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 not 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:
