You Shall not have other Gods

An Exegetical study of Exodus 20:1-7

Karina Loayza Silva

BOX 323-B
June 10, 2016

OT 627 Exegesis in Exodus

Professor Donna Petter
Summer 2016

Loayza 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BIG PICTURE OF THE BOOK ............................................................................................. 2

1.1. Authorship and Date ....................................................................................................... 3
1.2. Literary style................................................................................................................... 5
THE DECALOGUE WITHIN THE BOOK ........................................................................... 6
ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXT ................................................................................................. 8
ANNOTATED TRANSLATION............................................................................................ 9
GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 11
KEY WORDS........................................................................................................................ 16
EXPLAINING THE PASSAGE ........................................................................................... 21
WITHIN THE OLD TESTAMENT ...................................................................................... 25
CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................ 27
WITHIN THE NEW TESTAMENT ................................................................................. 29
BIBLICAL THEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................. 30
APPLICATION AND CONTEXTUALIZATION............................................................ 31
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. 33

Loayza 2

BIG PICTURE OF THE BOOK

The narrative in Genesis left us with the mental picture of the Israelites living peacefully
in Egypt in the land of Goshen which is located in the delta area of the Nile (Lower Egypt).
Joseph brought the sons of Israel in order to preserve their life during the worst famine the land
had seen. His last words are prophetic and are the gives continuity to the story which is going to
resume in the book of Exodus: God will surely take care of you, and you shall carry my bones
up from here." (Gen 50:25-26, cf. Ex. 13:19).
The narrative begins by switching dramatically the set of conditions for the Israelites:
Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph (Exo 1:8, NASB). So, the new
Pharaoh fearing the increase of the Israel nation, implemented a national natality-control policy:
throw the male Israelites babies to the Nile. Such is the sociopolitical background that saw the
birth of Moses; Gods appointed leader to free His people who also became the paradigmatic
prophet in Israels history.
In a similar vein to the book of Esther, the first two chapters of Exodus do not convey
any direct intervention of God in the succession of events. However, when God directly
intervenes in the story by speaking to Moses from the burning bush; it is clear for us that He had
been all the time behind scenes, preparing his servants heart for His appointed task: "come now,
and I will send you to Pharaoh, so that you may bring My people, the sons of Israel, out of
Egypt." (Exo 3:10, NASB). From now on in the narrative, all the lights are upon Gods mighty
hand, displaying His supreme sovereignty over all of creation not only before His people but also
before the Egyptian nation represented in its Pharaoh. The author does not mention Pharaohs
name because such detail is not important for the future Israelite nation to preserve in its
recorded history. The Exodus event was recorded in order to remind all future generations WHO

Loayza 3

IS their God and WHAT HE DID for them. From such reality, the Israelites gained their identity
as a nation. The Psalms confirm such idea in the numerous times they praise YHWH for his
wonders in the midst of Egypt, bringing them up from the house of bondage1.

1.1.

Authorship and Date

The Mosaic authorship of the book of Exodus, along to the whole Pentateuch, was

traditionally held by Jewish as well as Christian scholars prior to the Enlightenment in the
eighteen century. However, the new spirit of scholars distrusted all traditional authorities and
subjected them to the scrutiny of reason; so leading future generations to reject the long-standing
tradition of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. It is then that a new theory for the dating of the
Pentateuch was held which places its writing during the religious reforms of King Josiah ca. 621
B.C. Thus, the composition was not only very far from the Mosaic period but also was a merge
of at least four different sources2. The Documentary Hypothesis is going to serve us to pave the
way back to the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch while we set a solid body of evidence in
favor of our position -that of Moses indeed recorded the Exodus event- and also to set an
approximate date for the writing of the book.
First, regarding the early date of composition during the reign of Josiah, we find valuable
evidence against this position in the archeological finds in Bogazkoy (see section 9 for a further
explanation). The mass of archival evidence has made possible to establish a basic
correspondence between the legal portions included in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy
and the Hittite treaties; and to set an unambiguous chronological sequence for the dating of such

Psalm 68:31, 78:12, 78:43, 78:51, 80:8, 81:5, 81:10, 105:23, 105:38, 106:7, 106:21, 114:1, 135:8, 135:9.
Editors: T. Desmond Alexander and David Baker. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Illinois:
InterVarsity Press, 2003, 61-62.
2

Loayza 4

documents. Consequently, it is safe to accept that the Pentateuch belongs to the period between
1400-1200 B.C. since the later treaties have not consistent parallels3. Therefore, if we follow the
evidence of the discovered facts then we would need to ask how a group of people in condition
of slavery could come up with the redaction of a treaty-type document whose concept was
completely unfamiliar -or unknown- because its practice was reserved to high-level diplomatic
spheres and royal courts, unless they had had a leader well trained in such affairs4. The biblical
account about the upbringing of Moses fits perfectly such description5.
Second, but not less important, we have the internal evidence in the book of Exodus itself
crediting Moses with having written specific accounts by Gods specific indication6, and in the
New Testament accounting for, the factual existence of Moses not a Jewish legend- as the great
leader of the exodus; and his primary role as the divinely appointed mediator in the giving of the
law7. But the most important evidence is that we have the Lord Jesus supporting Moses as the
author of the Pentateuch, the Book of the Law, before the Pharisees in many instances. They
were not corrected for attributing Moses as its author but they were mistaken about the
interpretation of the law. In addition, we also find the apostles unanimously accepting the Mosaic
authorship in Acts 3:33 and Rom. 10:5.

Kitchen, K.A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Gran Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003.

284-290.
4

Ibid, 297-298.
Exodus 2:10 tells us that Moses was adopted by an Egyptian princess so it is reasonable to assume he
would become part of the ruling group, fluent in Egyptian (but also Semitic language through his Hebrew mother).
Acts 7:22 also attests to Moses particular training in all the learning of the Egyptians.
6
Exod.17:14; 24:4; 34:27-28.
7
John 5:46, 7:19, Matt.19:8, Luke 24:44, Mark 12:26 in the New Testament, and Joshua 1:8, 2 Chron.
34:14 in the Old Testament.
5

Loayza 5

In conclusion, there is a solid biblical and non-biblical evidence for holding Moses as the
primary and central author of the Pentateuch, and Exodus for that matter, and that further scribal
editions are not substantive enough to discredit Mosaic Authorship completely.

1.2.

Literary style
The literary style of the book of Exodus is dual in nature; it has narrative and legal style

material. The first half of the book (chaps. 1-19) tells the story of how YHWH brought his
people up from Egypt. That the events will lead the people to stand in front of Mount Sinai is
clear stated by God from the beginning: "This shall be the sign to you that it is I who have sent
you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain."
(Ex. 3:12). So we know in advance that the Israelites will be freed, and the following narrative is
the deployment of the means which God used to accomplish His will. And when YHWH has a
purpose in mind anything can prevent the outcome, not even a mass of waters in the midst and a
huge army seeking after his people. After the crossing of the Reed Sea, the journey toward
Mount Sinai is the new background in the narrative, then the multitude encamping at the
mountain is the prologue for the second half of the book (chaps. 20-40). This half is of legal
nature, because it tells us how that group of people will become a holy nation for a Holy God.
The vehicle for such kind of relationship is the covenant; the constitution of that group as a
people of God8. The sub-sections in narrative form in this second half show us that the book is
of mixed composition and not strictly legal: the ratification of the covenant in chapter 24, and the
scandal of the golden calf in chapter 32.

Douglas K. Stuart. Exodus. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006. 20.

Loayza 6

THE DECALOGUE WITHIN THE BOOK

We have already pointed out the dual literary nature of the book of Exodus in the
previous section, and indicated that chapters 20-40 form the legal material of the book; which
describes all about the regulations and stipulations that the Israelites have to keep in order to be
in a hesed-relationship with YHWH. In this sense, the Decalogue is the center piece of such
stipulations. It breaks the flow in the narrative by introducing the very words of YHWH: Then
God spoke all these words, saying (Ex. 20:1). In this way, with these words, Moses reaches
the completion of his narrative from Egypt to Sinai. Moses intendedly situates the Decalogue at
the beginning of the called book of the covenant (20:1-23:32). However, we should also mention
that the law introduced in the Decalogue and further complemented in the book of the covenant
(or covenant code) is only a portion of the full covenant that continues on Leviticus along with
some supplemental stipulations in Numbers9.
Some Biblical scholars have identified the laws in the Decalogue as apodictic in its
nature; because they are absolute prohibitions in regards of religion and moral issues. In this
sense, apodictic laws have been found in other ancient Near Eastern material, so the Israelite
Decalogue is not unique in this sense. However, if we take into account that the Decalogue
remains similarities with the suzerain treaties, the use of such apodictic laws are coherent and
they convey better the seriousness of the covenant-making ceremony. Therefore, Moses had
intentionally put a heavy weight upon the central part of his work; in order that, not only for the
Israelite audience but also for us would be absolutely clear that YHWHs stipulations are a
serious matter. However, the solemnity of the ceremony is soon marred by the outrageous

Douglas K. Stuart. Exodus. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006. 440.

Loayza 7

incident of the golden calf. Such incident marks a dark contrast to the glorious theophany at
Mount Sinai. However, as well as in the garden of Eden by covering Adan and Eves nakedness,
God mercifully acts again by declaring:
"The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding
in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives
iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished,
visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and
fourth generations." (Exo 34:6-7)
As we see, the Decalogue sets the pace for the structuring of the book by marking a
transition in the literary style of the book (narrative-law), placing a point of reference for the
disgraceful incident of the golden calf, and introducing the glorious hesed-relationship between
YHWH and Israel.

Loayza 8

ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXT

Exodus 20:1-7

20:2

11

10

12

20:3

20:1

10
One of the LXX revisions renders the noun as (instead of the expected ) which is
translated as Lord or master and carries the meaning of possession and lordship. Also is used as a title a title of
honor addressed by subordinates to their superiors. The LXX and the Vulgate with its use of Dominus (Lord) reflect
the practice of substitution where the name for the divinity is routinely rendered as Lord. However, the MT with its
use of presents the divine entity as the messenger in a clearer and more emphatic way that the rendering of the
LXX and the Vulgate. The form is used in the Old Testament 255 times in the Pentateuch and refers to pagan
gods as well to YHWH. Its plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a reference
to a plurality of gods. This is confirmed by its use in Scripture accompanied with adjectives and pronouns in the
singular.
Since when it is signaling to the true God functions as the subject of all divine revelatory activity toward man,
and it is often joined to the personal name of God, YHWH, the MT is preferred as it carries a more precise picture of
the divine activity in this passage. (Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke. Theological
Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980, 93c; James Hope Moulton and George Milligan. The
Vocabulary of the Greek of the New Testament. Grand Rapdis, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1974, 2455; Editors: T.
Desmond Alexander and David Baker. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Illinois: InterVarsity Press,
2003, 361-362).
11
At the beginning of verses 2 and 7, the unpointed indicates the beginning of a close paragraph. The
following portion of the text continues in the same line with a small break indicating a continuity in the textual
unity. By following the division of the text of the Masoretic tradition, our passage is formed by three smaller units
(vv. 1-7) corresponding to a main textual unit indicated by the unpointed at the end of ch.18 and at the end of v. 7.
According to the Masoretic tradition, our text is part of a narrative starting in ch.19 with the Israelites camping in the
desert in front of the mountain (19:1). (Emanuel Tov. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg Fortress, 1992. 50-51; Brotzman, Ellis R. Old Testament - Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic , 1994. 97).
12
One of the revisions of the LXX, the Syriac and the Targums offer the reading translated as:
but me, or in addition to me. Used adverbially, may be used at the beginning of a sentence either to restrict,
or to unfold and expand what has preceded (for similar translations cf. Ex. Deu.32:39; Hos. 13:4; Joe. 2:27). In the
present context is clear that is used adverbially in order to restrict religious worship and make it unique and
exclusive to YHWH. These ancient scribes ( lit. against the face) translated the Hebrew compound with a
nuance of exclusivity of worship to YHWH. On the other hand, the Hebrew carries an idiomatic sense that may be
discerned from the context of the book. The Israelites are prohibited to have other gods (idols) against the face of
YHWH. Such idolatrous action is put in play in the subsequent narrative of the golden calf in which the Israelites set
up their idol in front of the mountain in which, literally, was the presence of God, they present their idol against the
face of YHWH. Furthermore, Dr. Douglas Stuart raises the question of why did God not just say, I am the only
God. Dont believe in any others. He explains that the word carries the connotation of supernatural beings.
So while the command acknowledges implicitly the existence of other supernatural beings, it commands at the same
time that only YHWH must be worshiped as the only true God. In conclusion, the ancient variants inform our
translation of the Hebrew compound (before me instead of against the face) and the MT give us a vivid picture
of idolatry enriched by the context. (Douglas K. Stuart. Exodus. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers,
2006. 448-449).

Loayza 9

20:5 14

20:4

313

15

20:7

20:6
16



ANNOTATED TRANSLATION
1

Then God himself 17 spoke all these words, saying: 2 I am YHWH, your God, who brought you

out of the land of Egypt from the house18 of slavery. 3 You shall not have other gods before me19.

13

The codex Leningradensis and many manuscript editions does not mark the end of the verse with the
insertion of ` (,sof pasuq). The insertion of such division is expected because it is coherent with the flow and
structure of the commandments and it has been followed by older morphological databases. However, it has been
removed in the latest versions since it is not present in the Codex L. In order for us to present a clearer structure of
the given commandments, I am going to preserve the division of the verses 3 and 4. (William R. Scott and Hans
Peter. Ruger. A Simplified Guide to BHS: Critical Apparatus, Masora, Accents, Unusual Letters & Other Markings.
Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1995.1; http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-2963.html).
14
Similar to the textual note at the end of v. 3. Here it is also a division marking the end of v. 4. However,
as William R. Scott indicates, the end of verse may or may not be the end of a sentence. Such is the case between
v.4 and v.5, where the command against idolatry is further conveyed to the Israelites and both being part of the same
admonition. Verse 5 expounds the consequences of disobeying which was stated in v.4. Therefore, for the sake of
clarity I will preserve the sof pasuq between v.4 and v.5 (Scott and Ruger, A Simplified Guide to BHS, 1).
15
The Nash Papyrus offers a variant reading for the adjective( jealous). Instead, it has functioning
as attributive adjective for ( God). Since both are attested in the Pentateuch as quality pertaining to God, and both
convey the same quality, there is no substantial conflict between the variants. However, according to E. Tov, the
Nash Papyrus reflects a liturgical rather than Biblical text so that its relevance for textual criticism is limited.
Therefore, the reading of the Masoretic text is preferred (E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 118).
16
A similar textual note to that in v. 5. The Nash Papyrus offers a variant reading for .
It has instead
. The use of this word is rather problematic since it is assumed to be a root of . It may be probable that the
liturgical use of the text asks for a more figurative language. If we understand heavens as the abode of God telling
His glory, then considering it as empty ( ) is in fact a dishonoring of the Divinity who dwells in those heavens.
However, as previously indicated in fn. 6, the MT is a preferable reading. It is simpler and free of speculative
translations (Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke. TWOT. 2407.0-2407a).
17
In the Hebrew text is clearly stated that God himself spoke these words with the use of the marker . He
did not use any mediator (not even Moses) but the people audibly heard the voice of God. I have added the reflexive
pronoun in order to emphasize the objectivity of such event.
18
Most English translations (ESV, NASB, KJB, ISV, NET, ERV, et.al.) translate the construct with
its literal meaning house of, whereas the NIV and HSCB translate it as land. The word house conveys an idea
of community as people living under the same roof whereas land refer to people who could be spread over it.
19
The English translations (ESV, NIV, NASB), Spanish translations (RV60, LBLA, NBH) and the Vulgate
(coram me) translate the Hebrew compound with the prepositional phrase before me. Following the

Loayza 10
4

You must20 not make for yourself an idol21 or any likeness of which is in heaven above or on

the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve22
them; because I, YHWH your God, am a jealous God 5, visiting23 the iniquity of the fathers on
the children24, on the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me. 6 But doing covenant
loyalty25 to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. 7 You shall not lift the
name of YHWH, your God, in vain because YHWH shall not leave unpunished those who lifts
his name in vain.

previous discussion (see fn.3), we could add that the phrase before me does not suggest a sort of hierarchy in
which YHWH is the Supreme God but other gods are allowed as long as they are not presented before YHWH.
The command has to be understood within the context which clearly demands an exclusive cult to YHWH, a
monotheistic religion. However, as Dr. Stuart has indicated, the command implicitly acknowledges the existence of
other many gods in the range of meaning of the term such angels (cf. Gen 19:1, Ps. 82). Clearly the modern
translations abandon the literal translation against the face for the sake of clarity, and I have followed their lead.
However, we could gain a richer interpretation by analyzing the idiomatic sense of the Hebrew compound .
20
The very comprehensive delineation of the possible sources for copying: heaven above, earth beneath and
water under, calls for a stricter wording of the second command. So I have abandoned the use of shall of most
English translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, ISV, NET, et.al.) and followed the NLT and HCSB translations which use
must which fits better the extensive prohibition. (D. Stuart, Exodus, 450).
21
Many English translations (NIV, NLT, NASB, HCSB and ISV) translate simply as idol. While others
use carved image, or graven image (ESV, KJB, NET, ASV, ERV and NBH). However, there is no such level of
detail about the origin of the idol (wood, stone, or metal) in the word itself. The simple term idol is correct and
is translated as likeness to fit the context (prohibition of copying). For further details, refer to the section key
terms.
22
The English translations NIV, NLT and the HCSB translate as worship them whereas the
majority (NLT, ESV, NASB, KJB, ISV, NET, et.al.) translate it as serve them. Since the command outlaws any
sort of idolatry then seems more preferable to extend the range of meaning by translate the sentence as (1) bow
down or serve them, instead of (2) bow down and worship them because the pair bow down-worship convey a
somewhat similar idea.
23
A better translation for the Qal participle from is visiting instead of punishing, as the NIV, HCSB
and the ISV translate, in order to mitigate an overemphasis on generational sin that this verse in particular is used to
convey such teaching.
24
In this particular case, I have translated the Hebrew plural noun ( sons) with the gender-inclusive
noun children because the command is addressing the community as a whole. It seems more reasonable to use
children in order to put equal responsibility over male and female individuals. All major English translations use
children instead of sons.
25
By translating as covenant loyalty we are capturing better the richness of the context in which YHWH is
entering into a covenantal relationship with his people. In this sense, it is Israel's keeping of the covenant which
guarantees that YHWH will keep doing( covenant loyalty) with Israel.

Loayza 11

GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS
Verse 1 follows the discussion between God and Moses in chapter 19. We are told that
Moses went down to the people to warned them about coming up to the mountain (19:24) and
then he leaves the scene. The sequence of the events is signaled by the use of the conjunctive vav
( ) plus the Piel imperfect 3MS verb () . The narrative then continues with God as the subject
of the clause () . The plural noun is understood in reference to Israels God since
it is the subject of the 3MS verb . The use of the definite object marker identifies clearly
the accusative complement of the main verb. Therefore, there is no doubt that it was God himself
who spoke to the people26. The use of the plural demonstrative adjective
refers us to the following section which is the explicit content of YHWHs words27. In addition,
the infinite construct with a prefixed of manner spells out in detail the preceding action
() 28. Moreover, it is argued that the very widely used introduces direct speech
and serves as a discourse marker. Therefore, the Hebrew text stresses the that these words are the
very words spoken by God29.
Verse 2 introduces the theophanic discourse with the introductory formula . The
writers choice of the first independent personal pronoun over the form in this context is
deliberate. On the one hand, the weight of evidence shows that when appended to the verb for
emphasis, the form is nearly always preferred. On the other hand, the form is used

26

Holmstedt, Robert D. Ruth: A Handbook of the Hebrew Text. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010.

4-5.
William Lee Holladay and Ludwig Kohler. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament: Based upon the Lexical Work of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1971. 451.
28
P. Jouon and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Roma: Editrice: Pontificio Istituto Biblio,
1991. 124.o, 407.
29
Ibid. 124.o, 408.
27

Loayza 12

primarily in covenant-statement sentences. For instance, in Deut. 5 where the commandments are
repeated (as a renewal of the covenant) the phrase is used (cf. Deu. 5:6,9). In this sense,
the choosing of is not only for rhetorical emphasis but also, and more importantly, to stress
the covenant nature of the given statement30.
The relative particle joins the introductory formula with its predicate
clause: YHWHs redemptive activity toward Israel. Gods personal name goes together to what
He does in favor to His people. Although it is used as a mere connecting link, has a causal
force in Hebrew that is difficult to bring out in English31. The predicate clause is formed by a
noun-noun appositional phrase, . Throughout the Biblical narrative Egypt
is presented under different lights, however after the Exodus becomes a negative symbol. One of
them is that of bondage and oppression. By using this appositional phrase, then, the writer is
trying to imprint in peoples collective memory what Egypt was for them (a house of slavery)
and what YHWH did for them (He brought them up)32.
The following sections of the pericope can be structured and organized by underlining the
emphatic prohibitions in the beginning of each section which corresponds to the three first
commandments. The use of
with an imperfect verb express a strongest expectation of
obedience and is especially used in enforcing divine commands33.

30
Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, G.R. Driver, Wilhelm Gesenius, Emil Roediger, and
Edward Robinson. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical
Aramaic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952. 659, 59.
31
BDB, 938, 81.
32
Bruce K. Waltke, M. O'Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
12.3.a, 229. Ryken, L., Wilhoit, J., Longman, T., Duriez, C., Penney, D. y Reid, D. G. Dictionary of biblical
imagery. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1998. 112.
33
GKC, 107o, 317.

Loayza 13

Verse 3 begins marking the prohibition . It is interesting to note the imperfect

3MS, translated with a 2MS personal pronoun34, because poses an translation challenge.
However, the use of the Maqqef joining with helps us with the interpretation. The use of a
reflexive ( untranslated) gives an idea of the person for whom the command is addressed to
because the object of the preposition is a 2MS pronominal suffix and it is also the subject of the
verb35. The use of the noun as the direct object of the verb implicitly acknowledges the
existence of supernatural beings than can be object of worship by the Israelites (for a detailed
explanation see translation fn.10). Finally, the complement of the verb poses a
translation challenge since the lit. translation is against the face (for a detailed explanation see
translation fn.3). Although we have followed the modern English translations, we do need to take
into account the meaning that the preposition carries. In the context is expressing a relation of
space between and . So those gods are over against the face or, it could be interpreted
also as that they are being worshiped in defiance of God36.
The second commandment is introduced in Verse 4 with the same construction: adverb
+ Qal-Imperfect + reflexive use of prep. which signals to the subject of the action.
The extension of prohibition is very strict and comprehensive. The noun is an expression of
totality (the whole of, everything, any) and the particle introduces the relative clause that
brings a higher level of detail37. The use of the beth locale precise the location of the possible
sources for copying in order to make their gods. Along with the beth locale, the construction:
alternative + rel. particle is repeated three times. In Hebrew language, the repetition of

34

In the Spanish translation the commandments are translated using gender neutral infinitive sentences with
an imperative nuance.
35
Williams, 272, 107. GKC 119s, 381.
36
GKC 103n, 304. Holladay 6292.
37
BDB, 4485, 481.

Loayza 14

words is used to express entirety. Therefore, the grammatical evidence shows us that the
prohibition against idolatry is extremely important.
Verse 5 continues the command against idolatry but a somewhat different construction is
used. There are two independent clauses joined by the conjunction vav in order to express a
single concept, such construction is called verbal coordination. So, the first verb indicates
the manner in which the second verb, ,happens38.
In the first clause, we have the verb in the Hishtaphel stem with a strong prohibition
signaled by the use of the adverb . The direct object of the verb is signaled by the preposition
indicating direction either of a physical movement or of personal attention or attitudes toward
. Both nuances fit the context and range of meaning of the verb. In its original sense meant
to prostrate oneself to the ground (physical) which implies an act of submission (attitude) toward
a superior and especially before royalty. The command then, prohibits the external action as well
as the internal attitude39. With this picture in mind, now we have a clearer understanding of the
how of such service to the gods looks like. The nuance of the Hophal stem in is very
difficult to bring in a modern translation. It expresses a causative action with a passive voice, so
implies that the Israelites shall not allowed to be persuaded or seduced by idolatry.
The conjunction begins a very important causal clause. This clause explains why the
Israelites are strictly prohibited of serving other gods: . The use of the compound
signals to the transcendence of God in stark contrast to the human-made gods without
any ability of feeling whereas YHWH is . It is precisely because of this aspect of his divine
character that He will act in a certain way. Such action is described in the following clause,

38
39

Williams, 72, 29; 223, 90.

TWOT, 619.

Loayza 15

beginning with the active participle functioning substantively. The objective clause of the
participle indicates whom will receive the action of the transitive verb: . There is
an added level of specificity in the use of: which is idiomatic in Hebrew. It
stands for: whatever number or plenty of. So it does not limit Gods visiting over the
iniquity of a certain generation whatsoever. However, the contrast made in the following similar
construction of Verse 6 is dramatic. The clause begins with an adversative vav which indicates
such contrast. Similar to verse 5, it begins with an active participle () followed by the noun
.
There is an intentional hyperbolic sense in the use of the noun in order to emphasis
Gods covenantal loyalty. The use of of specification to indicate the sphere in which the extent
to which the verb occurs. Therefore, it stands in contrast to the use of the preposition in the
preceding clause. The prep. has a locative use (on, over, above), then limiting the action (to
whatever number of generations) whereas is extending the action to thousands (without
mention of generations).40
On a final note, the use of the active participles functioning substantively indicate two
important features: (1) YHWH is performing a continual uninterrupted activity, and (2) The
activity itself is repetitive, enduring and commonly occurring41.
The third commandment in verse 7 resumes the construction of verses 3 and 4: adverb
+ Qal-Imperfect . Also, similar to the previous commandment it invokes a punishment for
those who do not obey. But here it has a different stylistic pattern because God chooses to speak
about himself. The speech is expressed in third person in reference to YHWH,

shall

40
41

Williams 237a,181, 286, 112.

GKC 116a 356, 116f, 357.

Loayza 16

not be lifted in vain. The noun is prefixed with the prep. of manner which indicates the
style or mode with which the verb takes place42.
The conjunction introduces a subordinate result clause stating the consequence of
disobeying the previous command43. The intensive type of action of the verb Piel Imperfect
3MS paired with the adverb indicates the seriousness of the admonition. The affectedobject accusative of the verb is signaled with the definite direct-object marker while the
particle brings a higher level of detail by introducing a relative clause in which the affectedobject is described44. The commandment closes with repetition of the opening independent
clause. As B. Strawn argues, repetition is intended order to leave the hearers with a few key
items in their minds and hearts. In this case, the key item to remind is not to
45.

KEY WORDS
In this pericope three nouns are used to refer to the divinity: , and Since its
use could be arbitrary thus it merits a further analysis of some possible setting of circumstances
that may determine the choice of a particular name if such is the case. (1) the form appears
225 times in the Pentateuch and it is used to refer to pagan gods46 as well to the God of Israel.
However, when it is used to indicate the true God, functions as the subject of the revelatory
divine activity. The actions attributed are clearly exclusive to the supreme God of Israel: He is
creator47() , He judges48() , blesses49 ( ) and punishes those who

42

Williams 247a, 109.

