Exo 20:3
reads:
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Some
critics have latched onto this verse as evidence against Latter-day Saint
theology, as they argue, it is strictly monotheistic. However, this is a gross
misreading of the passage.
The Hebrew
translated as "before me" is the Hebrew phrase, על פני , which literally means “before my face.” In the Ancient Near
East, the images of the gods of conquered people were placed into debir (back/western
part) of the sanctuary/temple of the conquering people and faced the image of
the chief God of the pantheon of the victors. What this verse is condemning is
the forging, and placement of cultic images in the debir as well as
forging a cultic image of Yahweh. That this is the case is seen from the
proceeding verses:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any
likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to
them, or serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation
of them that hate me. (Exo 20:4-5)
Furthermore,
the majority of Old Testament scholars see in Exo 20:3 an implicit recognition
of the real/ontological existence of other gods. According to Michael Coogan,
this commandment does not express monotheism, but rather presumes the existence
of other deities--as in a marriage, one of the primary analogies for the
covenant, Israel is to be a faithful wife to her husband (Yahweh), or, as in a
treaty, a vassal to his suzerain. When the prophets condemn the Israelites for
having worshipped other gods in violation of this, and related commandments
(e.g., the Shema [Deut 6:4]), the metaphors of marital and political fidelity
are often invoked, sometimes rather graphically (e.g., Ezek 16:23-24; 23:2-12;
Jer 2:23-25; 3:1-10), as well as the depiction of Yahweh as a jealous husband
(e.g., Exo 34:14), and the worship of other gods, or making alliances with
foreign powers, provokes his rage.[1]
There is
nothing in this verse that opposes Latter-day Saint theology when (1) one reads
the underlining Hebrew; (2) examined in its historical and cultural context and
(3) when read in the context of the proceeding commandments.
Note for
the above:
[1] Michael
Coogan, The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the
Hebrew Scriptures (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 176, 116.
Appendix: Further Scholarly Commentary
Jan Assmann
Tellingly, God does not say that there is no other gods besides him. On the contrary, such gods exist, but Israel is forbidden from having anything to do with them. In the words of Benno Jacob, “the gods are not denounced as ‘idols,’ nor are other nations dissuaded from following them. All that matters here is the relationship between YHWH and Israel, and YHWH takes Israel into his heart: “you are mine! No-one else’s! I betroth myself to you forever! It is the image of a marriage that lies behind this expression [i.e., “no other gods,” J.A.]. Whatever the circumstances may be, the wife belongs to one man alone. For her, everyone else is an ‘îš ‘aḥēr. This is not to say that there are no other men out there, only that they do not exist for her” (Jacob, Das Buch Exodus, 555).
In the first commandments we have before us the central tenet of biblical monotheism. It is not a statement of the “monotheism of truth,” which denies the existence of other gods. Instead, it explicitly attests to the “monotheism of loyalty.” When referring to this form of an exclusive commitment to God, some scholars therefore prefer to speak of “monolatry” rather than “monotheism.” By this they mean the exclusive (or “monogamous,” to stick with Jacob’s metaphor) worship of a single god that simultaneously acknowledges the existence of other gods. The problem with this terminology, however, is that it obscures the fact that we are dealing here with a completely unique conception in the history of religion. Monolatry may crop up here and there, and Israel’s exclusive worship of YHWH may indeed have arisen from original monolatry. But there is an absolutely crucial additional factor in play here: the covenant theological foundation. What is called for here is loyalty. The “other gods” do not simply go unheeded when the Israelites turn in reverence to face their one and only lord; rather, they are expressly prohibited ad their worship is anathematized as a breach of the covenant. A covenant is made here between one god among many and one nation among many, and this covenant is based on an act of salvation that connects the people freed from Egypt, and this people alone, with the god who freed them, and this god alone. (Jan Assmann, The Invention of Religion: Faith and covenant in the Book of Exodus [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018], 216-17)
John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton
The availability of the ANE literature brought an increased recognition that the commandment dictated only monolatry or henotheism rather than what we now call monotheism—relating as it did to the question of whom the people worshipped rather than to whether other gods existed. Earlier interpreters had made this same point, but the ANE material tended to push interpretation more firmly in this direction. This interpretation continued to frame the issue as prioritization even through it is more restricted to the issue of worship practices.
The focus on priorities found support as far back as the Septuagint, which translated the Hebrew עַל־פָּנָיַ (‘al pənȇ, “before me”) by the Greek preposition plēn (“except”). But if Hebrew means to say “except,” there are several ways to do it (e.g., ‘ak or raq). Likewise, if Hebrew means to express priority, it would have used wording such as that found in Deuteronomy 4:35 or Isaiah 45:21. Twentieth-century theologians recognized the problem. Gerhard von Rad, for example, suggested that the Hebrew ought to be translated “in defence of me” since that at least had the support of synchronic usage.
