom, and when humans use their freedom to assert their independence and disobey God’s will, destruction follows. In our era, God has given his Holy Spirit to help us deny ourselves and obey God’s will.

Advocates:

Walter Brueggemann
Victor Hamilton
Kenneth Mathews
Gordon Wenham
Claus Westermann

Minor differences:

Our authors agree that the clause nothing they propose will be impossible has to do with human independence. Claus Westermann explains that humans are created beings which means that there is a necessary connection between being human and being dependent on God. In other words, it is part of the nature of a created being to be dependent. Thus, by asserting human independence, humans are engaged in a destructive act because it is impossible to deny one’s nature, and the assertion of independence is an act against one’s own nature.¹

Walter Brueggemann agrees that the text is about human independence, but he frames the situation slightly differently. He explains that God is a trinity which means that he is united and diverse. Thus, it is no problem for humans to be diverse, but they must remain united under God’s will. When humans assert independence, they undermine the will that unites them.²

Kenneth Mathews is focused less on precisely what it means that nothing humans try to achieve will be impossible, and more on God’s grace. He points out parallels between Genesis 11:6 and the fall into sin in Genesis 3:1–7. After Adam and Eve eat from the tree of the knowledge, in his mercy, God prevents them from eating of the tree of life.³ Similarly, according to Mathews, God was troubled over the injurious consequences that would fall upon the human family if left unchecked.⁴ God has mercy on the people at Babel in order to prevent them from asserting their independence, which would result in destruction.

Arguments

Explanation:

When the people at Babel decide to build a tower into the heavens, God intervenes by disrupting their common language. God does this because he sees that nothing they propose will be impossible for them (Genesis 11:6). We know that humans are limited in their powers, so it is difficult to see what it means that nothing they propose would be impossible. Does it mean that it would be possible for humans to achieve stunning technical feats, like building a bridge from the earth to the moon? Or does the author have something else in mind?

To understand the meaning of the clause we can look elsewhere in the Old Testament to see if a similar clause is used. If a similar clause is used in another place, we might get further information from that context about what the clause might mean in Genesis 11:6. There is one other passage, Job 42:2, that uses the same verb, בָּצַר (to gather/fortify). This verb in both Genesis 11:6 and Job 42:2 can be translated impossible.^5,6,7,8 Taken as a whole, Job 42:2 states, I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. In context, Job is responding to God, and admitting that nothing can thwart the workings of God.⁹

Job 42:2 helps us understand that the clause nothing they propose would be impossible for them has to do with humans establishing their own workings. The idea is that unless God intervenes, humans will have free range to do what they want aside from God’s commands. Of course, this is a significant problem because, although humans have freedom, their freedom is only valuable when it aligns with the will of God.

Counterargument:

While it is good practice to clarify the meaning of an ambiguous clause by looking for its use elsewhere, the example from Job 42:2 does not support the above interpretation. The argument here is that the clause nothing they propose will be impossible means that the collective human will, will go on unchecked. The problem is that in the context of Job 42:2, the clause is not used to show the scope of God’s will, but the scope of his power and providence. God has explained to Job that he is responsible for creation (Job 40:15) and that by his power he upholds and directs all things (Job 41:11). His purpose is to show not only that his will is supreme but also his power and sovereignty. Of course, this means that when Job in Job 42:2 states that nothing is impossible for God, he has in mind not only God’s will but also his power and sovereignty.

Response to counterargument:

By using Job 42:2 to inform the meaning of Genesis 11:6, we are not committed to the notion that the clauses correspond exactly. The fact is that the clauses are used by two different authors in two different contexts so there is no surprise if it is applied differently. Still, we can use the clause in Job 42:2 to inform Genesis 11:6 in the following way. First, we know that humans do not have power the way God has power. Humans cannot create from nothing, nor can they circumvent the laws of physics, nor do humans have sovereignty over creation. These features are reserved for the creator. At the same time, God has created humans with a will, which means that unless they are prevented, they can assert their will without limit. This implies not that humans can do anything they will but that they can will freely.

Now when the clause nothing will be impossible for God is used in Job 42:2, Job means to include the fact that God is all-powerful and his will is unlimited. Since humans do not have unlimited power, but their will is unlimited in the sense that it is free to make its own choices, we should think that when the clause nothing they propose will be impossible for them is applied to humans, it has to do with the assertion of the will.

Explanation:

In Genesis 3 we learn that Adam and Eve assert their independence by disobeying God and eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6). After this, God expels Adam and Eve from the garden in order to prevent them from eating from the tree of life (Genesis 3:22). The expulsion is an act of God’s mercy so that Adam and Eve would not continue in their diminished state.¹⁰

The story of Babel mimics Genesis 3:1–24 in various ways. For one, God had told Adam and Eve’s children to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 9:1). While some nations obeyed (Genesis 10:1–32), some resisted God’s command. Instead of dispersing they joined together and asserted their independence by building a tower into heaven. As in the case of Genesis 3:1–24, God sees that the collective will of the people will end in destruction unless he intervenes.¹¹ The author uses the clause, nothing they propose will be impossible, to express humanity’s assertion of independence. God knows that human independence will only lead to destruction, so he intervenes by confusing their language and halting their plan.¹²

Counterargument:

This interpretation hinges on a particular interpretation of Genesis 3:1–7. For one, it relies on the idea that when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the act was an assertion of the will. Second, even if it is the case that eating from the tree was an assertion of the will, for the parallel to succeed, we must also commit to the interpretation that God prevented them from eating from the tree of life as an act of grace. Given that there are other plausible ways to interpret Genesis 3:1–7, we should be cautious about interpreting Genesis 11:6 in light of Genesis 3.

Response to counterargument:

It is very difficult to overlook the parallels between Genesis 11:6 and the fall in Genesis 3:1–7. In both cases people reach beyond their human capacities and in both cases, God prevents further destruction.^13,14 We not only notice that both the themes and the grammatical structure are comparable.¹⁵ In Genesis 3:22 we find the clauses, Behold the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.… Lest he reach out his hand… Compare this with Genesis 11:6 which states, Behold, they are one people…. Nothing they propose to do will now be impossible…. Let us go down and confuse their language. In both cases, God sees that humans destroy themselves when they assert independence, and so he takes preventative action.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness here is the assumption that humans have limitless wills. All we know about the faculties of humans is that they are created in the image of God. Of course, we can also infer from Adam and Eve’s ability to obey or disobey God that there is some freedom of the will, even if it is never mentioned specifically.

Interpretation 1:Humanity’s assertion of independence (self-sufficiency) away from God will continually grow, unless God intervenes.

Interpretation 1:
Humanity’s assertion of independence (self-sufficiency) away from God will continually grow, unless God intervenes.