Williams 527, 187.
44
Williams 50, 19.
45
Bowen, Nancy R., Brent A. Strawn, and Patrick D. Miller. A God So Near : Essays on Old Testament
Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2003. 216-218.
46
e.g. Ex 20:3; 23:13; 32:1, Deut 4:7,28; 5:7, 6:14, 12:2.
47
Gen 1:1, 27; 2:3-4; 5:1; Deut 4:32.
48
Gen 31:53, Deut 1:17.
49
Gen 9:1; 17:9.
43

Loayza 17

oppose him50() .
Also, as it is the case in Ex 20:1, the plural ending is described
as plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural as it is used in 20:3 for pagan gods. Often
forms a compound noun with 51. However, YHWH is by far the most common
designation for God in the Pentateuch and the most common Hebrew noun in the Bible52. On the
contrary to which has related cognates in most Semitic languages, (2) the personal name
seems to be exclusive to Hebrew since there are not clear evidence of its use outside Israel
before the time of Moises. In the numerous instances in which the name is used, particularly in
the book of Exodus, there is strong emphasis on the part of to reveal particular elements of
his personal character. He is a compassionate God (Ex 3:7, 32:14), He is a faithful covenant
keeper God (Ex 6:1-4), He is a redeemer God (Ex 6:6), He is a relational not distant God (Ex 6:7,
13:21, 29:41, 33:17), He is a jealous God (Ex 20:5), and particularly interesting is the personal
revelation of YHWH to Moses in 34:6 where is repeated three times. In summary, there is a
clear identification of with since both names are used to refer to Israels God. But, the
analysis suggests that is reserved for the instances where God unconditionally decides to
reveal something about his personal character53. Finally, (3) the noun is nearly always used in
relation to an adjective54, as it is the case in Ex 20:5 () .
After their Exodus experience, the word will take a special significance for the
Israelites. There are numerous references to Egypt in the book of Exodus, but of particular
interest is the expression in which Egypt is linked to the Israelites experience of slavery (

50

Gen 6:13; 19:29.

Gen 2:4-5,7-9,15-16, 2:22, 3:1, 23; Ex 9:30.
42
T.D. Alexander & D. Baker. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. 361-362. TWOT 93c.
52
is used 811x in the Pentateuch and 2600x in the OT. Whereas, YHWH is used 1,827x in the
Pentateuch and 6828x in the OT. (T.D. Alexander & D. Baker. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. 359)
53
T.D. Alexander & D. Baker. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. 362-364.
54
Gen 14:18, 16:13, 21:33, 33:20; Ex 34:6, 14; Deut 4:24, 31.
51

Loayza 18

) . This same expression in repeated in the renewal of the covenant in Deuteronomy55, and
with a similar nuance Egypt is referred numerous times in relation to YHWSs redemption of
Israel in the books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy 56. Furthermore, in the prophets
proclamation, failing to remember YHWHs deliverance from Egypt is used as condemnation
against Israel, and the Exodus event is YHWHs cover letter before Israel (

) 57.
In the second commandment, two words are of particular interest because they seem to
carry the same meaning: and .
The first appears simply as idol without details of its
origin (stone, metal or wood) or manufacture (graven, carved or molted) in several passages in
the Old Testament58. In parallel passages in Deuteronomy, where the second commandment is
recalled, we find a similar construction of Ex 20:5 () 59. On the other hand, there is a
difference within the context between the words , 60 and 61, whereas when is
used in other passages than Exodus62, it is always with a general meaning of form or
likeness. Therefore, it is safe to argue that the commandment does not include details about the
origin of the idol, but it has a comprehensive prohibition: you are prohibited to copy anything
from anywhere in anyway. Such idea is confirmed in the definition of idol in Deu 27:15: "a
thing made by the hands of a craftsman, and sets it up in secret".

55

Deut 5:6, 6:12, 8:14.

Lev 11:45, 19:36, 22:33, 25:38; Num 3:13, 8:17, 15:41, 20:15; Deu 1:30, 4:37, 5:6, 6:21-22.
57
Jer 2:4-6, 7:22, 25, 11:4, 16:14, 23:7; Ez. 20:5-8, Dan 9:15, Hos 2:17, 11:1, Am 2:10, 3:1; Micah 6:4,
56

7:15.
58

Jud 18:17, 18:20, 30, 31; 2 Ki 21:7, 42:17; 2 Ch 33:7, 44:9; Is 40:19.
Deu 4:16, 23,25; 5:8.
60
Lev 26:1
61
Deu 27:15, Jud 17:3, 18:14, Nah 1:4.
62
Num. 12:8; Deut. 4:12, 15-16, 23, 25, 5:8, Job 4:16; Ps. 17:15.
59

Loayza 19

Prohibition about making idols to worship has a reason found in the very character of
God: . The attributive adjective is used in its five occurrences only in relation
to God63. In particular, Ex 34:14 states that ( YHWHs name is jealous). In
addition, the Piel denominative verb is used to describe actions of godly zealous people64.
Interesting to note in Num 25:11 is that Phinehas is praised because he was jealous with Gods
jealousy. In conclusion, when used in reference to God or godly people acting out of zeal for
Gods sake, is always a virtue or a trait character after God.
Closely related and as a consequence of being a jealous God, it is His action of visiting
() . In the Biblical narrative when God visits the iniquity of someone is never good news.
Gods visitation is always with a purpose; He just not stops by to say hi. In the Prophetic
books, for instance, the same word has been translated with punish because the context of
judgement over a nation (Israel, Tyre or Babylon) is very clear65. On the other hand, the
Psalmists plea is that God would visit them with His salvation66. In conclusion, to say that
YHWH will visit the iniquity is another way to say that judgment will come; but by using a
poetic, metaphorical language.
The word is abundantly used in covenant-making contexts. Its use in Deuteronomy,
for instance, shows us a close relation between , , , . Always within a context of
obedience to the covenant67. Therefore, to love YHWH equals covenantal loyalty, and not warm
feelings. It is about keeping the covenant, walking in obedience to his laws. On the other hand,
the concept of the word is not as straightforward as . There is not a statement where it

63

Exod. 20:5, 34:14; Deut. 4:24, 5:9, 6:15.

Num 25:13; Zac 1:14; 1 K 19:10, Num 25:11.
65
Isa 23:17; Jer 6:15, 9:15, 11:22, 49:8, 27:31; Am 3:2, 14; Hos 1:4, 2:13.
66
Ps. 106:4, 80:14.
67
Deu 5:10, 6:5-6, 7:9, 13, 10:12, 11:1, 13, 22, 19:9, 30:16, 20.
64

Loayza 20

says something: X hates the Lord. However, there are numerous statements in which it is said
that the Lord hates those who love violence, who plot evil and device wickedness schemes, who
acts with hypocrisy and falsehood68, idolatry69, and robbery and wrong70. Also, the psalmist
hates those who hate the Lord71 (in reference always to the wicked). Therefore, it is implied that
those who does evil, even though they are not declaring: I hate the Lord; they are indeed hating
the Lord. Also, there is a clear contrast in Psalm 97:10 between these two groups that allow us to
establish a relation: those who love the Lord hate evil. Finally, we could conclude based on the
certain premise that if those who love the Lord are covenant keepers then those who hate the
Lord are covenant-breakers. Because, the first group have a righteous hatred which is not based
on their feelings but on an outrageous defiance to what God hates.
The amazing of YHWH has been translated as steadfast love, lovingkindness,
(mercy) in the LXX, and with just love in the NVI. However, in the Old Testament the
word occurs around 300 times in all its forms and there is no known cognate in other Semitic
language. In a general sense, is what one plead to obtain from the other and once it is given,
it brings them together with a special tie. A beautiful example is found in David and Jonathans
friendship. In the last time they saw each other, Jonathan said to David in 1 Samuel 20:15:

In v.14, Jonathan have already asked that David might do with him as YHWH does.
Because is something that you do toward someone and not just something you show. The
pair and go together in many instances in the Biblical narrative when someone is

68

Psalm 11:5, 21:9-11, 45:7, 97:10, 119:13.

