Saturday, May 11, 2019

John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton on Exodus 20:3 and the Ontological Existence of (true) Gods



Thou shalt have no other gods before me (עַל־פָּנָיַ). (Exo 20:3)

Commenting on this commandment in the Decalogue, John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton wrote the following about the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) background thereof, as well as how it does not mean there are no other gods who exist:

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)

For previous posts addressing this verse, see:





Blog Archive