A more defensible interpretation was suggested by Werner Schmidt in light of even deeper probing of the practices and beliefs that were current in the ANE. He proposes that when the first commandment prohibits other gods in the presence of Yahweh, it is ruling out the concept that he operates within a pantheon or a divine assembly or with a consort. J. Bottéro describes this system as similar to a king at the head of the state with his family and functionaries around him operating in a structured hierarchy.
This background suggests the interpretation that the Israelites were not to imagine any other gods in the presence of Yahweh: “You shall have no other gods in my presence.” This is supported by the fact that when the preposition combination that occurs in the Hebrew text takes a personal object, the meaning עַל־פָּנָיַ (‘al pənȇ) is consistently spatial: with personal subject of preposition. The following examples express location:
· Genesis 11:28: Haran died ‘al pənȇ his father Terah
· Genesis 23:3: Abraham arose from ‘al pənȇ his dead wife and spoke
· Genesis 32:33 (Eng. 32:21): And the present passed ‘al pənȇ him
· Genesis 50:1: And Joseph fell ‘al pənȇ his father and he wept for him
· Exodus 33:19 (34:6): I will cause all my goodness to pass ‘al pənȇ you
· Leviticus 10:3: I will be honored ‘al pənȇ all the people
· Numbers 3:4: [Nadab and Abihu] made an offering of unauthorized fire ‘al pənȇ him
· 1 Kings 9:7: I will case [Israel] from ‘al pənȇ the land
· 2 Kings 13:14: Jehoash went down and wept ‘al pənȇ him
· Job 4:15: A spirit passed ‘al pənȇ me
· Job 21:31: who denounces his conduct ‘al pənȇ him
· Psalm 9:20: let the nations be judged ‘al pənȇ you
· Ezekiel 32:10: when I brandish my sword ‘al pənȇ them
With an understanding of the practices of the ANE, this spatial sense gains much greater credibility. The gods in the ANE operated in a pantheon, and decisions were made in the divine assembly. In addition, the principal deities typically had consorts. The lifestyle and operations system for deity, then, constituted a community experience. The destinies of the gods were decreed in assembly as were the destinies of kings, cities, temples, and people. The business of the gods was carried out in the presence of other gods. This system is well summarized as a hierarchy of authoritative deities and active deities.
On the other hand, Yahweh is occasionally depicted as having a divine council (most notably in 1 Kings 22:19-22 and Job 1-2), and the text makes no attempt to disabuse its readers of that conception.
Consequently, the “presence” of Yahweh where the other gods are not to be, most likely refers to his terrestrial presence (in the temple and ruling over his territory), not his royal audience chamber in the divine realm. In Ezekiel 8, Yahweh objects to the practice of placing images and altars of other deities in his temple, a practice of the Baal cult in which King Manasseh also participates in 2 Kings 21:1-7. Furthermore, in accordance with suzerain treaties, no other god (read: ruler) was to be recognized in Yahweh’s territory. The significance of this is that the pantheon/divine assembly concept carried with it the idea of distribution of power among many divine beings. The first commandment becomes a simple statement that Yahweh’s power—at least within the boundaries of Israel—is absolute. He is not one of many who share in the distribution of divine authority. It is understandable that Israel would struggle with this concept. First of all, it removes Yahweh from the community of the gods. In the ancient world people found their identity in their place in their community. They assumed the gods did the same. To separate Yahweh from such a community identity would have been a confusing concept. Autonomy and independence were not valued in ancient society, and to ascribe these qualities t their God would have seem impious.
Furthermore, Israelites would wonder whether just one God having jurisdiction and authority in every area made any sense. Even kings, who ruled from a seat of solitary authority, distributed that authority down through the bureaucracy. Consider life on a college campus. Would it make any sense for the president to be personally involved in every decision? Instead of going to the resident assistant in the dormitory to resolve roommate problems, or to the registrar for class problems, or to the teacher for homework problems, imagine that you were supposed to take all your problems directly to the president. We would wonder why he would care about out little issues or whether she would have time or resources to manage everything herself. We would assume that operating without a bureaucratic management structure would result in chaos. Yet this is effectively what Israel was being told to do.
Israel was to be distinct from the nations around them. That is the very point of the prohibition. Although it does not say explicitly that no other gods exist, it does remove them from the presence of Yahweh. If Yahweh does not share power, authority, or jurisdiction with them, they are nog gods in any meaningful sense of the word. (John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton, The Lost World of the Torah: Law as Covenant and Wisdom in Ancient Context [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2019], 234-38, emphasis added)
Andreas Wagner
In the Decalogue, for example, it says: Exod. 20.3/Deut. 5.7 You shall have no other gods before me. This phrase intends that God alone should be revered. It does not deny the existence of other gods and is thus not monotheistic. (Andreas Wagner, God's Body: The Anthropomorphic God in the Old Testament [trans. Marion Salzmann; London: T&T Clark, 2019], 143)
J.R. Dummelow
Before me] RM ‘beside me.’ Monotheism is implied rather than expressly enunciated here. It was only gradually that Israel rose to the truth that there is but one God. Israel was led to this truth along the way of practice. (J.R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible [London: Macmillan and Co., 1909], 67)