Isaiah 1:14.
70
Isaiah 61:8.
71
Psalms 139:21.
69

Loayza 21

pleading for favor and kindness72. But what is even more amazing is that YHWH himself does
to individuals and Israel as nation. In this sense, there is an implicit acknowledgement that
is undeserved. Because it is YHWH commits himself to do with whom He pleases73.
This is the most typical context for : covenant74. Finally, as we have seen, the range of
meaning of is overwhelming and it includes actually all the concepts of the words with
which has been translated.
Finally, the last interesting word for my present analysis is . In contexts related to
speech, there are at least three meanings to consider: (1) To give a false report, or to bear false
witness. It is implied a court room setting in which you speak falsely about someone75. (2)
deceptive speak and lies76. (3) to give empty prophecies and false visions77. In relation to misuse
YHWHs name, it is possible to think in different situations within in which people could have
used the name of YHWH for evil and selfish purposes. For instance, in the Exodus narrative, the
Israelites accused YHWH of taking them out of Egypt to die in the dessert, they would also
invoke YHWHs name as guarantor in a court room, or when making a promise to someone.

EXPLAINING THE PASSAGE

(Verses 1-2) 1 Then God himself spoke all these words, saying: 2 I am YHWH, your God, who
brought you out of the land of Egypt from the house of slavery.

72
Abrahams servant asks for Abraham (Gen 24:12-14), Joseph in prison asking from the
cupbearer (Gen 40:14), Jacob asking to Joseph before dying (47:29).
73
Gen 32:9-11; Mic 7:20; Dan 9:4; Neh 1:5, 9:32, Deu 7:9-12.
74
Dennis F. Kinlaw and John N. Oswalt . Lectures in Old Testament Theology. Anderson, IN: Warner
Press, Inc., 2010.171-189.
75
Exo 23:1; Deu 5:20.
76
Prov 30:8; Ps 12:3, 41:6.
77
Ez. 12:24, 13:6; Lam 2:14.

Loayza 22

There is impossible to overemphasize the majesty and the solemnity of this moment.
Since the account of creation, we have not heard the LORD speaking with such power. In
Genesis, He called everything into existence with His words and now, here at Sinai He is calling
a nation to be His people. He is choosing them to be His God.
It is very important to note the covenantal nature of this section. According to the known
structure of such documents, we have the following sections: First, the title/prologue in verse 1.
Second, the historical prologue in verse 2. In this section YHWH identifies himself as the
suzerain, the maker of the covenant. The relationship suzerain-vassal (Israel) is indicated78. The
ground of such relationship is YHWHs deliverance of Israel from Egypt, the house of slavery.
Another way to put it, using the grasped rich meaning of would be: YHWH is doing
toward Israel by establishing a relationship in which He commits himself to be His God. The
other party, Israel, in consequence has stipulations to comply79. The following sections are such
stipulations, the words, that YHWH commanded Israel.

First Commandment (v.3)

3

You shall not have other gods before me.

The implicit acknowledgment of other superhuman beings in the noun is very

comprehensive. It does not only include the false Egyptian gods that the Israelites were so used
to see, or they might be have even worshiped, but also it includes heavenly angels and Satan and
his fallen angels. For the ancient Israelite as well as all ancients in the Near East, the concept of
the divine was impregnated in every aspect of their life. The gods, personal, local or nation-wide,

78

Kitchen, K.A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Gran Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003.

79

D. Stuart,. Exodus. 447.

284-285.

Loayza 23

were made responsible for some function or aspect of life. The Egyptian pantheon was packed
with them. Even though by the time Israel lived in Egypt the cult was centered among the god
Aton, the reigning concept was not a monotheistic one but rather a polytheistic hierarchy80.
Therefore, what the commandment is saying is that only YHWH shall be worshiped as the sole
divinity. He is not just another god to add to the pantheon and placing him as the highest god, or
their national god. There is no a hierarchization, it is a demand on monotheistic cult to YHWH81.
Second Commandment (Verses 4-6)
4

You must not make for yourself an idol or any likeness of which is in heaven above or on the
earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them;
because I, YHWH your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the
children, on the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me. 6 But doing covenant
loyalty to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
The second commandment applies the first extends its intense condemnation of
idolatry82. In verse 4, the prohibition itself is expressed. It is very interesting to see the contrast
against the ancient religious background.
Archaeological findings show us that each culture has a particular way of depicting its
supreme beings (ancient idolaters were indeed very creative). Despite of a vast gallery of images
and statues, almost all cultures sought that their god-images resembled a person. For instance,
the Egyptian pantheon was a mix of animal, human-animal, or human-like images. These images
were copied from the environment that people lived in, and they were composed of part of
animals that ordinarily co-existed with them. so, these gods in general had a naturalistic

80

Charles F Pfeiffer. Egypt and the Exodus . Ann Arbor, MI: Baker House Co., 1967. 20-22.
D. Stuart,. Exodus. 448-449.
82
There is disagreement in the division of the commandments. Jewish conventional division follows the
present division, whereas Augustine, the Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions consider all this section (v.3-6) to
be the first commandment. (Editors: D. Alexander, B. Rosner, D.A. Carson, et.al. New Dictionary of Biblical
Theology. 571)
81

Loayza 24

appearance83. Thus, under this light, the specificity about the possible copying sources is
logically necessary. Gods command points directly to the heart of the pervasive lifestyle and the
reigning religious system.
The theological ground for the judgment of idolatry is that YHWH is . Idolatry
provokes YHWH to anger upon those who go after idols. The Biblical imagery that helps us to
conceive and understand how the Almighty God is jealous is that of a betrayed husband and that
of a rejected king84. But between these two, the first is extensively evoked in the prophets
indictments85 against the nation, and captures better how deep and intense is Gods love for his
people:
Then the LORD said to me, "Go again, love a woman who is loved by her husband, yet an
adulteress, even as the LORD loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love
raisin cakes." (Hos 3:1)

The mental image is heartbreaking. As well as a faithful husband married to an adulteress

woman, is YHWH married to the adulterous Israel who turns to other gods. Idolatry is a serious
sin because breaks the intimate relationship that YHWH intended having with Israel through the
covenant.
Third Commandment (Verse 7)
7

You shall not lift the name of YHWH, your God, in vain because YHWH shall not leave
unpunished those who lifts his name in vain.

83

Edited by Byron E. Shafer. Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths and Personal Practice. London:
Routledge, 1991. 9-21.
84
The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they
have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. "Like all the deeds which they have
done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day--in that they have forsaken Me and served
other gods--so they are doing to you also. (1 Samuel 8:7-8).
85
Jer 3:1, 6-8, 5:6; Ez 5:7, 6:9, 16:15-17, 23:43.

Loayza 25

In contrast to our modern western customs, naming in Israel (at least in pre-exilic times)
were originated in their language. Their names were in Biblical Hebrew and could be understood
by any Israelite. Furthermore, they were very sensitive to the meaning of names, as we see in
Jacobs decision to change his youngest sons name: for 86(Gen. 35:18), or in Gods
decision on changing Jacobs name: for ( Gen.32:28). These stories show us that
Jacob, did not want his son to be identified as someone who brings sorrow, and that gave a new
identity to Jacob by changing his name, he was no longer a supplanter. The motivation behind
the renaming is a change of identity. In the case of YHWH, his personal name manifests his
essence: YHWH, YHWH, a God compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in
covenant loyalty and truth (Ex. 34:6). Therefore, any kind of misusing of His name the
commandment is worded in a general sense- is a high offense to the His personal character, to
His holiness.

WITHIN THE OLD TESTAMENT

The law used in reference to the commandments of the covenant- had a role in Israels
history: To establish the ways that Israel were to live in community with one another and to
provide for their relationship with and worship of Yahweh, their God. At the same time the law
set boundaries with regard to their relationships with the cultures around them87. In particular,
the Decalogue is the heart of such law. Logically so, since it was spoken directly by God, written
in stone with the very finger of God, and kept in the ark of the covenant in the most holy place. It
also forms the moral and spiritual ground for the more detailed covenant stipulations that will be

86

Tigay, Jeffrey H. You Shall No Have Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions.
Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986. 5-7.
87
Gordon D. Fee, Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Kindle Edition, 2014, 169.

Loayza 26

established later.88 But the most important feature is the relational nature of the Decalogue for
the reason that YHWH is establishing a hesed-relationship with Israel here. The identity of Israel
as Gods holy people is rooted in the Decalogue; all the surrounding and following events point
out to the utmost importance of These Words for Israels identity. This fact is clearly noted in the
repetition of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5 when Moses is instructing a different generation
that is about to enter into the promise land and start living as a nation. In the following chapter,
we find a sort of national declaration:
"Hear, O Israel! YHWH is our God, YHWH is one! "You shall love YHWH your God with
all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. "These words, which I am
commanding you today, shall be on your heart. (Deu 6:4-6)
Could you hear the echo of the three first commandments in the Shema? We could say
that Israels identity was to be a covenant-based community, and the Decalogue was the solid
ground on which they were commanded to stand firm as a nation89. In addition to this, Israels
faithfulness to the stipulations of the covenant was the ultimate expression of their loyalty to
YHWH. Their keeping of the law was not for the laws own sake but because God is holy and
the law exhibits something of His character90. However, unfaithfulness to the very heart of the
law was the common characteristic of Israels history. They rejected YHWH over and over while
He kept sending his servants, the prophets, with a message like this: Turn to him from whom
people have deeply revolted, O children of Israel (Isa 31:6, ESV). The stiff-necked people
worshiping their golden calf in Exodus was a representative pattern of 850 years of its life as a

88

Ed. T. D. Alexander, B.S. Rosner, D.A. Carson. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. 631.
T.D. Alexander & D. Baker. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. 179.
90
G. Fee, D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. 170.
89

Loayza 27

nation until its exile to Babylon in 586 B.C. when the curses of the covenant finally fell upon
them.

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
The archeological findings in 1905 and 1906 of some cuneiform tablets in Bogazkoy, a
small Turkish village east of the middle course of the Halys river in Northern Cappadocia which
once was the settlement of the capital of the Hittite empire Hattusha have brought light upon the
understanding of the genre and content of the Book of Exodus91.
The comparative studies of the cache of tablets have brought light to the understanding of
the nature of the book, and they have been particularly helpful to discern the similarities between
the Sinai covenant and its renewals, and other treaty/law/covenant documents in the Ancient
Near East92. In this regard, K.A. Kitchen presents an outline history of treaty, law and covenant
through six chronological phases (from ca. 2500 to 650 B.C) using between 80 and 90
documents in order to establish a very accurate and unambiguous framework against which, for
the purpose of this paper, we can set the content of the legal corpus given in Sinai. The factual
evidence of 31 Hittite treaties shows us that there is an undisputable correspondence between the
Sinaitic covenant and the Hittite treaties classified as phase V (1400-1200 B.C.) 93.
Therefore, thanks to this archaeological insight, we can understand better the literary
style and nature of the legal corpus of Exodus as a work exhibiting a basic correspondence with
late Hittite treaties, although, noting at the same time that its content is more exhaustive, varied
in genre and style, than other Ancient Near Eastern texts related to the Sinaitic covenant and its

91

Bittel, Kurt. Hattusha, the capital of the Hittites. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970, 9.
Kitchen. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. 242-244, 282-285.
93
Kitchen. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. 287-288.
92

Loayza 28

renewal in the book of Deuteronomy. The Decalogue, according to this discovered legal pattern
corresponds to the Title/Preamble (Ex.20:1), Historical Prologue (20:2) and the Basic
Stipulations of the covenant (20:3-17)94.
Other important cultural aspect of the environment in which the Decalogue was given to
the Israelites is the surrounding idolatrous practices of their past and future neighbors.
We need to understand that idolatry was a lifestyle and a part of a well-structured religious
system in the ancient world. Life of individuals as well as nations were rooted in the divine.
Certain aspects of idolatry are relevant for our present discussion. First, idolatry offers a
guarantee of the presence of a god by means of his image, which for the ancients it shares the
essence of the divinity. If we recall the incident of the golden calf and, which their biggest worry
was (make us a god who will go before us!), and the following party before the idol, then we
clearly see that prohibition about copying images was directed to common habits and it may
explain why they so fast fell into this sin, and why Aaron identify this statue as YHWH. Were
they thinking that the calf partook of the essence of God? Probably so. Second, idolatry was an
easy deal because it does not demand ethical behavior. The favor of the gods was in direct
proportion to the generosity in offerings of the worshiper. The Decalogue, on the other hand,
raises the bar exceedingly high in comparison to any other extant culture. Third, idolatry was the
normal standard for religion in the ancient world. So for the Israelite there was no other way to
look at to feel accepted by their surrounding society. Their only standard to live by was the
Decalogue in order to be set apart as a holy nation to YHWH.

94

Kitchen. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. 284.

Loayza 29

WITHIN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law? The answer of the great Master to
this question was a summary of a long list of detailed laws in just one phrase: You shall love
the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. Which
basically refers to the first four commandments of the Decalogue about Israels relationship with
YHWH. The second half of the answer is similar: You shall love your neighbor as yourself;
and this part refers to the remaining six commandments. Finally, Lord Jesus says: On these two
commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets. Considering that Christ came to not
only to fulfill the law; but also to reinterpret it; His answer gives to the Decalogue a center role
and, current relevance in New Testament times.
Some biblical scholars view the Sermon of the Mount as a reinterpretation of the
Decalogue; and actually the parallel is very appealing: There is a big audience in both events,
Jesus and YHWH are speaking from the mountain, and Jesus disciples went with him just as
Moses was also in the mountain with YHWH. The numbering, however, is not the same. Even if
there is an authorial intention to make a parallel between these two events; what we should not
imply is that the Decalogue is no longer relevant for the church as the new Israel and fulfillment
of the promise to Abraham. The principles given in the Decalogue are mentioned in several
occasions in the New Testament95, and portions of it are included by Paul in his letters, in the
letter to the Hebrews, and James letter.

95

Ro 13:8-10; 1 Co 10:14; Col 3:12-14; Jas 2:10-11.

Loayza 30

BIBLICAL THEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

The Sinaitic covenant, and the Decalogue as a part of it, functioned as the vehicle by
which Israel entered in a hesed-relationship with YHWH. Both parties are put under obligations,
so there is an intrinsic conditionality which is reflected in the blessing-curse language used later;
in which blessings are the visible evidence of YHWHs favor to those who keep covenant with
Him, whereas curses highlight the devastating consequences of rejecting Him96.
In order for us to understand the theological function of The Decalogue within Gods
redemptive history, it is necessary to keep it in the context of Gods elective purpose for Israel
and keeping in mind at the same time Gods promise to Abraham: And I will make you a great
nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing.
(Gen 12:2). The primary concern of the Mosaic covenant was the way in which the hesedrelationship between YHWH and that great nation descended for Abraham should be
maintained97.
But the good news is that we are no longer obligated to keep the covenant since it is part
of Israels history. It was a gift from God to them in order to establish a relationship with Him.
For us today, the God of Israel has provided a highest way to approach Him which is through
faith in His son. It is indeed good news, because we have already seen that Israel was never able
to fulfill the obligations of the covenant, but more importantly is to understand that the Mosaic
covenant was not a means for salvation. The Sinai administration, as D. Gordon argues, was
made with a particular nation and it excluded others (Gentiles, i.e. we). So, it actually prevented

96
97

G. Fee, D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. 170.
D. Alexander and D. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. 424.

Loayza 31

the entire fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. From our gentile perspective, the Sinaitic
covenant was more a barrier for salvation that a vehicle for it98.
Finally, we cannot disregard the ethical and spiritual principles that the Decalogue brings
out to our life. We have already mentioned our Lord Jesus recalling the great and foremost
commandment. In his last words he told his disciples:
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you,
that you also love one another. "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if
you have love for one another." (Joh 13:34-35)
If I were to choose a parallel principle for Israels keeping of the covenant to show his
loyalty to YHWH, I would choose this verse. Our love to one another is the exhibition of Gods
love to the unbelieving world; in a similar way that Israels covenant loyalty showed others who
their God was.

APPLICATION AND CONTEXTUALIZATION

A recent study shows that the average U.S. household debt has now passed the $90,000
mark. The 2015 American Household Credit Card Debt Study also showed that the average
household with debt owes $130,00099. How, you may ask, these statistics are related to the
Decalogue? It is not that it was given only to Israel at Sinai and we are no under its obligations?
It is true that we were not under slavery in a foreign country and we are far from being part of a
fleeing nomadic nation as Israel was, when God gave them these words. However, the principles
of the Decalogue are still speaking to us, as Christians; because YHWH is still the only true and
almighty God, and He is still a redeemer for us in Christ. And we, just as the Israelites, have

98

T. David Gordon, ed. Bryan Estelle, J. V. Fesko, and David VanDrunen. The Law Is Not of Faith: Essays
on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant. P&R, 2009. 240-258.
99
Huffpost Business. May 23, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/moneytips/household-debt-surpasses_b_10060954.html (accessed Jun 8, 2016).

Loayza 32

deceiving hearts always seeking after the fulfillment in the wrong places. We are modern
idolaters who do not fashion their own idols, but instead we buy them. Debt means in many
cases that you do not how to live with what God gives you, or maybe that you do not wait until
He provides so you fashion your own way to get what you want.
Or maybe, you have no debts. You have more than enough and you have a very peaceful
life. You keep all the commandments. There was someone like you who once met Jesus and ask
him: what am I still lacking? I keep all the commandments. To that the Lord replied: If you
wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have
treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Mat 19:20-22). If your heart does not get excited
with Jesus invitation to follow Him; then your heart is not in the right place. Whatever is
preventing you to answer Jesus invitation to follow him is an idol. Are you too busy to spend
time in waiting to hear Gods calling? Are you feeling shame for something you keep doing and
nobody knows about it? Where is your safe place if everything falls apart? What is the first
thought that comes to your mind when you are in real trouble? There are so many questions we
can ask ourselves in order to identify what is that which keep us apart from the Lord. Do not fear
the answers and ask the Lord in prayer.
What constitutes a God? Martin Luthers answer was: whatever your heart clings to and
relies upon, that is your god; trust and faith of the heart alone make both God and idol100.
Lets teach our hearts to cling and rely only upon the Lord.

100

D. Alexander and D. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. 175.

Loayza 33

BIBLIOGRAPHY
B.G. Trigger, B.J. Kemp, D. O'Connor and A.B. Lloyd. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Bittel, Kurt. Hattusha, the capital of the Hittites. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.
Bowen, Nancy R., Brent A. Strawn, and Patrick D. Miller. A God So Near : Essays on Old
Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns,
2003.
Brotzman, Ellis R. Old Testament - Textual Criticism . Grand Rapids: Baker Academic , 1994.
Bruce K. Waltke, M. O'Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Indiana:
Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Dennis F. Kinlaw and John N. Oswalt . Lectures in Old Testament Theology. Anderson, IN:
Warner Press, Inc., 2010.
Edited by Alfred J. Hoerth, Gerald L. Mattingly and Edwin M. Yamauchi. Peoples of the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994.
Edited by Byron E. Shafer. Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths and Personal Practice.
London: Routledge, 1991.
Editors: T. Desmond Alexander and David Baker. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch.
Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Editors: T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D.A. Carson, Graeme Goldsworthy. New
Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

Loayza 34

Fabry, Heinz-Josef, Helmer Ringgren, David E. (David Edward) Green, and G. Johannes.
Botterweck. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament: Volumes 1-15. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans , 1976.
Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, G.R. Driver, Wilhelm Gesenius, Emil Roediger,
and Edward Robinson. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: With an
Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952.
Gordon D. Fee, Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan. Kindle Edition, 2014.
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980.
Holmstedt, Robert D. Ruth: A Handbook of the Hebrew Text . Waco, TX: Baylor University
Press, 2010.
Huffpost Business. May 23, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/moneytips/household-debtsurpasses-_b_10060954.html (accessed Jun 8, 2016).
James Hope Moulton and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek of the New Testament.
Grand Rapdis, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1974.
Kitchen, K.A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Gran Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
2003.
Kline, Meredith G. Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, Studies
and Commentary. Eugene: Eerdmans, 2012.
Merril, Eugene H. Kingdom of Priests. Baker Book House Company, 1987.
Niehaus, Jeffrey J. God at Sinai: Covenant & Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.

Loayza 35

P. Jouon and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Roma: Editrice : Pontificio Istituto
Biblio, 1991.
Pfeiffer, Charles F. Egypt and the Exodus . Ann Arbor, MI: Baker House Company, 1967.
Ronald J. Williams and John C. Beckman. Williams' Hebrew Syntax. Toronto Buffalo London:
University of Toronto Press, 2007.
Ryken, L., Wilhoit, J., Longman, T., Duriez, C., Penney, D. y Reid, D. G. Dictionary of biblical
imagery. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1998.
Stuart, Douglas K. Exodus. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006.
Stuart, Douglas. Old Testament Exegesis. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.
T. David Gordon, ed. Bryan Estelle, J. V. Fesko, and David VanDrunen. The Law Is Not of
Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant. P&R, 2009.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. You Shall No Have Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew
Inscriptions. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986.
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible . Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress,
1992.
William Lee Holladay and Ludwig Kohler. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament: Based upon the Lexical Work of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971.
William R. Scott and Hans Peter. Ruger. A Simplified Guide to BHS: Critical Apparatus,
Masora, Accents, Unusual Letters & Other Markings. Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press,
1995.